From brentsatan  Thu Jun 13 15:02:13 2002
From: brentsatan (Brent)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:02:13 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] University of Central Oklahoma Results
References: <F87mcdn1YcEBdyFj9ZY00002237@hotmail.com> <008f01c16c6f$e196a340$7e68f7a5@7x4h301>
Message-ID: <002801c21315$3aaea440$5f3a71a4@commdebate2>

The smile after "knowing" could function to put "said" term under erasure.

Brent

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Parcher" <parcherj at mindspring.com>
To: "Joshua Hoe" <ifjxh at hotmail.com>; <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] University of Central Oklahoma Results


> > sorry to Emporia, UTD and Vermont for writing without knowing :).
>
> your use of the word "knowing" in this phrase not only implies that there
> actually was a reality in terms of who debated who and who won and who
loss,
> but that it's possible that you could know that reality.  surely you meant
> some other word or phrase - "intersubjective experience" perhaps?    :)
>
> jp
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




From mavolpe  Mon Jun 17 18:39:48 2002
From: mavolpe (megan volpert)
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 18:39:48 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] thoughts on next year's topic
In-Reply-To: <2eafbfa2eace0c.2eace0c2eafbfa@homemail.nyu.edu>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20020617183133.009ea810@mail.ilstu.edu>

as a new member of the judge pool and someone to whom the label of "kritik 
hack" and/or "activist punk" is frequently applied in ways sometimes 
positive and sometimes negative, i would just like to weigh in on the issue 
of topic selection by stating the following:

when the treaties topic wins by a landslide, i am going to laugh my ass off 
at all of y'all who were calling, in the name of all that is just and 
educational in our activity, for a switch--permanent, temporary, or for 
wake--to a terrorism topic this past season.  is the community so fickle 
that it has forgotten its more idealistic voice as quickly as it found that 
voice this past september?

~m
(unindicted co-conspirator)




From mavolpe  Tue Jun 18 13:03:06 2002
From: mavolpe (megan volpert)
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 13:03:06 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] thoughts on next year's topic
In-Reply-To: <F1076brk1aRcC8aXKFd00001cf5@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20020618125201.009e8730@mail.ilstu.edu>

>what about those of us who were simply bored by a poorly worded, 
>literature-slanted domestic topic and just wanted to debate something that 
>seemed more interesting?]

there seems to be some confusion (see: galloway's post) regarding the 
target audience for and intended meaning of my last post.  to be perfectly 
clear: i am targeting those people who make statements like the above 
(courtesy of varda).  the community's big stink about changing the topic in 
late september, i argue, was a means of coopting discussion on a topic that 
some of us happened to have enjoyed very much and found highly 
valuable.  furthermore, any of y'all who argued for that switch--as 
permanent, temporary or just for wake--by claiming it would be the just and 
educational move for the community to make, ought to stick to your guns 
(pardon a bad pun) by voting for the terrorism topic for the coming 
season.  now, in specific response to varda (who seems to capture the worst 
of all possible warrants all at once with his above question): first, every 
year there is a faction who claims the topic is poorly worded.  second, 
literature for every topic is slanted.  third, what is interesting to you 
may not be interesting to me.  fourth, your justifications warrant changing 
topics in the middle of any season.  finally, that nobody made this 
justification at the time is proof that the call to change topics 
mid-season was disingenuous when it was a call made on the basis of an 
ethos/pathos nobody seems to now want to defend.

~m
(unindicted co-conspirator)




From baimed  Sat Jun  1 04:28:54 2002
From: baimed (baimed at ida.net)
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 04:28:54 US/Mountain
Subject: [eDebate] mutually exclusive
Message-ID: <200206010632.g516WvP23628@www.cross-x.com>

Word....from the streets of AZ where in five minutes one 
can be hooked up with the body of the revolution if only 
one knows to look.  Ken taught me about the revolution, and 
debate introduced me to Ken, I learned to look for myself. 
 
Bizaim 


> Here here!
> 
> I recall November 30, 1999 when a vital intersection at 
the
> Anarcho takeover of the WTO in Seattle was held in large 
part by
> Northwest debaters and coaches.  I even think some parli 
folks
> showed up for that little dance;).  As for debate, I know 
I
> would have not been likely to find my way to the streets 
without
> it.
> 
> I've always said that debate is NOT the revolution, but 
much
> like a workers union, it sure can be a good training 
ground.  Of
> course, it can create some twisted souls as well ... 
maybe that
> is why its fun.
> 
> peace,
> 
> ken
> 
> 
> > Don't really want to chime in on this debate, but in 
all
> > seriousness, debate does not shut doors of opportunity 
for
> > political activism, if anything it opens them.
> >
> > I know that at this point in my life, had I not been in
> > debate, I know I would not have just completed an 
internship
> > at the Idaho Women's Network, nor would I have just 
worked on
> > a campaign requiring me to give up every free weekend I 
had,
> > nor would I have testified this Winter in front of the
> > toughest committee in the Idaho Legislature.
> >
> > I'm sorry others may not take these opportunities, but 
they
> > are available and in my experience they become greater 
because
> > I debate.
> >
> > Brandon Berg
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, 
go here:
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> 





From dig  Sat Jun  1 03:57:18 2002
From: dig (Debate Information Group)
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 04:57:18 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] DiG is up and running
Message-ID: <200206010857.g518vIH26290@cross-x.com>

Hello, 

I wanted to take this oppurtunity to let you all know that The Debate information Group web site is up and running. Please check it out dig.ndtceda.com.

There will be several emails throught the day explaining various aspects of the project, but for now we are online.

Andy Ellis
DiG
-- 
Debate Information Group
http://dig.ndtceda.com/




From dig  Sat Jun  1 04:07:36 2002
From: dig (Debate Information Group)
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 05:07:36 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] I'm out of the spies-pirates Game
Message-ID: <200206010907.g5197aw26619@cross-x.com>

A few weeks ago i touched off a decent amount of controversey by suggesting that the DiG would be spying on handbooks and institutes. I once again renounce the DiGs spies program and will go on the record publicly with the following.

All of the evidence posted or collected on the DiG site will be the work of the contributors, if handbooks or institute files are available it will only be with the written agreement from the producers.

This does not mean that I have changed my stance on the value of evidenciary openness, nor does it mean that i don't think we as a community should strive toward new forms of knowledge sharing, however i believe that for the goals i have established for the DiG to have any chance of being acheived, agreements must be made, and compromise with debate publishing houses shuld be the goal. 

To That end I am interrested in establishing effective and cooperative knowledge sharing agreements with institutes and handbooks and if you are interestd in such cooperation please email me.

But as of this point the DiG is out of the spies-pirates game.

Andy Ellis
DiG
-- 
Debate Information Group
http://dig.ndtceda.com/




From Squiz  Sat Jun  1 08:54:24 2002
From: Squiz (Squiz at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 09:54:24 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] is it the self in adam lee that...
Message-ID: <1A9399D6.401E2E08.00010FC4@aol.com>

Yeah again, you're wrong.  Dave and I have never slept together and I wasn't used as a tool to send Kelly messages.  Where the fuck do you get off lying about my personal life and Dave's on a public listserve?  

This isn't getting you anywhere. You've already tried to air other people's shit, most of which is lies, to make UT look bad and where has it gotten you?  

Pam



From kenedebate  Sat Jun  1 09:38:20 2002
From: kenedebate (Ken D)
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 09:38:20 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] My suggestions... overflow, deletions, etc...
Message-ID: <F24zfdmACKcZf7ZmIjN00015ff6@hotmail.com>

Not only do accidental deletions happen, but my hotmail account regularly 
overflows unless i take a look at it every day.  Now MSN certainly is doing 
its best to gtry to get me to by overflow space..heh

I missed some crucial information cuz my hotmail account shut down in one 
day of high traffice and LARGE posts on posts about the stroube junk.

I do suggest that Tuna and other folks maintian more than one email account 
to solve their deletion problems.  I have kenedebate JUST for edebate.  
Means if it overflows it doesnt kill my other hotmail account.
Course you'll ahve overflow problems, but at least it won't hurt WDI 
students.

I also suggest you ignore them.  They go away... laugh and hit delete.
Its like a chat room, dont take it seriously folks.

Last suggestion, the best way to pay Kerpen and get something out of it is 
to buy his Thursday file on a regular basis.  I always feel good givin Phil 
money for the service he provides many levels of the debate community, the 
file isnt bad, and can a few extra politics cards ever really hurt you? But 
lemme say this, if you get rich enough to buy a porsche off of it Phil, I'm 
gonna start the Wednesday File... lol (but if its a ferrari, IM ok with 
that)

back to debate research... yeah I know.. JT inspires me

Ken





>From: "Alfred C. Snider" <asnider at zoo.uvm.edu>
>To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: [eDebate] Accidental deletions
>Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:07:51 -0400
>
>Has this ever happened to you?
>
>I routinely delete huge quantities of my incoming eDebate email. Several 
>times in the last few months I have accidentally deleted an important 
>message. As I am receiving tons of email this week about WDI I hope this 
>does not happen to someone's scholarship request. I know it mall says 
>[edebate] but fingers can still go wrong.
>
>Now our usual suspects have spawned new alter egos that comment on and 
>support their other postings, creating a strange drama of multiple 
>personalities, crowding the deletion lists even more, making it harder to 
>weed them out. I am sure they like that but I do not.
>
>This extra email post is being offered in the hope that future traffic can 
>be lighter and more relevant.
>
>Tuna
>--
>---------------------------
>Alfred C. Snider, AKA Tuna
>Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
>475 Main, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
>802-238-8345 mobile; 802-656-0097 office; 802-656-4275 fax
>http://debate.uvm.edu/; http://debate.uvm.edu.tuna.html; 
>http://debate.uvm.edu/ldu.html
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
>http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com




From kenedebate  Sat Jun  1 09:45:52 2002
From: kenedebate (Ken D)
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 09:45:52 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Paying/Contributing to Phil and Friends
Message-ID: <F173qwrjELzbiV4ZvxE00014c8c@hotmail.com>

Your list isnt inclusive.. I"ll certainly put myself on it, although I hope 
he solved his paypal versus netscape problem before next year... lol

Ken D.
ESU debate


>From: Mikedavis13 at aol.com
>To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: Re: [eDebate] Paying/Contributing to Phil and Friends
>Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 15:15:36 EDT
>
>A bunch of people are calling for donations to be sent to Phil, but few
>people are putting their money where they mouth is. Here is the list:
>
>Mike Hester, West Georgia (Special Thanks)
>Danielle Wiese, Iowa
>Eric Morris, Kansas
>Stefan Bauschard, Boston College
>Kevin Kuswa, Richmond
>Jon Sharp, Southern Cal
>Mike Davis, Georgia
>Brandon Berg, Lewis & Clark
>John Rains, Emory
>Omar Guevara, UNLV Law (formerly of CSU-Bakersfield)
>Michael "Bear" Bryant
>Bob Jordan, Southwest Missouri State
>Tim Mahoney, St Mark's
>Dan Bloomingdale, Penn State
>Valerie Renegar, San Diego State
>
>Anyone else who has said we should send Phil money should do it now.
>
>Mike




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com




From let_the_american_empire_burn  Sat Jun  1 10:28:44 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 10:28:44 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Why do I love Dan Shalmon?
Message-ID: <F221sYx7Bdza7Gz7KBo00008c24@hotmail.com>

Because no one argues better.


1 - hesitation


Shalmon: "The public disclosure of aggregate disciplinary records seems to 
be a rather odd objective."

kev: I'm a rather odd person.

Shalmon: "[A]ny claim that 'tolerance' in debate will effect the brutal 
imprisonment of drug dealers and other people jailed for offenses Sanchez 
views as politically motivated is not based on a coherent empirically 
verifiable argument but rather the debate
community's own inflated sense of self-importance."

kev: Whoa there, Berkeley-boy. I wasn't claiming that debaters could 
overthrow the federal government ... or worse, lead to a disastrous 
round-winning impact scenario. (GASP)
- When you admit that "this community discriminates against pot smokers" 
then you should also admit that concerned debaters should confront this 
discrimination instead of merely pretending its not significant enough to 
warrant scrunity. I mentioned the prison-industrial complex to provide some 
historical context to what the governmental and economic factors which drive 
'zero-tolerance' anti-drug campaigns. I feel this helps understand how this 
forum, small though it may be, still represents an interesting social 
microsom. Debate presents an interesting example of societal patneralism 
toward children and criminals. This is neither here nor there though, 
because what is "empirically verifiable" is how many many institute students 
are punished, how they were punished, and for what offenses. I agree, its a 
very small step; so why not take it? Isn't it much easier to have a coherent 
conversation about just how significant this discrimination is AFTER we've 
got some empirical data on the public decision-making table? And what's lost 
in trying to start a discussion?

Shalmon states that its "laughable reasoning" to assume that "the legal 
status of pot" will be changed because of this community's actions, and in 
this, i agree. Truth be told, I'm incredibly cynical about even a remote 
possibility for mass revolutionary change anymore. But is it not just as 
laughable to fail to consider changes in this community's drug policy 
because of Barry McCaffery and his "drug army"? Because the reality is that 
a debater punished at UTNIF this summer will not facing his highness the 
drug czar; s/he will be facing members of that institute's staff. To shrug 
one's shoulders, smoke a joint, and wait for all-out drug legalization to 
come around in a century - that's what's "meglomanaical." But if questioning 
and resisting the abuses of authority is important to debaters ('democratic 
empowerment'?), then its important right here and right now. Should even one 
more student be needlessly punished?

Shalmon: "Nick Coburn-Palo (who has been my boss for two years and is about 
as chill as anyone I've ever met in debate) wouldn't hesitate to remove 
(from the team at the very least) a kid caught smoking pot."

kev: And perhaps what's so needed is exactly this: hesitation. If one 
sincerely questions whether one should punish a student, then there's more 
of a chance that unnecessary punishment will not take occur.
- And what's 'unnecessary'? That question is not answered by the drug war at 
large, but by thousands of instances where teachers and students interact in 
disciplinary relationships. What's 'unnecessary' is precisely what teachers 
and students will not accept: ethical lines they draw together. I think 
discussions can play a determinative role in drawing these lines. But 
instructors say, 'We have no choice.' Well then, why not make some?
- And why understand discipline as *just* a discrimination issue, Shalmon? I 
realize its not so much that individual teachers remain prejudiced as its 
that their jobs entail punishing 'criminals,' and hence they're told to obey 
the law with 'zero-tolerance.' Yet this covers over several key questions 
which remained un-asked, such as, can this community exert enough pressure 
to counter institutional norms, not on a macro-governmental level, but on a 
micro-institutional one? And when faced with disciplinary decisions, can 
more individual teachers choose in more instances to place greater value on 
their profession above their job?
- Pop-culture is doing a fine job with 'discimination' - everybody and 
George Carlin's sister has been on the cover of High Times and every 
politician and their brother has admitted to smoking marijuana. What I'm 
concerned about is that good teachers are being asked to play cops and good 
students are getting busted for it. What can be done about this?, is a 
question which has yet to be fully discussed. So let's spark it ..... the 
discussion, i mean .... oh boy.


2 - hypocrisy

kev: I promise you, if hypocritical enforcement practices have occurred once 
in this forum, they've occurred many, many a'time. As a prominent coach told 
me, pot-smoking teachers who bust pot-smoking students is a common crime. 
Now is it a "weak" claim to suggest that many times teachers and students 
purchase their pot from identical supply routes? And is it outlandish to 
examine whether this necessarily leads to double-standards? Your admission 
of specific circumstances of hypocritical enforcement only argues for more 
investigation into disciplinary procedures in the direction of instilling 
more tolerance towards 'criminal' students - not simply a quip, a wink, and 
then on with the game.

Shalmon: "As Sarah Holbrook explained to me in great detail, what we do as 
instructors is not the same as what we do when we are acting as 
individuals."

kev: But instructors *are* individuals! I'm interested in understanding in 
what ways do people's institutional roles change their behavior? Do teachers 
choose to do things that they would never do if they were acting as 
themselves? And why? For a paycheck? For the program? Out of fear? I know 
things are not this black-and-white (thus geneaology is gray), and I know 
I'm delibately being a bit naive, but I think the following question applies 
in many disciplinary cases: Why do teachers choose to obey the law and not 
their good conscience? ...

Shalmon responds: "The reason why is that when people buy pot together or 
light up in their house or something there is a mutual sharing of risk - 
unless the pot smokers are total jerkoffs, presumably everyone present has 
agreed to run the risk of being caught by John Law and jailed. However, when 
you are working for an institute, you are representing not only YOUR 
interests (which may only include your immediate chemical 
self-gratification) but also participating in a larger socio-political unit. 
You are a part of a whole that is the institute you work for and the group 
that is attempting to profit from it - either the debate team, the debate 
corporation that owns the institute or whoever it is that hired you."

kev: I guess what I'm missing is why direct harm caused to high schoolers by 
punishment is not a factor in the cost-benefit equation. Why is their 
liberty not a legitimate interest? And what can be done to make their voices 
heard?

Shalmon continues: "Given the forms you have to sign to work at one of those 
places the person who is staking the enterprise, doing most of the work and 
risking a large amount of money and time in a potentially failed institute 
venture has CLEARLY AND IN WRITING TOLD YOU that they expect you not to 
break the law. If you want to fuck high school kids or deal drugs to them, 
most of the people who run institutes probably don't care if you don't do it 
far away from the building for which they are responsible."

kev: Ah but institutes don't permit high schoolers to leave that building 
often, see? They're told to be in by a certain time, their schedules are 
pre-planned by their instructors, and their daily lives are monitored and 
supervised. And breaking the law does not occur in a quick snap, Shalmon. 
The law breaks only after lots of people have been busy bending it for a 
long while. You write in absolutes as if status quo policing is inevitable, 
and as if discipline can be reduced to the text of a contract or a law-book. 
Why not see if this sucker won't bend a bit more? Why not push a little 
change? (Let the Stalins live in the revolutions, I live in the details.)

Shalmon: "This seems to make sense to me - if you're so committed to the 
cause of legalization then you get yourself arrested - fine, enjoy your day 
in County - "

kev: This is a distinct possibility given my life-style, you know. Would you 
really like your words to come true for me?
- Anyway, the immediate goal here is not legalization, but an ever more 
tolerant community. No one else need be punished.

Shalmon: "... but getting your boss arrested, the debate team that you work 
for legally FUCKED is just being a jerk. It's also probably unethical 
because those people trusted you to do a job - if you have problems with the 
terms of employment (i.e. you are willing to make the Stalinist claim that 
only right-thinking institutes that break the laws should run) don't take 
the job, picket the institute or whatever but don't end the careers of the 
other folks who DONT have the luxury of your political convictions."

kev: if you think "the claim that imprisoning someone for doing a drug is 
coercive is pretty COMMONSENSICAL and WIDELY ACCEPTED by the community," 
then how in the hell does one get to the melodramatic choice between 
punishing a student in one hand and ending debate in the other hand? If no 
one wants pot-smokers punished, why haven't folks in this community made the 
"commonsensical" and "widely accepted" decision not to punish them? Do you 
really think the contracts made them do it? Is it all the drug czar? 
(Perhaps we have radically different perceptions because you live in 
Berkeley and i live in Texas.)

Shalmon: "You shouldn't violate agreements you make with other people in 
good faith [.]"

kev: Whoever said it was 'in good faith'!?! Look, its not like institute X 
permits pot-smoking and institute Y does not, thus giving high skoolers' a 
choice. Every institute makes high skoolers sign contracts as does every 
debate team. If they don't sign, they can't participate in debate. That 
sounds damn unfair to me, not to mention damn surprising, since according to 
you, everyone knows that coercive responses to recreational drug use is 
unethical.
- I'm not merely pro-legalizationist; I think its a right of every person to 
grow a plant, and then, if they wish, smoke that plant, especially if it 
boosts their creative development in ways well-evidenced by many of the 
beautiful art, songs, and fiction writing since De Quincey. Even a novice 
debater is also a creator and thinker; so why are they punished for using a 
drug which many intelligent people feel promotes creative thought?
- Bill Hicks, for heaven's sake! Allen Ginsberg! George Washington, even!
- And yes, when confronted with no choice but to accept an invasion of 
liberty, then one should break the law. When authorities seek to restrict 
your freedom, I think an ethical response is lying. No one questions that if 
an abusive authority-figure were to come knocking on your door and demaning 
your 'criminals,' one would and should lie. 'Uhhhhhh, no, sir. No criminals 
here. Try next door.' But when an debate institution orders a person to 
knock on dorm-room doors, asking why it smells like weed, why can't one see 
this as an abuse of authority as well? 'No, sir; no pot here. Try the RA's 
room.'
- I'm not against "contractual obligation." A toker has no right to smoke 
next to an asthsma sufferer who is allegric to pot. But as Josh Hoe and I 
discussed earlier, there's simply no way to ensure responsibility without 
balancing it by protecting rights. The same community which protects the 
rights of pot-users to smoke freely will demand that they do so 
responsibily. But I mean, demanding that a person sign a contract that they 
had absolutely no power in drafting, what the shit? Why not print out weekly 
contracts, or daily ones, or why not print out enough to eliminate the need 
for toilet paper altogether?

Shalmon: "Thus, hypocrisy as it relates to a person's teacher-role is a 
question specifically confined to the question of their performance of those 
duties. You are not a hypocritical instructor if you obey the terms of your 
contract (you don't smoke in the dorms or near students or deal - you smoke 
at your own risk elsewhere) but then you hold the students to upholding the 
terms of theirs."

kev: Boy, that's some pigshit right there. Here's the distinction you're 
missing: a teacher is permitted a life outside the institutions they work 
for; a student is not. That's why one can't understand the teacher-student 
relationship as an employer-employee relationship, either in law or in life. 
When institutes apply 'in loco parentis' to high skoolers, children 
constitute a 'captive audience,' even if they pay for or voluntarily choose 
their attendance. For instance, ask any institute director what an 
instructor should do if they find a student smoking marijuana off-campus? 
The answer is report them. Even being off university property ("the 
building" as you say) does *not* protect students' privacy, while teachers' 
privacy is automatically granted. There's the double-standard.

**
Let's set the scene: A certain student works all summer and then pays an 
institute for admission. A certain instructor gets paid that student's money 
and then uses it to purchase lots of weed. First night of camp that 
instructor's telephone rings while they are half-way through a joint. So 
finally, that instructor kicks out that student for smoking pot, and * all 
the while that very student paid for that very instructors' pot! * Does the 
word 'hypocrisy' mean something different to you than it does to me? Honesty 
in such an economic relationship as this would mean that that instructor 
mugged that student out of a thousand bucks and then bought their weed. At 
least then that student would not have to cut that instructor's 'pot 
legalization' affirmative, which they'll sell as a pricey handbook, and 
which will buy more weed. Ah but Shalmon says that instructor is only "doing 
what [they] signed up for - enforcing rules equitably."
- Man, pass some of those cali buds you're smoking.
**


3 - 1AR

Shalmon: "[I]f you have found a place where the bureaucracy is so stupid as 
to respond to a private group's public declaration of their intent to 
simultaneously break statutory rape and drug laws at a summer camp,"

kev: Let me handle this drivel like a good 1AR: first, i'm not asking them 
to respond to my declarations, but a concerned former participants' call for 
the disclosure of disciplinary records. second, i'll be passing around a 
petition among debaters, so it isn't just me involved here. third, a private 
group has a right to know relevant public information (ie. discplinary 
records of a state university), and fourth, as you were trying to argue 
earlier, no bureaucracy is stupid for following the law, including I would 
assume, open record laws?


4 - transparency

Shalmon: "Of course, logically since you're a fan of transparency you'd want 
a non-rule camp to inform everyone (parents and students alike) that they 
will be in an environment where high school students will be sold drugs and 
then fucked by staff."

kev: Well if you want to be transparent, please remember that drug-selling 
and consensual teacher-student sex occurs already in today's camps. As many 
people's experiences in debate reveal, students get fucked by staff 
regardless, and in more ways than one. And despite all these rules, those 
who engage in consensual 'criminal' activities at camps still remain 
undettered. All that happens now is a few scapegoats get punished and kicked 
out. So what's the alternative? That's a whole other ball of wax. I 
personally do not believe in a rule-less society, but in a democratic one, 
where folks decide those policies which affect their lives. This means that 
teachers and students, the heart of the learning process, should run camps, 
without coercive bureaucratic or parental interference.
- And if you don't believe "in an environment where high school students 
will be sold drugs and then fucked by staff," then you'll of course want to 
increase institutes' publically accountability, right?


5 - petition

kev again: Oh, there was at least one blatant inaccuracy in your post: a 
petition is not a "threat," its a call for public redress of grievances. The 
small grievance in this case is that no one knows how many students and 
teachers are punished at debate institutes. As a part of the state 
university system, any citizen should be allowed to ask them for a 
statistical compliation of their disciplinary files. If this "borders on the 
obvious" to you Shalmon, then you must agree that institutes' refusal to 
comply borders on the illegal.

Shalmon: "[B]ut it is not necessary for everything in society to be 
democratic."

kev: I remove marijuana seeds for my sack with tyrannical stubborness. That 
still doesn't mean institutional discipline should be exercised without 
public knowledge and immune from democratic inqueries. I'm not interested in 
everyting in society, I'm interest in this social context, debate institutes 
and their responsibility to this community.

Shalmon: "How many parents of high school debaters do you know who would 
receive a little graph indicating that the institute kicked out (gasp!) 3 
students for smoking pot and would refuse to send their child to that camp?"

kev: 3.

Shalmon: "If there was really a huge deluge of imprisoned pot smoking 
institute students, I'm pretty sure SOMEONE that isn't Sanchez would have 
told me about it."

kev: Exactly. So why not release the records?

Shalmon: "Why are these statistics uniquely necessary to jumpstart public 
debate?"

kev - 1: Shit, is my DA not-unique? Guess I'll just turn it into a critique 
then.
kev - 2: Nothing else has really: why not try this?

Shalmon admits: "I guess there's no reason for these records to be kept 
secret[.]"
But Shalmon worries: "[H]ow much reaction do you expect from non-victims 
when the aggregate number of people is released?"

kev: Well we just don't know, do we Shalmon? The question right now is: will 
we be given the chance to find out?

Shalmon reinerates: "If the fact that millions of people are being 
imprisoned for nonviolent offenses doesn't convince politically active 
people that send themselves or their children to camp that the drug war is 
unjust, what will putting the number of people ALREADY removed from 
institute for smoking pot on the web do?"

That's the question I'm asking: why do politically active people accept 
those imprisoned millions and those punished students? And my hunch is that 
its a combination of a lack of knowledge about what's going on and an 
apathetic feeling that nothing is going to change anyway. (Does your post 
indirectly defend these two things?) I don't think I'm completely misguided 
in suggesting that these two social processes are connected: perhaps because 
folks don't relate to 'criminals,' they also believe it when law officials 
tell them they must remain separate from 'criminals.' What I'm trying to 
confront is that nonchalant acceptance of coercion against scapegoats as 
'just the way of things.'
- What correctional operations cannot fake is statistics: if UTNIF kicked 
out 10 folks in the past couple years, then they kicked out 10 folks. And 
we'll be able to see for what offenses, not just pot-smoking. And what does 
that mean? What will displaying this information do? That's up to the people 
who read it; I'm merely suggesting that sheding some light on the scope of 
the discipline problem will get folks thinking about what can be done to 
prevent discplinary abuses. I think the question 'What will this community 
tolerate?' is exactly what this community will have to wrestle with when 
these statistical records are published. And of course, of course, maybe I'm 
wrong. Hell, its been known to happen, hasn't it? But i still feel this is 
worth a shot. Now, do you, Shalmon?

I guess that the institutes have decided not to act on principle (big 
surprise), so starting June 5th, upon Shalmon's suggestion, I'll try to find 
out if folks "give enough of a shit" about this minor suggestion.   :luvkev

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From let_the_american_empire_burn  Sat Jun  1 11:15:36 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 11:15:36 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] To UTNIF - A Quotation from UT's Wesbite Regarding Open Records
Message-ID: <F46Hvyo3DjFbUcOV1Ee0000fcfd@hotmail.com>

To UTNIF, Kevin Kuswa, and Joel Rollins:

This constitutes a written request for public information. I ask your 
university to compile and release available disciplinary records to this 
electronic list-serv. Please include all punishments since UTNIF's creation, 
of both teachers and students, desrcibing what type of offense was committed 
and what type of punishment was used. Please include statistical data rather 
than personally identifiable information, so as to ensure students' 
anonymity. I am willing to work with you in this disclosure (including 
copying and/or compiling). If you need this request in snail-mail writing, 
please reply immediately. If you think a relevant exception to this law 
exists, you have 10 business days to refer the matter the Office of the 
Attorney General (OAG) for a ruling. If you as a governmental body 
improperly fail to release information, the OAG and I are able to file a 
lawsuit against you to compel disclosure. If you don't know what to do next, 
call 877 OPEN TEX, a hotline for governmental agencies on how to comply with 
the aforementioned act. thank you for your time.

: kevin sanchez - austin, tejas

_________________________________

http://www.utsystem.edu/ogc/intellectualproperty/citup.htm

"Open Records Act - As a public institution, the Administration and 
component institutions of the University of Texas System all are subject to 
the Texas Public Information Act, more commonly referred to as the Open 
Records Act. Although there are many exceptions to the Act's sweeping 
purvue, it is safe to assume that nearly everything that an employee 
produces in the course of performing work duties, including but not limited 
to electronic documents stored on hard drives or sent as email messages or 
attachments, would be subject to an Open Records request."

If you would like the full Texas Public Information Act, click here: 
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/AG_Publications/pdfs/publicinfo2000.pdf

It starts off with a funning quotation: "Democracy breathes in the light of 
day and corrpution breeds in darkness."
____________________________________

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com




From sykesjason  Sat Jun  1 11:11:29 2002
From: sykesjason (Jason Sykes)
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 11:11:29 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] matt gerber
Message-ID: <000801c20986$fd789140$66d0a942@dntn.tx.charter.com>

*sorry for the wasted bandwidth!!*

matt,

i recently wiped out my hard drive and lost both your email addresses.  please contact me when you get a chance.

thanks,
jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020601/1a023040/attachment.html 


From arlee  Sat Jun  1 12:08:08 2002
From: arlee (arlee at mail.utexas.edu)
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 12:08:08 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [eDebate] my'self'
Message-ID: <1022951288.3cf8ff78265cd@webmailapp2.cc.utexas.edu>

jack,

My?self? understands what it is to take a position with the student to avoid 
discipline.I need not evidence this one, for there are many that know 
my ?self?  better than you, most importantly me, the one who understands the 
administrative tight-rope walked in the process of providing an environment of 
learning, while at the same time maintaining the space for the existence of 
that  environment!  

My?self? doesn?t know the circulation of events (per the fact that I didn?t 
debate that year) circulating around your dismissal, but my?self? can figure 
out that the only effect of your airing further rumors (Mr. fact, not ?throwing 
at Hoe?) is the same defamation and character assassination that you point 
towards as your ouster from UT.  Masters tools, doesn?t mean beating down those 
who are similarly enslaved.

My?self? wants to hear the discussion so that one is not able to hide their 
personal employment situation in the guise of political practice

My?self? does not want to see the collapse of an organization that you were a 
part of, i was  a part of, and that facilitates friendship and conversation at 
the hands of convoluted innuendo (true or not) due to anger over a firing that 
is supposedely just as arbitrary.

My?self? critiques my?self? as both independent self and that moniker and 
baggage that you apply through your taxonomy of people. Kingdom, college 
debate; Phylum, UT debaters, class, oh well this is one that doesn?t get 
broached, does it, hmmmm
  where?s your kritik of self, what makes you able to 
alienate yourself from job opportunities?

My?self? never advocated and doesn?t have an ability to paint an objective 
picture of your firing, but wonders whether or not yourSLF should 
maybe ?question if its mine or anyone else?s selves that should be the martyr 
to your?self/SLF?. My?self? knows this shit from age 3, two wrongs don?t make a 
right.

SELF




From wishfull  Sat Jun  1 13:23:09 2002
From: wishfull (Michael Roston )
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 14:23:09 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] when did it become the megalomania liberation front?
Message-ID: <AEMCFJNFJAFMJAAA@shared1-mail.whowhere.com>

>>>
also, people are comfortable with "we love 
competitive dabait" as answer to our critiques. deleuze and guattari have 
demonstrated that the nazis deployed micro-fascisms of emotional 
manipulation and that their power did not rest on a "unitary, globalizing 
rational ideology of nationalism". 
>>>

you've still never gotten around to explaining how expressing one's love of debating is at all comparable to the Nazi construction of love for the Reich in front of love for anything else.  Moreover, the argument itself is the classic "the Nazis liked it, therefore it's gotta be bad" fallacy that people use against your man Heidegger all the time.  

Moreover, you don't get the point of the love argument - it's more about faith than it is anything else, the faith that our activity of debating competitively produces more good than it does harm at any given moment.  your only proof that it does more harm is built entirely into the idea that people don't do what you 'do' (if we can suggest that do you anything other than secrete venom through your keyboard for about 4 or 5 hours a day).  

>>>
4) timeliness is over-rated. max wrote me about how much reading nietzsche 
for him was an experience. well, nietzsche was read by nobody during his 
time. this whole persuasive audience normalization backfires on the lyrical 
WWW who have so far done little to undermine the competitive focus. if i 
were nietzsche like in ecce homo, i would say "stroube is nietzche" in a 
megalomaniac "i'll fit the part" kind of way. i would never publish any of 
my fiction material to edabait because there are so few readers i am 
interested in on this humdrum bureaucracy network. edebate is so miserable 
that i only choose to demonstrate its miserableness beyond repair instead of 
offering my serious work. despite the fact that my serious work is not 
based in polemics or ad-homs, i still doubt anybody but a minority would be 
interested in it and i don't give a fuck about being timely. 
>>>

this is heartbreakingly pathetic.  does this mean that you'll go stark raving mad and die of syphillis as a result of sleeping with one too many whores as well?


---
Michael Roston
-enemy of freedom

"At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."
                    -President Richard Nixon, May 18, 1971



Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com



From dig  Sat Jun  1 09:53:00 2002
From: dig (Debate Information Group)
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 10:53:00 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] DiG and SLF =Different
Message-ID: <200206011453.g51Er0Q16854@cross-x.com>

Hello

I want o address this issue briefly. several folks have asked or insinuated so...

The Debate information group and the Schizo Liberation Front are not affiliated. The SLF and its members are as free as anyone else to contribute.

Now in the name of transparency and openenss, jack stroube has been greatly influential in the development of the DiG idea, many of his criticisms of the current Da bait format have inspired many of the research projects that i have proposed and i imagine Stroubes' thoughts will continue to exert a great amount of directional influence on the makeup of the DiG.In fact you will see that one of the authors we suggest debaters research along side  Foucault, D & G , and sponos is jack stroube. This is not a joke, i beleive that stoube and his slf counterparts have provided some of the most effective criticisms of debate i have ever seen, and thus i think researching and paying attention to those arguments is a worthwhile endeavour

That being said I part company with Stroube on the disposition of the of the competive forum, I beleive many of his criticisms point to serious limits in the current competitve framework, yet i don't agree that the competitive format should be entirely dstroyed. I beleive that the competitive format can be the productive engine which drives the public and competitve based research system that jack sees as the challenge to the current think tank system. I believe that the allure of competitive success is what drives the depth of research and thinking that most debaters engage in and i believe that instead of erradicating this format because of its limits, it should first be challenged to overcome those limits. I look forward to the well reasoned exchange that this position might bring about, and i look forward to developing it, if i am mischaracterizing stroubes argument (potential exists certainly i read everything i have time for but i often miss some of the nuances) then i apologize and look forward to the dialouge.

Hope that clears up those questions.

Andy Ellis
DiG-Pilot
-- 
Debate Information Group
http://dig.ndtceda.com/




From kkuswa  Sat Jun  1 14:00:09 2002
From: kkuswa (Kevin Kuswa)
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 15:00:09 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] kudos to the DiG
References: <200206011453.g51Er0Q16854@cross-x.com>
Message-ID: <006001c2099e$8ce7cf00$17b8a68d@richmond.edu>

the page looks great.  already there are a number of resources available.
good work, Andy!  Keep it up.  if you haven't seen the site, check it
out.

kevin
spide(r)bate


----- Original Message -----
From: "Debate Information Group" <dig at ndtceda.com>
To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 10:53 AM
Subject: [eDebate] DiG and SLF =Different


> Hello
>
> I want o address this issue briefly. several folks have asked or
insinuated so...
>
> The Debate information group and the Schizo Liberation Front are not
affiliated. The SLF and its members are as free as anyone else to
contribute.
>
> Now in the name of transparency and openenss, jack stroube has been
greatly influential in the development of the DiG idea, many of his
criticisms of the current Da bait format have inspired many of the research
projects that i have proposed and i imagine Stroubes' thoughts will continue
to exert a great amount of directional influence on the makeup of the DiG.In
fact you will see that one of the authors we suggest debaters research along
side  Foucault, D & G , and sponos is jack stroube. This is not a joke, i
beleive that stoube and his slf counterparts have provided some of the most
effective criticisms of debate i have ever seen, and thus i think
researching and paying attention to those arguments is a worthwhile
endeavour
>
> That being said I part company with Stroube on the disposition of the of
the competive forum, I beleive many of his criticisms point to serious
limits in the current competitve framework, yet i don't agree that the
competitive format should be entirely dstroyed. I beleive that the
competitive format can be the productive engine which drives the public and
competitve based research system that jack sees as the challenge to the
current think tank system. I believe that the allure of competitive success
is what drives the depth of research and thinking that most debaters engage
in and i believe that instead of erradicating this format because of its
limits, it should first be challenged to overcome those limits. I look
forward to the well reasoned exchange that this position might bring about,
and i look forward to developing it, if i am mischaracterizing stroubes
argument (potential exists certainly i read everything i have time for but i
often miss some of the nuances) then i!
>  apologize and look forward to the dialouge.
>
> Hope that clears up those questions.
>
> Andy Ellis
> DiG-Pilot
> --
> Debate Information Group
> http://dig.ndtceda.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




From dig  Sat Jun  1 16:11:23 2002
From: dig (Debate Information Group)
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 17:11:23 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Help Beta Test the Dig
Message-ID: <200206012111.g51LBNw16835@cross-x.com>

Hello,


I have posted the DiG website today and i have gotten several positive responses so far. Before I send it to the high school list and alot of the real action starts i would like to get reviews comments contributions and suggestions from the college community. Please take some time to review the material and the various projects of the dig and let me know what you think. What you can to do to help. what you like . what you think could be better. 

Here are a few specific areas that i could use some ideas or contributions.

*Editing- Six years on and my writting is getting deschooled, meanwhile much of the audience is schooled, so your editing suggestions and ideas are welcome, be harsh i can take it.

*Computer Issues- All of the pages and links work on a distant computer running oprea 6.0, at least for me. If you find something broken or missing, let me know i'll fix it. If you have some skills with the web design thing then let me know, how can i fix some of the awkard areas, what should i do to increase ease of navigation, right now i'm using a downloaded demo of dreamwever on a road betten 1995 laptop, so needless to say theres not a whole lot i can do, but that will soon change. So better yet, if you have those skiils and a better way to do the page just send it to me as an html attachment.

*Web Resources- I'm going to try to collect a decent sized library of web resources on the mental health topic, I'll offer them in two ways, First i will publish lists that others s end me, this is what i need you all to do, try also to annotate these links and give a sentance or two of explanation about why you included that link. I'm more intrested in quality links with good explanations than alot of links with no description. We will get our quantity and diversity from a lot of small lists of good links from different people. Make sense?

The second part of the web resources will be a catagorized (eventually) master list hopefully with search capabilities down the road.(This is my part of the project)

*Critical debate studies- I'm looking for papers sitting on your laptop, halfdeveloped messages that you composed for edebate but never sent, blocks you have written, lectures you have given. Look through the writting you have done and see if you have anything to contribute.

Also I'm looking for ideas about further questions and areas of inquiry

*DiG DI reading lists- We are looking to collect lists of books that help address either the topic broadly or a certain argument specifcaly, my point is to point the students toward the important books and articles for actual understanding of arguments. You are free to add some content on why you slected that book or article. These are much like the web research resources, the goal is to have quality lists from many people so that there is a diversity of quality reading lists.

*DiG DI Instruction-We have a wonderful introduction to the mental health topic so far but we need more. I will be writting a bunch of it but i think that again a diversity of opinion and teaching methods makes for a more complete learning experience. If you have lecture notes or papers or any thing else already written, make sure you have proper permissions, then send it in. 

Also I need some suggestions about other areas of instruction.

*Mentors

Two things here, more people need to sign up, we have a lot of committed and deicated people but we only have spots for about 60 students. The wonderful thing about the mentors average of 3-5 studenst a piece, is also the drawback, so again the approach is to collect a small donation form as many people as possible to support as many students as possible.

If you want to be a metor please provide the following information

*Name
*email
*IM (optional)
*Brief description of what you can offer as a mentor.
*Number of students you can work with (most have been between 2-6)

Second I need some ideas on how to faciliate these relationships, a very good point has been raised and that is that the first come first serve approach that is currently driving the mentors approach may not ever reach the debaters who could benefit most from the mentorships. In  many ways this would recreate the systems the dig is trying to provide an alternative to, so i need your input on how best to faciliate this relationship.

There is i'm sure more things i need and i will have discussions with many of you, but for now take the site for a spin and add to it what you like but definatly let me know what you think.

Andy 
DiG
-- 
Debate Information Group
http://dig.ndtceda.com/
-- 
Debate Information Group
http://dig.ndtceda.com/




From shalmon  Sat Jun  1 22:00:07 2002
From: shalmon (shalmon)
Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 20:00:07 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] re: why I love Dan Shalmon
Message-ID: <3DA48B38@bearmail.berkeley.edu>

Replies below. It's long, so non-partisans not paying attention to this 
records-petition debate should just delete. Sorry for typos.

> Because no one argues better

Clearly false, but thanks anyway. But don't congratulate me - send any 
compliments straight to the CIA, the Illuminatus, Bill Gates, Tom Ridge and 
the Military-Industrial-Complex that funded my debate career and wrote the 
cards that I (obviously didn't) cut. But real credit belongs to Alex Berger - 
who both disproves your claim that no one can argue better than me AND 
occupies (as we all know - especially Stroube) a central role in the debate 
conspiracy that gave me my talents. Lord knows I didn't earn them. Thank god I 
didn't try though - because since Northwestern, Emory, Kentucky and Texas and 
other schools with six figure budgets always win, a lowly immigrant state 
school attending mortal like me has no shot at the upper-ranks of the debate 
world.... No... no... wait... I think Randy Luskey told me that was wrong 
once... I'm not really sure why though... Stupid memory loss...

> kev: Whoa there, Berkeley-boy. I wasn't claiming that debaters could
> overthrow the federal government ... or worse, lead to a disastrous
> round-winning impact scenario. (GASP)
> - When you admit that "this community discriminates against pot smokers"
> then you should also admit that concerned debaters should confront this
> discrimination instead of merely pretending its not significant enough to
> warrant scrunity.

What I said was that the debate community is more tolerant of pot smoking than 
most of society at large. The intolerance the debate community inflicts is the 
result of the fact that the debate community is dependent on the goodwill of 
donors and institutions that CANNOT and WILL NOT violate federal law or aid in 
the violation of federal law.

 I mentioned the prison-industrial complex to provide some
> historical context to what the governmental and economic factors which drive
> 'zero-tolerance' anti-drug campaigns. I feel this helps understand how this
> forum, small though it may be, still represents an interesting social
> microsom. Debate presents an interesting example of societal patneralism
> toward children and criminals.

Everything small is a microcosm of everything big - if you want to, you can 
read into debate any one of the billions of power relationships that are 
replicated in other places. I hardly think that a debate coach looking the 
other way and only catching kids smoking pot when they're stupid enough to do 
it publicly parallels the prison-industrial complex. The link between the 
federal governments war on drugs and the enforcement of the law by debate 
coaches is indissoluble and since you've agreed that nothing you do can change 
the law, then unless you want to get about 200 hard working, smart people 
fired, the chances of you changing 'grassroots' law enforcement is minimal.

This is neither here nor there though,
> because what is "empirically verifiable" is how many many institute students
> are punished, how they were punished, and for what offenses. I agree, its a
> very small step; so why not take it? Isn't it much easier to have a coherent
> conversation about just how significant this discrimination is AFTER we've
> got some empirical data on the public decision-making table? And what's lost
> in trying to start a discussion?
>

I strongly doubt that there are records that detailed on this. I also don't 
see what this adds to the discussion - we all know that people get kicked out 
camps sometimes - I'm sure most people can even remember a specific instance 
of that happening while they were attending or working at a camp. Your faith 
in numbers as an organizing strategy boggles the mind. Oh and there IS NO 
TABLE to make this decision ON - you can't change federal laws and employees 
of these institutions kick people out of institute because they sign 
agreements saying they won't violate federal laws under penalty of explusion.

> Shalmon states that its "laughable reasoning" to assume that "the legal
> status of pot" will be changed because of this community's actions, and in
> this, i agree. Truth be told, I'm incredibly cynical about even a remote
> possibility for mass revolutionary change anymore. But is it not just as
> laughable to fail to consider changes in this community's drug policy
> because of Barry McCaffery and his "drug army"? Because the reality is that
> a debater punished at UTNIF this summer will not facing his highness the
> drug czar; s/he will be facing members of that institute's staff. To shrug
> one's shoulders, smoke a joint, and wait for all-out drug legalization to
> come around in a century - that's what's "meglomanaical."

No it isn't megalomaniacal, it's cynical. People who think that a debate coach 
getting fired for letting a kid smoke pot who later gets arrested by hotel 
staff will change the world in a meaningful way overestimate the improtance 
and power of their agenda and disregard the harm caused to the indivduals 
harmed in the process of change - that's megalomania.

My whole post was to explain that the debate community is about as tolerant as 
it can be - because to get more tolerant would run afoul of the drug army - 
which would irreparably damage the community. The debater in your example IS 
facing the drug czar because it is the threat of federal intervention that 
forces someone who actually 'believes' in the legalization cause to enforce 
drug laws.


But if questioning
> and resisting the abuses of authority is important to debaters ('democratic
> empowerment'?), then its important right here and right now. Should even one
> more student be needlessly punished?

First of all, what you (but more so Stroube) fail to recognize is that debate 
is not a forum for the actualization of change - it is a space in which 
political strategies and ideas are evaluated and discussed and nothing more. 
People switch sides for a reason - its because it forces them to BOTH question 
AND defend particular ways of challenging authority - so that MAYBE in a few 
years, they'll have a good enough understanding of the issues to have a 
coherent opinion that they can defend and believe in. Your argument that if 
you run Foucault you have to hate prisons is nonsensical because defending an 
argument in a debate doesn't make you a partisan in its cause - witness Kirk 
Evan's fascination with Ayn Rand.

 > kev: And perhaps what's so needed is exactly this: hesitation. If one
> sincerely questions whether one should punish a student, then there's more
> of a chance that unnecessary punishment will not take occur.

I'm pretty sure that after kicking a kid that he spent years and years working 
with off of his team, Nick (and probably any coach) would go through a pretty 
agonizing process of soul-searching. But the bottom line is that most people 
don't and SHOULDNT practice self-abnegation - particularly when the goal is 
totally unattainable and not meaningful in comparison with the prospect of 
spending the next few years living on the street.

> - And what's 'unnecessary'? That question is not answered by the drug war at
> large, but by thousands of instances where teachers and students interact in
> disciplinary relationships. What's 'unnecessary' is precisely what teachers
> and students will not accept: ethical lines they draw together. I think
> discussions can play a determinative role in drawing these lines. But
> instructors say, 'We have no choice.' Well then, why not make some?

"I can't do that." "So why not do it??" "Because I can't." "oh..." Sounds like 
a pretty productive discussion to me. I have no idea what ethical lines you 
are interested in drawing - I can't think of a single rule that isn't 
functionally a protection that you can support without refuting the presmises 
of your own arguments. You don't seem to have much of a defense of the 
absolutist interpretation of democracy you espouse - particularly given that 
all you seem to want is the erasing of lines that most people find 
commonsensical - rape laws, anti-drug laws, prisons, mandatory treatment for 
schizophrenics, etc.

> - And why understand discipline as *just* a discrimination issue, Shalmon? I
> realize its not so much that individual teachers remain prejudiced as its
> that their jobs entail punishing 'criminals,' and hence they're told to obey
> the law with 'zero-tolerance.' Yet this covers over several key questions
> which remained un-asked, such as, can this community exert enough pressure
> to counter institutional norms, not on a macro-governmental level, but on a
> micro-institutional one?

No. I proved this in my previous post at length. The result of violating 
federal laws is that debate programs get shut down. If you doubt me, ask JW 
Patterson next time you see him.

And when faced with disciplinary decisions, can
> more individual teachers choose in more instances to place greater value on
> their profession above their job?

No. Because it isn't just a 'job' that you can drop and then move on to your 
next activist cause. Most teachers endure the aggravating people, incompetent 
administration, ridiculous rules and ridiculously low salary because they love 
what they do. If you get fired becasue you fuck kids, sell them drugs and then 
refuse to do anything when the neighbours complain about the ruckus, that shit 
STAYS WITH YOU. No employer will touch you with a ten-foot pole. Now while you 
might be self-righteous enough to brand people who DARE to value their 
relatively modest physical-economic needs above the fruitless cause of drug 
legalization, I don't think many others are.

> - Pop-culture is doing a fine job with 'discimination' - everybody and
> George Carlin's sister has been on the cover of High Times and every
> politician and their brother has admitted to smoking marijuana. What I'm
> concerned about is that good teachers are being asked to play cops and good
> students are getting busted for it. What can be done about this?, is a
> question which has yet to be fully discussed. So let's spark it ..... the
> discussion, i mean .... oh boy.
>

Why? It's a very short conversation, as I already illustrated. And for some 
reason, you value the freedom to pursue an illusory goal that you admit ha 
already largely been acheived through pop-culture above the lives and free 
time of debate coaches - Ken, Ross and JW are people with lives too. Okay, 
maybe not Ken....

> kev: I promise you, if hypocritical enforcement practices have occurred once
> in this forum, they've occurred many, many a'time.

If you're so sure and no one has bothered to refute this claim then what the 
fuck difference will a number make?

As a prominent coach told
> me, pot-smoking teachers who bust pot-smoking students is a common crime.
> Now is it a "weak" claim to suggest that many times teachers and students
> purchase their pot from identical supply routes? And is it outlandish to
> examine whether this necessarily leads to double-standards? Your admission
> of specific circumstances of hypocritical enforcement only argues for more
> investigation into disciplinary procedures in the direction of instilling
> more tolerance towards 'criminal' students - not simply a quip, a wink, and
> then on with the game.
>

The records you recieve won't include a little asterisk for every time a 
student and a teacher use the same drug dealer or the person doing the 
disciplining regularly uses the weed. It isn't a double-standard - if the 
people who occupy the hierarchical position in the political order above 
teachers (cops, federal agents, thier bosses) catch THEM smoking pot, they're 
fucked too - kids just happen to get caught more because they are less adept 
at hiding their illict activities.

> Shalmon: "As Sarah Holbrook explained to me in great detail, what we do as
> instructors is not the same as what we do when we are acting as
> individuals."
>
> kev: But instructors *are* individuals! I'm interested in understanding in
> what ways do people's institutional roles change their behavior? Do teachers
> choose to do things that they would never do if they were acting as
> themselves? And why? For a paycheck? For the program? Out of fear? I know
> things are not this black-and-white (thus geneaology is gray), and I know
> I'm delibately being a bit naive, but I think the following question applies
> in many disciplinary cases: Why do teachers choose to obey the law and not
> their good conscience? ...

Because a conscience can keep you up at night but the law can have you 
imprisoned, killed, locked into perpetual poverty.... Duh... And if you're 
interested in understanding this then you should take a job at a camp and 
abide by the rules of your contract - walk a mile in the shoes of an 
instructor before you hurl vitriolic defamatory messages at them on e-debate.

> > kev: I guess what I'm missing is why direct harm caused to high schoolers 
by
> punishment is not a factor in the cost-benefit equation. Why is their
> liberty not a legitimate interest? And what can be done to make their voices
> heard?

It is. The kid took the risk the same way you did - one of you got caught and 
the other didn't... The difference is that in your SPECIFIC CAPACITY as an 
instructor, you have no choice but to abide by the rules you signed your name 
to - and while that might suck sometimes, if you don't like it you don't have 
to work at a camp. Obviously the person smoking pot didn't think that the 
risks (imprisonment, explusion) outweighed the benefits - that was their 
choice - their voices have been heard, self-evaluated and then a decision was 
made.

>
> Shalmon continues: "Given the forms you have to sign to work at one of those
> places the person who is staking the enterprise, doing most of the work and
> risking a large amount of money and time in a potentially failed institute
> venture has CLEARLY AND IN WRITING TOLD YOU that they expect you not to
> break the law.
> kev: Ah but institutes don't permit high schoolers to leave that building
> often, see?

If your pot habit is so bad that the liberal schedule of the DDI is 
insufficient to accomodate your needs, you need to seek help. Kentucky doesn't 
let kids leave much but thats only because a few years ago so many kids broke 
the law that the University of Kentucky FORCED JW to adopt a very strict set 
of rules. This seems to prove that what you want to do is counterproductive.

You write in absolutes as if status quo policing is inevitable,
> and as if discipline can be reduced to the text of a contract or a law-book.
> Why not see if this sucker won't bend a bit more? Why not push a little
> change? (Let the Stalins live in the revolutions, I live in the details.)

The law does bend - remember your High Times example? The law doesn't bend 
when people are put in a position where they have much to lose if they enforce 
a marginally unjust law and little to gain from allowing it to be violated.

>
> Shalmon: "This seems to make sense to me - if you're so committed to the
> cause of legalization then you get yourself arrested - fine, enjoy your day
> in County - "
>
> kev: This is a distinct possibility given my life-style, you know. Would you
> really like your words to come true for me?

No. But I wouldn't pay your bail either, you knew the risks. I hope you never 
get put in jail though, that would suck.

> - Anyway, the immediate goal here is not legalization, but an ever more
> tolerant community.

Tolerant communities don't change stuff. Lots of people get arrested in 
Berkeley for doing drugs because creating a place where no one wants to arrest 
someone for drugs doesn't mean that people aren't bound by the laws made in 
Washington DC. There's a reason why in spite of all the places where everyone 
lights up and it's an accepted part of social existence, the public 
overwhelmingly opposes legalization.


>No one else need be punished.

I think I've convincingly established that many many people lose when people 
visibly and publicly break the law at institutes - far more than the number 
who receive immeadiate chemical gratification for the behavior in question. 
Your admission that you don't want anyone else to be punished pretty much 
damns your argument.


> kev: if you think "the claim that imprisoning someone for doing a drug is
> coercive is pretty COMMONSENSICAL and WIDELY ACCEPTED by the community,"
> then how in the hell does one get to the melodramatic choice between
> punishing a student in one hand and ending debate in the other hand?

There is a widespread consensus that war is a bad thing and that a nuclear war 
would be devestating - and yet people still manage to engage in extremely 
complex discussions in which options ranging from massive buildups to complete 
disarmament are proposed.... Thus, the consensus that imprisonment is coercive 
does not mean that some people don't think that coercion is justified - I 
think that jails are awful places and that's EXACTLY why I want murderers 
there.

I wasn't being melodramatic - grevious harm is done to college debate teams by 
legal retaliation for rule-breaking. It is not an exaggeration to say that 
every time a kid is caught by university police for breaking a major law at 
the University of Michigan, the Classic (key source of cash) moves one inch 
closer to extinction. Debate won't end but a large number of people who make 
valuable contributions to debate might lose their jobs and any future chance 
of employment.

If no
> one wants pot-smokers punished, why haven't folks in this community made the
> "commonsensical" and "widely accepted" decision not to punish them? Do you
> really think the contracts made them do it?

Yes

>Is it all the drug czar?

Partly his fault too.


> Shalmon: "You shouldn't violate agreements you make with other people in
> good faith [.]"
>
> kev: Whoever said it was 'in good faith'!?!

Kevin, you took this part of my post out of context - I said that the 
INSTRUCTOR signed a form where he/she agreed to be bound by a specific set of 
duties - which include enforcing certain rules and regulations - if you 
disagree with them either don't take the job or dont sign the form, but don't 
sign and lie and make a political statement by selling drugs, fucking kids and 
then acting all proud as you, your boss and everyone employed there gets 
hauled off to have their lives ruined.


 Look, its not like institute X
> permits pot-smoking and institute Y does not, thus giving high skoolers' a
> choice. Every institute makes high skoolers sign contracts as does every
> debate team. If they don't sign, they can't participate in debate. That
> sounds damn unfair to me, not to mention damn surprising, since according to
> you, everyone knows that coercive responses to recreational drug use is
> unethical.

I didn't say coercion is unethical. I think coercion is just fine sometimes. 
And not having the choice to smoke pot isn't a unique injustice inflicted by 
institutes. You're barking up the wrong tree because it's not like they're 
being denied a right they would otherwise have. Our debate team didn't requir 
that you not smoke pot. It required that pot smokers take weekends off. If you 
aren't willing to take 48 hours off the weed for debate, the money you consume 
travelling could be better spent elsewhere given that you are unwilling to 
suspend your behavior IN SPITE of the fact that the entire team could 
PERMANENTLY FOLD if you are caught by someone who doesn't find 'recreational 
drug use' acceptable. And you conceded the part of my post where I explained 
that if a camp got a reputation as 'the one institute where pot smoking is 
used to increase productivity' it would quickly be shut down.


> -
> - Bill Hicks, for heaven's sake! Allen Ginsberg! George Washington, even!
> - And yes, when confronted with no choice but to accept an invasion of
> liberty, then one should break the law.

Basic government theory: all law is based on coercion. What you just said 
would invalidate every single rule ever formulated in any society. Even 
democratically selected laws are enforced with totalitarian force. That's the 
classic libereal paradox - one which democracy doesn't escape.

When authorities seek to restrict
> your freedom, I think an ethical response is lying. No one questions that if
> an abusive authority-figure were to come knocking on your door and demaning
> your 'criminals,' one would and should lie. 'Uhhhhhh, no, sir. No criminals
> here. Try next door.' But when an debate institution orders a person to
> knock on dorm-room doors, asking why it smells like weed, why can't one see
> this as an abuse of authority as well?

Because there is a legal and political difference between a cop who shows up 
at your house and a person who runs a private institution (the camp) that 
forwarned you that your illegal conduct would be punished and also made you 
sign a form submitting to searches of your room. If you didn't, then the camp 
is breaking the law. A lot of people get arrested for posession because the 
cops exploit their ignorance and they VOLUNTARILY open doors and trunks that 
they have the legal right to leave closed. Lying is alright I guess, but 
there's a difference between lying to a cop in order to keep yourself out of 
jail and lying to your employer so you can prove a political point about kids 
smoking pot and in so doing, deprive that person of their livelihood. For one 
thing, the cop is some random person you probably don't know and the institute 
director is a decent person, probably a friend, that gave you a job.


> - I'm not against "contractual obligation." A toker has no right to smoke
> next to an asthsma sufferer who is allegric to pot. But as Josh Hoe and I
> discussed earlier, there's simply no way to ensure responsibility without
> balancing it by protecting rights. The same community which protects the
> rights of pot-users to smoke freely will demand that they do so
> responsibily.

Cool... Like in a way that doesn't jeopardize institutes?

How far will you go enforce these democratically selected rules? If Stroube 
keeps blowing smoke in the face of the asthmatic, and when you say stop pretty 
please he tells you to eat capitalist pigshit and blows MORE smoke in the 
asthmatic's face, what then? If he says he won't stop unless you call the 
cops, what will you do? What if he says he hates the asthmatic because the 
asthmatic is a CIA agent and deserves to die and further declares that he 
won't move unless you force him to? Will you defend coercion then?


But I mean, demanding that a person sign a contract that they
> had absolutely no power in drafting, what the shit? Why not print out weekly
> contracts, or daily ones, or why not print out enough to eliminate the need
> for toilet paper altogether?

Uh, because you have no right to write your own contract if you aren't the one 
running the camp. Running an institute is a big responsibility it has big 
risks and big benefits and since you run little of the risk, you get less of 
the responsibility and you have to sign a contract that the person at the very 
top wrote. If you don't like it, look for a job that DOESNT require you to 
abide by the employer's rules - I'm sure you'll find one somewhere....


>
> kev: Boy, that's some pigshit right there. Here's the distinction you're
> missing: a teacher is permitted a life outside the institutions they work
> for; a student is not.

Ah. No student in America has a life... Maybe we should just kill them all 
since they're not really living anywya - they're just cogs! And institute 
students could avoid the institution by just not attending camp - god forbid. 
Both people undertake certain responsibilities in writing - if both obeyed 
their contracts, there would be no problem. What do you have against pigs 
anyway? Sometimes you remind me of my Rabbi.


 That's why one can't understand the teacher-student
> relationship as an employer-employee relationship, either in law or in life.
> When institutes apply 'in loco parentis' to high skoolers, children
> constitute a 'captive audience,' even if they pay for or voluntarily choose
> their attendance. For instance, ask any institute director what an
> instructor should do if they find a student smoking marijuana off-campus?
> The answer is report them. Even being off university property ("the
> building" as you say) does *not* protect students' privacy, while teachers'
> privacy is automatically granted.

I think this is false. Many people who work at institutes are subject to 
search. Underage staff can't drink and other staff can't break the law. There 
have been many stories about staff who suffered a similar 'knock on the door' 
incident with a student in their room. Why? Because they violated the same 
part of their contact that the pot smoking student did. I don't see why the 
off-campus distinction is relevant - the institute director is just saying 
that to avoid legal liability - a staff member caught smoking off-campus by an 
off-campus authority is just as fucked as the student.


There's the double-standard.
>

That isn't a double standard. You already admitted that since the instructor's 
smoking occurs OUTSIDE the juridical context of that persons role as a 
rule-enforcer, it isn't hypocrisy for someone with THC in their blood to kick 
someone out for smoking. Undoubtedly if the student was hanging out at a party 
and asked the instructor for a light AFTER HIS/HER ROLE AS AN INSTRUCTOR WAS 
OVER, they'd be chill. But since context determines behavior and juridical 
role, there is no hypocrisy. People in positions of power make decisions to 
enforce laws they find personally objectionable all the time - if everyone got 
to pick and choose the rules they enforced, society would collapse - aribtrary 
law enforcement is an indicator of polity-failure (which typically causes more 
violence than it solves).

> **
> Let's set the scene: A certain student works all summer and then pays an
> institute for admission. A certain instructor gets paid that student's money
> and then uses it to purchase lots of weed. First night of camp that
> instructor's telephone rings while they are half-way through a joint. So
> finally, that instructor kicks out that student for smoking pot, and * all
> the while that very student paid for that very instructors' pot!

No, the money is no longer the students' - you don't attach a permament hold 
on money you once posessed. Once it's out of the hands of the employer, the 
employer is no longer responsible for the way it is spent. Moreover, under the 
code of contractual obligation I'm defending, this scenario would never arise 
- if the instructor followed the rules, they wouldn't be smoking in the 
building either. And if the instructor got caught lighting up by their 
boss-surveillance-guy they should be fired too.

* Does the
> word 'hypocrisy' mean something different to you than it does to me?

YEs.

Honesty
> in such an economic relationship as this would mean that that instructor
> mugged that student out of a thousand bucks and then bought their weed.

No one was mugged, the kid or his/her parents paid money, which was later 
given to the instructor by a third party. The fact that the student 
economically supports the instructor's pot habit doesn't mean ANYTHING about 
the political consequences of that behavior.

At
> least then that student would not have to cut that instructor's 'pot
> legalization' affirmative, which they'll sell as a pricey handbook, and
> which will buy more weed.

You act as if the kid doesn't get anything out of attending the institute. 
Most people who went to camp probably don't agree with that assessment. It's 
not the 'instructor's' case - its the student's. And the fact that the 
instructors break the law and don't get caught doesn't mean that when the kids 
are caught the instructors shouldn't do anything. If hypocrisy is 
role-specific then both members of the economic relationship are responsible 
for enforcing rules on the other. Kids routinely report bad staff behavior to 
superior members of the staff, and vica versa. That's why the juridical order 
works.


Ah but Shalmon says that instructor is only "doing
> what [they] signed up for - enforcing rules equitably."
> - Man, pass some of those cali buds you're smoking.
> **
>

I don't have any since I'm stuck in Northbrook, IL. If I was in California 
smoking buds, you can rest assured that I would have better things to do with 
my time (or think i did) than engaging in this discussion.

>
> 3 - 1AR
>
> Shalmon: "[I]f you have found a place where the bureaucracy is so stupid as
> to respond to a private group's public declaration of their intent to
> simultaneously break statutory rape and drug laws at a summer camp,"
>
> kev: Let me handle this drivel like a good 1AR: first, i'm not asking them
> to respond to my declarations, but a concerned former participants' call for
> the disclosure of disciplinary records. second, i'll be passing around a
> petition among debaters, so it isn't just me involved here. third, a private
> group has a right to know relevant public information (ie. discplinary
> records of a state university), and fourth, as you were trying to argue
> earlier, no bureaucracy is stupid for following the law, including I would
> assume, open record laws?

What you posted about the open records law was pretty vague - I'm not sure 
that the passive refusal to post that information is in fact a rule violation 
- an attorney can probably answer that question better than me. You also 
decontextualized this part of my post, which was about why rules are 
neccessary for the continued existence of institutes - no one could run a camp 
like the ones that would be the logical result of your advocacy. That wasn't a 
very good 1AR...  Ross can help, I bet.

>
> kev: Well if you want to be transparent, please remember that drug-selling
> and consensual teacher-student sex occurs already in today's camps. As many
> people's experiences in debate reveal, students get fucked by staff
> regardless, and in more ways than one.

It happens under the table because if parents knew, they wouldn't send their 
kids. This is why transparency on the drug-encouragement and staff-fucking 
issue would END the institute you presumably defend before it even got 
started.

And despite all these rules, those
> who engage in consensual 'criminal' activities at camps still remain
> undettered. All that happens now is a few scapegoats get punished and kicked
> out. So what's the alternative? That's a whole other ball of wax. I
> personally do not believe in a rule-less society, but in a democratic one,

An aside: That's funny - you hate Israel... Israel is a parliamentary 
democracy  with more parties than the US- and you think that Israel is evil 
because it refuses to give in "100%" to the demands of a tyrannical dictator 
despised by his own people (Arafat - hated almost as much by Palestinians 'on 
the ground' as Sharon). By the way - dont misconstrue this as support for 
Sharon - it's just criticism of your inconsistent support of democratic 
principles.

> where folks decide those policies which affect their lives. This means that
> teachers and students, the heart of the learning process, should run camps,
> without coercive bureaucratic or parental interference.

Uh, I guess... but there has never, not once in human history, been a totally 
democratic society. The reason is that direct democracy doens't work when 
people have conflicting goals because there is no non-coercive method 
available for the adjudication of disputes on fundaemntal ideological 
questions. I illustrated this above with the Stroube and the asthmatic. Since 
you admitted that nothing you advocate would end the bureaucratic oversight 
(the war on drugs), its tough to envision the creation of these micro-polities 
within the United States.


> - And if you don't believe "in an environment where high school students
> will be sold drugs and then fucked by staff," then you'll of course want to
> increase institutes' publically accountability, right?

No, not really, I don't particularly care about what happens at institutes as 
long as they still pay me well to teach there, they still produce great 
debaters and give kids a good time. I think that institutes are, in general, 
doing a pretty good job these days - but I haven't been paying much attention. 
I think that the oversight of university staff, federal officials, parents, 
the cx-l, the staff (who are pretty smart folks) and the academic community is 
sufficient.


>
> kev again: Oh, there was at least one blatant inaccuracy in your post: a
> petition is not a "threat," its a call for public redress of grievances. The
> small grievance in this case is that no one knows how many students and
> teachers are punished at debate institutes. As a part of the state
> university system, any citizen should be allowed to ask them for a
> statistical compliation of their disciplinary files. If this "borders on the
> obvious" to you Shalmon, then you must agree that institutes' refusal to
> comply borders on the illegal.
>

I said that what you were asking for was obviously token. The language of what 
you posted made NOTHING border on the clear. The petition isn't a threat - 
what you posted was a threat because you THREATENED to take UTNIF to court for 
failure to comply. The prohibition against murder isn't a 'threat' its a 
ethico-political pronouncement.... So why are all these people on Death Row?

I'm not interested in
> everyting in society, I'm interest in this social context, debate institutes
> and their responsibility to this community.

No you're not - you said this interested you because it was evidence of a 
larger phenomenon. I said that that larger phenomenon supercedes any potential 
change that your micro-inquiry could have...

>
> Shalmon: "How many parents of high school debaters do you know who would
> receive a little graph indicating that the institute kicked out (gasp!) 3
> students for smoking pot and would refuse to send their child to that camp?"
>
> kev: 3.
>

Really? I'm sure those people are rich enough to sustain the college programs 
that depend on institute revenues right? And those 3 people's curiosity 
justifies the massive expenditure of time and resources that your request 
would create for busy people with families, hobbies and lives?


> Shalmon: "If there was really a huge deluge of imprisoned pot smoking
> institute students, I'm pretty sure SOMEONE that isn't Sanchez would have
> told me about it."
>
> kev: Exactly. So why not release the records?

Because it can have no macropolitical effect and would be a collossal waste of 
time and would result in the disclosure of statistics with little meaning for 
anyone but (apparently) you.

>
> Shalmon: "Why are these statistics uniquely necessary to jumpstart public
> debate?"
>
> kev - 1: Shit, is my DA not-unique? Guess I'll just turn it into a critique
> then.
> kev - 2: Nothing else has really: why not try this?

Kritiks have to be unique also - the alternative is what creates uniqueness. 
Yours, by your own admission, doesn't change the world so it fails to generate 
U for your Imp. I think the burden of proof rests with you - since you have 
failed to produce a compelling argument for the disclosure of these records 
beyond references to vague notions of democracy and connections to a drug war 
these statistics will not effect.

Shalmon worries: "[H]ow much reaction do you expect from non-victims
> when the aggregate number of people is released?"
>
> kev: Well we just don't know, do we Shalmon? The question right now is: will
> we be given the chance to find out?

I provided severa llogical reasons why the reaction would be apathetic - can 
you provide counter-arguments or just paste different parts of what I said 
together so that they make me sound dumber?


> That's the question I'm asking: why do politically active people accept
> those imprisoned millions and those punished students? And my hunch is that
> its a combination of a lack of knowledge about what's going on and an
> apathetic feeling that nothing is going to change anyway. (Does your post
> indirectly defend these two things?) I don't think I'm completely misguided
> in suggesting that these two social processes are connected: perhaps because
> folks don't relate to 'criminals,' they also believe it when law officials
> tell them they must remain separate from 'criminals.' What I'm trying to
> confront is that nonchalant acceptance of coercion against scapegoats as
> 'just the way of things.'

People are complicit with the drug war either because they support its goals 
(the nerve!) or because they just don't care. Personally, I think that the 
contractual nature of this relationship means I care very little about this 
SPECIIFC manifestation of the drug war. You kind of ranted about why public 
opposition to the drug war would be good but didn't answer my question - why 
would a public that doesn't give a rat's ass about the millions of drug 
prisoners care about a post on edebate with a number?

> - What correctional operations cannot fake is statistics:

I strongly doubt that this is true - they can always lie, right? And who would 
know?? And perhaps the reason that they don't fake stats is that they are poor 
organizing principles for opposition - that's why Stalin liked them so much.


if UTNIF kicked
> out 10 folks in the past couple years, then they kicked out 10 folks. And
> we'll be able to see for what offenses, not just pot-smoking. And what does
> that mean? What will displaying this information do? That's up to the people
> who read it; I'm merely suggesting that sheding some light on the scope of
> the discipline problem will get folks thinking about what can be done to
> prevent discplinary abuses.

Logically false. Releasing the number of people in prison doesn't mean the 
guards won't beat the shit out of them.

I think the question 'What will this community
> tolerate?' is exactly what this community will have to wrestle with when
> these statistical records are published. And of course, of course, maybe I'm
> wrong.

I think it's relatively certain.

Hell, its been known to happen, hasn't it? But i still feel this is
> worth a shot. Now, do you, Shalmon?

No. Not really. But if you can hassle the institute directors into responding 
to you, you get down with your bad self and I hope you don't feel too crushed 
when the collective reaction to the number that gets posted is more righteous 
indignation from you and total silence from everyone else.

DS




From let_the_american_empire_burn  Sat Jun  1 22:11:39 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 22:11:39 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] k$
Message-ID: <F220EEBJNoEl4jksr6U0000934e@hotmail.com>

UT
______________________________
Full Room and Board / Commuter Rate
CX Plan I June 29th - July 16th $1199 / $899
CX Plan I Experienced Seminar June 28th - July 19th $1799 / $1499
CX Plan I Novice June 29th - July 16th $1099 / $799
CX Plan I Extension June 29 - July 19 $1599 / $1299
CX Plan II July 20th - August 8th $1599 / $1299
CX Plan II Novice July 20th - August 6th $1099 / $799
CX Extended Plan II July 16 - August 8 $1899 / $1599
CX SuperSession June 29th - August 8th $2899 / $2299
CX Supersession with Experienced Seminar June 28 - August 8 $2999 / $2399

_____________________________
Michigan
_____________________________
One price covers tuition, lab fees (evidence set), housing, all meals and a 
Capitol Classic T-shirt and bumper sticker  The Capitol Classic Champions 
Series - $2,295.
The Capitol Classic Champions Seniors Select - $2,795.
The Washington Group - $3,600.
_____________________________
Darmouth
_____________________________
The fee for the four week session is $3250.
_____________________________
Kentucky
_____________________________
Three Week Policy Institute
Tuition: $600 - Housing/Meals: $710 - Total $1,310

Two Week Policy Institute
Tuition $525 Housing/Meals $500 Total $1,025

One Week Policy Institute
Tuition $400 Housing/Meals $300 Total$700
_____________________________




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com




From jasonph  Sun Jun  2 01:21:06 2002
From: jasonph (Jason Hernandez)
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 02:21:06 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] k$
Message-ID: <782249701.1022984466@JASONPH>

You've mistakenly placed the Catholic Debate camp info  under the Michigan 
name. Please correct this, as Michigan is cheaper :-)

Jason



From doyle  Sat Jun  1 13:43:04 2002
From: doyle (Doyle Srader)
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 13:43:04 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] One more swing at the bulletin board proposal
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020601133817.009e4b40@pop3.norton.antivirus>

Jim Hanson wrote:

>if i understand the bulletin board approach, i don't support it.
>
>it means i have to pull up a browser or i imagine with some aspect of my
>email i am not familiar with, a separate section of my email.

Nope. Just an ordinary web browser. To read posts, you click on links. To 
post replies, you click "reply" and "submit" buttons. Nothing high tech. 
Easier to use on the road, actually, since no one needs to access their 
e-mail account to participate.

Below are a few UBB boards for your examination:

http://www.spinnoff.com/bb/index.php?c=4

http://www.torey-hayden.com/cgi-local/ultimatebb.cgi

Doyle Srader
Lecturer, Speech Communication
Stephen F. Austin State University
http://titan.sfasu.edu/~f_sraderdw/

"We hold dear what our Declaration of Independence says, that all have got 
uninalienable rights, endowed by a Creator."
  -- George W. Bush, to community and religious leaders in Moscow, May 24, 2002





From kerpen  Sun Jun  2 12:17:44 2002
From: kerpen (Phil Kerpen)
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 13:17:44 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] One more swing at the bulletin board proposal
Message-ID: <3CFA5338.2030106@ndtceda.com>

I think the more relevant example of a debate message boad is here:

http://www.cross-x.com/cgi/ubb/Ultimate.cgi




From dpogreba  Sun Jun  2 12:44:54 2002
From: dpogreba (Don Pogreba)
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 11:44:54 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] One more swing at the bulletin board proposal
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020601133817.009e4b40@pop3.norton.antivirus>
Message-ID: <OE18j4DENp7hY6r95wr0000422b@hotmail.com>

I'm a very retired member of the community, but I would be happy to set up
and host a board. I could have it up and running in a day or two, depending
on the time it takes to have the name registered. If someone else hasn't
already begun, I would be happy to give it a shot to see if people want to
add a discussion board to their communication options.

I have a new small board running for high school debaters at
http://www.bigskydebate.com/phpBB2/ This is close to what the site would
look like, with the option for customization, and a better looking graphic
at the top. ;)

If the site became used frequently, all I would ask for is some volunteers
to moderate some of the sections. PHPBB2 is an excellent, easy to use board.

I'd certainly be willing to set it up.

Thanks,
Don Pogreba

From: "Doyle Srader" <doyle at sfasu.edu>
To: <eDebate at ndtceda.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 12:43 PM
Subject: RE: [eDebate] One more swing at the bulletin board proposal


> Jim Hanson wrote:
>
> >if i understand the bulletin board approach, i don't support it.
> >
> >it means i have to pull up a browser or i imagine with some aspect of my
> >email i am not familiar with, a separate section of my email.
>
> Nope. Just an ordinary web browser. To read posts, you click on links. To
> post replies, you click "reply" and "submit" buttons. Nothing high tech.
> Easier to use on the road, actually, since no one needs to access their
> e-mail account to participate.
>
> Below are a few UBB boards for your examination:
>
> http://www.spinnoff.com/bb/index.php?c=4
>
> http://www.torey-hayden.com/cgi-local/ultimatebb.cgi
>
> Doyle Srader
> Lecturer, Speech Communication
> Stephen F. Austin State University
> http://titan.sfasu.edu/~f_sraderdw/
>
> "We hold dear what our Declaration of Independence says, that all have got
> uninalienable rights, endowed by a Creator."
>   -- George W. Bush, to community and religious leaders in Moscow, May 24,
2002
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>



From Wisdomnynaeve16  Sun Jun  2 13:32:20 2002
From: Wisdomnynaeve16 (Wisdomnynaeve16 at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 14:32:20 EDT
Subject: Fwd: [eDebate] One more swing at the bulletin board proposal
Message-ID: <f9.1d0a6807.2a2bbeb4@aol.com>

 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Wisdomnynaeve16 at aol.com
Subject: Re: [eDebate] One more swing at the bulletin board proposal
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 14:31:25 EDT
Size: 1630
Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020602/a2bf954e/attachment.mht 


From lexdevil  Sun Jun  2 13:36:52 2002
From: lexdevil (green lexy)
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 11:36:52 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Why do I love Dan Shalmon?
Message-ID: <412002602183652570@mindspring.com>

> - I'm not merely pro-legalizationist; I think its a right of every person
to 
> grow a plant, and then, if they wish, smoke that plant, especially if it 
> boosts their creative development in ways well-evidenced by many of the 
> beautiful art, songs, and fiction writing since De Quincey. Even a novice 
> debater is also a creator and thinker; so why are they punished for using
a 
> drug which many intelligent people feel promotes creative thought?

This is not why they are punished.  They are punished for putting the
security of the summer program and university at risk.  I think it's funny
that you believe that parents and debaters will be surprised and upset that
debaters are punished for smoking dope at camp.  They are, after all,
warned in detail about this possibility in the contracts that they sign
before camp.  

As a camp director, I have sent students home for a number of reasons,
including smoking in the dorms.  Interestingly, no parent has ever
protested my sending their child home for smoking dope.  In fact, the only
parent who has ever protested my sending his child home was the parent of a
boy who pulled a knife on his roomate and held it to the victim's throat. 
The parent felt that I had over-reacted, and that I failed to recognize
that his child was "just joking."  

Which, I suppose, might support your notion that there is demand for a camp
experience without discipline.  So go ahead and set one up.  I'm sure that
you'll attract a group of wonderful students and instructors, and you'll
make my job easier as well.  

Lexy    

  
p.s. > - Bill Hicks, for heaven's sake! Allen Ginsberg! George Washington,
even!

Boy, I'd never really considered George Washington as a "creative thinker"
before!  And as so many of my favorite musicians were junkies (the Velvet
Underground, Spacemen 3, Kurt Cobain, Iggy Pop...), and I've long hated
pot-head bands like the Grateful Dead and the Dave Matthews Band, I guess
I'll have to alter my disciplinary standards accordingly.  All in the name
of creativity, of course.







From hansonjb  Sun Jun  2 13:46:57 2002
From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson)
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 11:46:57 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] One more swing at the bulletin board proposal
In-Reply-To: <f9.1d0a6807.2a2bbeb4@aol.com>
Message-ID: <LOBBJBGKICPCCBKDJLIIEEBLFNAA.hansonjb@whitman.edu>

i agree with the message from britt.

i have no problem with web boards but they are not as convenient as an email
listserv. i check email much more frequently than i would a web and would
not like to have to open both a specific web page and my email.

jim hanson :)
whitman




From jackattack7  Sun Jun  2 17:33:00 2002
From: jackattack7 (jack stroube)
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 22:33:00 +0000
Subject: [eDebate] is it the self in adam lee that...
Message-ID: <LAW2-F21QHtMFaukyCK0000d401@hotmail.com>

MESSAGE REMOVED



From schizoliberation  Sun Jun  2 19:22:04 2002
From: schizoliberation (Schizo Liberation Front)
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 20:22:04 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] The ethics of Stroube
Message-ID: <F114ExSQmnIZjYrYuRZ00013732@hotmail.com>

1) please, demonstrate which career has been ruined.  who has lost their 
job?  or received flack from their admin?  who has lost rep?  we have asked 
at least three times.  hoe refuses to answer.

a) we did enter a joke grievance process with UT dabait but that was 
reciprocity plain and simple.  even still, you can't demonstrate that a 
career there has been ruined except ours.  you also forget that we chose not 
to confront UT dabait in court over libel, vehicular homicide corroborated 
to some degree by an angry marc wilson, and a number of other infractions 
that make sense if you are against UT double standards and believe in 
reciprocity once disciplinary mechanisms have been deployed.  wrong, hoe, we 
deliberately chose to NOT ruin people's careers while also not letting 
hypocrites off the hook all the way.  we have ethically chosen a middle path 
between criminal accountability and no reponsibility.  give us the true path 
that is better if you don't like the way we have chosen NOT to ruin people's 
careers.  if you drop this, we will continue to demand that you offer a 
superior path than what we have chosen.  we feel like you are deliberately 
mischaracterizing our strategy to protect UT dabait's image.

b) your right to not respond is a joke and arrogant.  you made the 
accusation before we "committed libel" against you.  you can't rely on the 
incident that came after your accusation.  you need to show how someone's 
career has been ruined or continue to promote bad dabaiting tricks like 
blanket statements with no evidence.  given your ongoing poor dabaiting on 
your statements, it is looking like you need to clarify/contextualize what 
you meant by "ruining people's careers" or retract the statement in light of 
the more elaborate argumentation against you.

2) if you continue to be incapable of demonstrating this then you are 
committing libel against the slf while you cowardly appeal to common sense.  
we have forwarded your statement onto our lawyers.  that was a joke.

3) given your inability so far to back up your claim and show one career 
that has been ruined, doesn't it make sense that we would "play the lunatic" 
part you are projecting onto us to at least give you some credibility on 
your libelous accusations to help you out?  the majority will never follow 
hoe but our friends are laughing at your literary incompetence.   when it 
comes to "ruining people's careers" is parody off-limits when you have been 
accused of such a thing?  did not the language used seem awfully parodic 
like "investigation into one joshua hoe"?  you being accused of something so 
off the charts to anybody that actually knew you?  what is your response to 
we parodied your accusation which had no specific examples and was bad 
dabait practice?  we played the part you gave us.

4) what are your thoughts on the possibility of UT debate committing libel 
against me to actually really ruin my dabait career in a certain kind of way 
given that's where i had put all of my energy?  do you need more discussion 
and information to evaluate?  or do you just blow it off?

5) "the ethics of hoe's vast overgeneralizing summations that avoid the 
issues he is being confronted with".  you should not have made reductios 
that our work solely consists of revenge on UT and ruining people's careers. 
  this was an asshole thing to do.  slf gives assholes what they ask for.  
there are some lines of course but they are fairly far out and flexible.  
dabait the issues.  stop copping out.  defend your statement w specific 
examples or retract.

slf


>From: <jbhdb8 at earthlink.com>
>Reply-To: jbhdb8 at earthlink.com
>To: Schizo Liberation Front <schizoliberation at hotmail.com>
>CC: edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: [eDebate] The ethics of Stroube
>Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 08:55:19 -0700
>
>My synopsis of the ethics discussion
>
>JBH:  Hey dude, it is unethical to in public ruin peoples reputations and 
>careers because you have an axe to grind.
>
>JS: Not true YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE WITH NO COURAGE dont you know the RUINING 
>tactic was deployed BRILLIANTLY by the Viscount Montrachere in the 1750 
>breaking of the treaty of ASSLICK.  The more I type in all CAPS the MORE 
>obviously brilliant I ma compared to that NO BRAIN HOE....I know this to be 
>the case because COUNT CHOCULA in the 1950 Movement to lower the price of 
>CHEESE argued so persuasively that CAPS = POWER.
>
>Look, maybe you could take a few seconds of reflexivity and realize you are 
>coming across like a total LUNATIC and chill out.  I actually think you are 
>a nice guy in our previous interactions but what is your deal?
>
>Josh
>
>On Thu, 30 May 2002 03:03:00 -0400 Schizo Liberation Front 
><schizoliberation at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>repost from 10-1-01.  you will find charges of paternalism and colonial
>etiquette.  the title was something like "re: ital max's mystery".  HOE 
>STOP
>BORING MORALIZING UNLESS YOU CAN ANSWER THIS ELABORATE AND SPECIFIC 
>SPECIFIC
>SPECIFIC DEFENSE OF ADHOM AND ALIENATION again from 10-1-01.  we will bet
>everything that you can not answer this in detail and that your anti-adhom
>morality is just a bunch of hot air that you can not defend.  HOE IS A
>SIMPLETON WHO HAS A HARD TIME WITH COMPLEX THOUGHTS.:
>
>"i am responding hardly to make an official public link between myself and
>max who i last saw at the leonard peltier rally in nyc (of course, 
>"liberal"
>clinton did not reverse the COINTELPRO terrorist madness which has
>politically neutralized Peltier).
>
>just as silly as thinking that an "enlightenment situation" on edebate 
>could
>have the best argument win and lead to enlightened decisionmaking is the
>idea that an activist left could organize on edebate nationally or even 
>that
>we should all deploy the same tactics and say the same thing. that's not
>what this about.
>
>i am not sure to what degree we would agree but OBVIOUSLY i don't think
>calls for civility are persuasive on an "adult" list-serv. rather, it seems
>a little paternalistic to protect the timid. arbitrary norms like civility
>are invested with power dynamics most blatant in colonialism. one can
>imagine as well a bunch of white businessman and foremen calling for more
>civilized discourse from refractory workers during the proto-COINTELPRO
>Palmer Raids of 1919 which brutally devastated the commie organizers.
>
>max's position that "communication is not everything and can even lead to a
>naive self-righteousness" rings well with the deleuze evidence previously
>cited on the need to "hijack speech" and "create vacuoles of
>noncommunication". what i am saying and sure it is a stretch is that max's
>arguments about edebate could easily be extended to the mass media as well
>especially the major television networks. it is not that odd that a
>continuous strain of bipartisanship has virtually always existed with
>regards to centralized corporate ownership of the airwaves with FCC
>regulation. grassroots work like max does with regards to vegetarianism and
>animal rights is not merely ideological and includes elements of seizing
>back public decision-making from expert policy-makers. rayburn ridiculously
>insists that anyone interested in communication media decentralization is
>trying to indoctrinate the public into an alternative to two-party rule and
>that expert think-tank rule is the democratic multiperspective path.
>
>in other words, max's view in my opinion portrays a reorientation of debate
>activism as it has been evolving. the goal of persuasion through discourse
>is left behind for a process that deploys argument in an array of tactics.
>again, i would like to make links between max's arguments and the foucault
>geneva 1981 quote on the occasion of organizing to rescue vietnamese
>boatpeople adrift on the open seas which claims that "lyrical indignation 
>is
>allowed by good governments". to argue that debate is insufficient is
>clearly not a blanket argument against debate which is an easy
>mischaracterization. my opponents have twisted arguments against the debate
>institution into arguments against the activity of debating. these pundits
>suffer from a nigh total void of imagination with regards to what debate
>could be and are stuck with thinking that debate could only exist within 
>the
>parameters of its current institutionalization within the competitive
>format. habermas has demonstrated through social research that debate has
>not always been commodified and institutionalized to this degree and anyone
>with a genealogical imagination can imagine that debate will not always 
>have
>to be so.
>
>evans and grove had a derrida "gift of death" argument that they were going
>to apply to the north korean food aid case that michigan state ran a few
>years ago. the idea is that food aid serves as a mechanism to assuage the
>moral conscience simultaneously obviating the need for further action. i
>have done my good deed for the day. the whole system which produces
>starvation is not addressed.
>
>this argument flips beautifully back on progressive debate activism.
>kritikers have been stuck sending food aid. i am shocked but not really
>given debate's conservative roots in the judicial and congressional 
>branches
>of government that there is not more suspicion within the kritik community
>that debate could become a form of social control with self-proclaimed
>leaders calling themselves "thought engineers" in the DRG handbook. the
>benjamin evidence on leftist germany preceding the fascist takeover
>indicated how a kritical revolution of attitudes did nothing to stop the
>rise of fascism. benjamin called outthe "kritikers" of his day with the
>slogan "Writers to the kolkhoz". examination must proceed to intellectual
>complicity with the capitalist mode of production. this example is most
>pertinent since the slogan benjamin highlights in his essay "Author as
>Producer" comes from Sergei Tretiakov, a russian formalist who deployed the
>alienation effect in his theater and actually taught brecht. in a situation
>where the left is hell-bent on the righteousness of their "protest speech
>acts"
>the need for alienation effect tactics becomes more apparent.
>
>the alienation effect itself comes from a speech model that sees persuasion
>and communication as components of capitalist media. the assumption,
>arugably one on which the debate institution rests, is that the audience 
>(or
>the judge) should be made to identify or embrace the "speech act" of the
>performer. we can see how grove and evans brought to the forefront a debate
>activism that relies on the performative utterance of narrative to win
>rounds and in their hearts swing over the hard-liners and fence-sitters to
>the good side of the K, the NDT watch is so mesmerizing. in my humble
>opinion, this tendency of debate activism which is more tolerable than
>approachs like burroughs' electronic revolution or schizo debate code
>scrambling serves conservatism through academic insularity that is now
>generous with all kinds of opportunistic food aid to whoever may be
>suffering under this
>year's resolution.
>
>back to the capitalist media seeks identification of audience with the work
>of art idea...this is most evident in hollywood cinema hell-bent on
>box-office sales. benjamin saw film as particularly dangerous due its
>technological capacity to overwhelm the audience. the speed of film leaves
>little room for critical self-reflection. likewise the kritik arguments
>which have been adapted to the rapid-fire policy approach offer little room
>for critical self-reflection. kritik theory has become rigidified
>facilitating the rapid-fire delivery, performer and audience rely on
>precedent. what we need
>are gaps, new forms of juxtaposition which throw thinking out of the 
>present
>critical ruts into which it has been coopted. rapid fire delivery relies on
>identification at some level otherwise you lose automatically and get 10
>speaker points.
>
>the alienation effect was in full force during the early days of the kritik
>and threatened to "destroy debate". all kinds of efforts were made to
>exculpate the disease most notably the "wrong forum" argument. today the
>kritik has been watered down into something completely malleable with the
>competitive format and in its maturity is becoming less and less innovative
>as its proponents are suckered into the capitalist traps of high-profile
>fame and expertise which the russian formalists and benjamin attacked.
>
>retrospectively we can see how the dartmouth institute connection and other
>links with the debate establishment fed cooption of the critique including
>the lack of self-reflexive mechanisms within the critique community and the
>stalling of critical theory at blockage points like the
>enlightenment/anti-enlightenment blackmail promoted by shanahack. very
>fewpeople broke through the shanahack intimidation to question or pry into
>the possibility that subtle mechanisms of control may be lurking behind his
>kritical strategies. instead the kritik crusade stumbled on to promote
>tolerance within the competitive format with more and more people opening 
>up
>to the kritik from their previous policy biases.
>
>in conclusion, i find most tactical the idea that jumping from resolution 
>to
>resolution with new critical narrative affirmatives like good little
>foucauldian UNIVERSAL intellectuals screaming MICROPOLITICS is potentially 
>a
>diversion measure which stifles micropolitical activism within the
>community. suppose, kritikers, that the spanos "indissolvable relay of
>forces" argument extends all the way to debate, all the way to the kritik
>even. would we not be fooling ourselves to think otherwise and insulate
>debate and the kritik from such inquiries? would we not need a little more
>hyper-pessimism in our activism? is not the current progressive debate
>activism movement dangerous?
>
>the current trend has excluded from possibility INTERNAL DEBATE SOCIAL
>MOVEMENTS AGAINST DEBATE INSTITUTIONALIZATION AND COMMODIFICATION. the nice
>guy approach of persuasion over to the kritik side has failed. tournament
>debate forms an indissolvable relay with anti-democratic mass media
>centralization most notably as training for think-tank employment and other
>PR spinmaster roles. multi-perspectivalism which allows lyrical indignation
>is a cooption trap. the power invested in the debate institution throws to
>the wayside any ideals about persuasion and multiple viewpoints and keeps
>the status quo going. the dabait institution should be smashed along with
>the rest of the "multiperspectival" mass media. the age of preparatory
>pedagogy must end or the experts will lead the planet into total oblivion.
>
>
>atatsck
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
>http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
>http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.




From kerpen  Sun Jun  2 16:37:44 2002
From: kerpen (Phil Kerpen)
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 17:37:44 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [eDebate] More Downtime Coming
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0206021737270.1493-100000@www.cross-x.com>

Ugh.  Another hard drive failure on the *new* machine so I'm moving
everything to another new server tonight, this time with a SCSI drive. 
  
Any posts you send tonight may be lost; be sure you keep a copy.  I will  
be working on this until everything is up and work--hope it will be by    
morning--will post then.
  
Sorry.
  
------------------------
Phil Kerpen
Cell: 202.285.9714 // Fax and Voicemail: 202.478.0343




From kerpen  Mon Jun  3 04:51:04 2002
From: kerpen (Phil Kerpen)
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 05:51:04 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] eDebate is back up
Message-ID: <3CFB3C08.3000104@ndtceda.com>

Sorry for last night's downtime.

Believe it or not, the *brand new* hard drive in the new server we just 
moved to failed already.  Yes, 2 hard drive failures in two weeks.  I 
convinced my hosting provider that after that they owed me an upgrade to 
something more reliable, and my server is now running on two brand new 
Seagate 18GB SCSI drives.  I'm reasonably confident we won't have any 
more disk problems.




From kerpen  Mon Jun  3 05:12:57 2002
From: kerpen (Phil Kerpen)
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 06:12:57 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] eDebate is back up
Message-ID: <3CFB4129.10706@ndtceda.com>

Sorry for last night's downtime.

Believe it or not, the *brand new* hard drive in the new server we just
moved to failed already.  Yes, 2 hard drive failures in two weeks.  I
convinced my hosting provider that after that they owed me an upgrade to
something more reliable, and my server is now running on two brand new
Seagate 18GB SCSI drives.  I'm reasonably confident we won't have any
more disk problems.





From kerpen  Mon Jun  3 05:22:51 2002
From: kerpen (Phil Kerpen)
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 06:22:51 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] eDebate is back up
Message-ID: <3CFB437B.7000106@ndtceda.com>

Sorry for last night's downtime.

Believe it or not, the *brand new* hard drive in the new server we just
moved to failed already.  Yes, 2 hard drive failures in two weeks.  I
convinced my hosting provider that after that they owed me an upgrade to
something more reliable, and my server is now running on two brand new
Seagate 18GB SCSI drives.  I'm reasonably confident we won't have any
more disk problems.





From doyle  Sun Jun  2 17:43:50 2002
From: doyle (Doyle Srader)
Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 17:43:50 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] <no subject>
Message-ID: <200206021744368.SM00446@[209.39.210.210]>

The sole proprietor of the West Coast Debate website and the jam-packed 
Whitman Speech and Debate page doesn't like using a browser? Somehow, I balk
at believing that.

There is no meaningful difference in effort or practice between an e-mail
service and a web board service. You leave your e-mail open all the time and
just look at messages as they come in? Leave a browser window open to the
board all the time, and periodically click "refresh." Threads with new posts
will show up as cool little illuminated light bulbs (or some other prominent
graphic). If clicking "refresh" a few times a day gives you carpal tunnel
syndrome, let me know and I'll personally pay for your surgery. Besides, the
effort would be offset by not having to mass-delete, or else reprogram your
e-mail filter every time certain crackpots got a new e-mail address. Just
follow the threads that interest you.

If you use Hotmail, Yahoo, or any other web-based e-mail, then it literally
is no different. Click some links. Periodically click refresh. Some hacks of
UBB boards actually auto-refresh every couple of minutes (or whatever the
user preference is), making them literally indistinguishable from Outlook or
whatever.

This is far less important to me than my continued participation in this may
indicate. I just am not understanding the objection "Web bad, e-mail good."

Doyle Srader
Lecturer, Speech Communication
Stephen F. Austin State University
http://titan.sfasu.edu/~f_sraderdw/

"We've tripled the amount of money ? I believe it's from $50 million up to
$195 million available."
 -- George W. Bush, Lima, Peru, March 23, 2002



From govnt_man  Mon Jun  3 07:29:22 2002
From: govnt_man (The Drake)
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 08:29:22 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] List Alternatives
Message-ID: <F12420S7EzrucMjDWjp0000230f@hotmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020603/21c20518/attachment.html 


From sykesjason  Mon Jun  3 09:36:54 2002
From: sykesjason (Jason Sykes)
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 09:36:54 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] mr robert thomas
Message-ID: <001201c20b0c$1b98b160$66d0a942@dntn.tx.charter.com>

*sorry for the wasted bandwidth*

if you are mr robert thomas or have email contact for him, please backchannel.

thanks!
jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020603/51d62d64/attachment.htm 


From kendog_3  Mon Jun  3 10:59:15 2002
From: kendog_3 (kenny hanson)
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 11:59:15 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Looking for Mike Berry
Message-ID: <OE5734xOjIL2jpWkfb800009122@hotmail.com>

  
 Mike,
Could you please email me when you have a chance.

Thanks,
Kenny HansonGet 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/20020603/8c74b37a/attachment.html 


From Pacedebate  Mon Jun  3 11:20:33 2002
From: Pacedebate (Pacedebate at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 12:20:33 EDT
Subject: [eDebate] Re: bulletin board
Message-ID: <24.26563995.2a2cf151@aol.com>

In a message dated 6/3/2002 5:44:01 AM Central Daylight Time, 
doyle at netdot.com writes:


> If you use Hotmail, Yahoo, or any other web-based e-mail, then it literally
> is no different. Click some links. Periodically click refresh. Some hacks 
> of
> UBB boards actually auto-refresh every couple of minutes (or whatever the
> user preference is), making them literally indistinguishable from Outlook 
> or
> whatever.

Can the web boards be downloaded in some manner? One thing I do occassionally 
is download all of my email and then read it on a flight or some other place 
where I wouldn't have an internet connection. I often do this after a 
tournament when my email tends to pile up. I like to download it the morning 
after a tournament or late on elim night and read it on the plane flight 
home.

Tim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020603/d6b0cfc6/attachment.htm 


From privethedge  Mon Jun  3 12:10:48 2002
From: privethedge (Duane Hyland)
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 10:10:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] A thought On DIG/Evidence
Message-ID: <20020603171048.96804.qmail@web10007.mail.yahoo.com>


Hi, Just a thought, and I imagine there's an answer. It seems to me that a lot of institutes have rules that ban those who did not attend the institute from purchasing, from the Institute, the evidence produced there. Where I can see that this is a fairness issue, I suppose - that only the kids who paid the full price of the evidence, and who produced the evidence, benefit from the evidence. I'm wondering if certain parts of the evidence could be released for sale to benefit those students who simply cannot, under any imaginable circumstance, afford to attend the institute, or who, do to outside factors, cannot attend any institute? If this were so, if it were possible to get the evidence, it would raise money for the program, and raise the quality of debate. Just a thought.

Duane


"Very bored in Barad-Dur. Nothing to do but play Scrabble with Orcs. Is very annoying as Orcs only know Black Speech of Mordor. You try spelling Azg Nazg Gimbatul for a triple word score. Yeah, I didn't think so."  Secret Diary of the 5th Wring Wraith - LOTR
"Have agreed to carry Ring to Mordor. In hindsight, probably a bad move." - Frodo's Diary - LOTR



 


 



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020603/70add7a4/attachment.html 


From Pacedebate  Mon Jun  3 14:24:53 2002
From: Pacedebate (Pacedebate at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 15:24:53 EDT
Subject: [eDebate] Las Vegas Round Robin
Message-ID: <e.1fd54c52.2a2d1c85@aol.com>

Just a reminder that applications are due to me by June 21. If you have any 
questions and/or need more info just drop me an email.

Thanks,

Tim



From schizoliberation  Mon Jun  3 16:34:35 2002
From: schizoliberation (Schizo Liberation Front)
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 17:34:35 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] is it the self in adam lee that...
Message-ID: <F236en9BTZCHOMmPb1T00013669@hotmail.com>

so breshears was not disciplined last summer for his "relations" with you at 
wake forest in 1998 in the hotel room.  i believe eric jenkins was staying 
in the room and walked in.  i believe ingrid mason later got pissed off 
about the extra-marital affair when she was informed by michelle gagda-kuswa 
as i was.  i contend that you are lying in a PR campaign to selectively 
protect personnel.  you made no such defense when i was fired and you keep 
spreading gossip like "i was not qualified for the job" despite the FACT 
that i got a letter in the mail confirming my 1/4 time position as a 
graduate assistant.  FUCK YOU.  double-standards are no good, squiz.  when 
the disciplinary machine is catalyzed sometimes it backfires on the 
disciplinarians.   keep sitting the fence like a coward while PURE, PERFECT 
AND GREAT ROLLINS AND BRESHEARS HYPOCRITICALLY SELECTIVELY DISCIPLINE PEOPLE 
LIKE ME AND STUDENTS.  good job pam.  you get an A in civil obedience.  what 
a "kritical" program you got at texas.

slf


>From: Squiz at aol.com
>To: jackattack7 at hotmail.com ("jack stroube"), edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: Re: [eDebate] is it the self in adam lee that...
>Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 20:32:48 -0400
>
>It's not about remembering conversations you have with other people in 
>other places: it's about calling you out for lying about my personal life 
>and advancing untrue gossip.  Here's a little tidbit of information: there 
>can be no "threat to the existance of the program for harassment suits" if 
>there was no harassment.  And I don't know what all of this "we" business 
>is all about.  You're all alone in your obsession with not being qualified 
>enough to get a fucking job.
>
>Pam
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
>http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.




From gavrilprincip  Mon Jun  3 16:37:29 2002
From: gavrilprincip (gavrilprincip)
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 21:37:29 GMT
Subject: [eDebate] Small handbook publishers, you are the next target....
Message-ID: <3cfbe199.386.1804289383@subdimension.com>

of planet debate.

Dallas perkins has put a great deal of investment into a
project that i bet will seriously hamper many of your bottom
lines.

If you havent had a chance yet check out the site
www.planetdebate.com

It seems pretty logical that the success of planet debate
will not cut into the profit margins of any of the
participating books, but it will undemine the services many
of you put together on a shoe string activist budget.

Also it seems likely that the first thing to dry up is your
ability to subsidize your students, which means in order to
save costs yet still be able to help out the kids that buy
your books you will need to do all the work yourself and
your coaches and teams will need external jobs.

Some may call this fair competition but i call it old
alcohol money allowing dallas to invest enough to put you
all out of business, In fact it seems like between the DiG,
www.phallusjerkins.com, BSD, and Planet debate, your market
share is quickly going to be destroyed.

Reconfigure now or go out of business within 5 years.

I've included a link
http://www.irs.gov/exempt/charitable/display/0,,i1=3&i2=18&g
enericId=6857,00.html


Gavril
_____________________________________________________________________
// free anonymous email || forums \\ subZINE || anonymous browsing 
            subDIMENSION -- http://www.subdimension.com



From schizoliberation  Mon Jun  3 16:38:53 2002
From: schizoliberation (Schizo Liberation Front)
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 17:38:53 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] www.phallusjerkins.com free updates
Message-ID: <F166Mjo6O8x8zsUlKCi00014810@hotmail.com>

www.phallusjerkins.com free updates

Operation Chapta 7 has become more clearly defined.  We have reached an 
agreement with an anonymous web-server in India to host 
www.phallusjerkins.com.  Given the gaping loopholes in international 
internet law particularly regarding extradition to the imperial United 
States embroiled on the wrong side of the Mideast conflict, at this point we 
will be able to scan in handbook evidence directly WITHOUT changing 
"original" taglines or citations.  We realize that we could avoid ?piracy 
charges? if we chose to retag and recite, but given the arrogance and 
conspiracy of silence of the major dabait corporations, we prefer to add 
insult to injury and throw a thumb in their face.  We will exploit 
weaknesses in international internet law to simplify the process of 
providing our public service of free and open access to debate information.

Operation Chapta 7 has changed course for the better.  At this point, we 
will only choose to target the MAJOR handbook companies which to our 
knowledge are OneParadigm and Planet Debate post-mergers and consolidation.  
Smaller handbook companies like Big Sky and the Thumbook will not be 
targeted and, hence, will not be scanned into www.phallusjerkins.com.  We 
appreciate the resistance that they have mounted to our ?extremism? and 
their public arguments on behalf of the less sinister effects of the smaller 
companies.  However, we would like to negotiate with them concerning 
mid-season release of their materials to generate the mega-file.  
Potentially, this is a midway point that allows them to stay in business 
and, at the same time, promote the free access that they have, in many 
cases, publicly affirmed on edebate.

We will scan the MAJOR high school institute evidence sets into 
www.phallusjerkins.com.  Already they claim to not make a profit on evidence 
sales in order to avoid our critiques, so then why do they not make the 
information available on the internet and save the time and energy expended 
to make ?hardcopies? onto paper while expanding the reach of their ?at-cost? 
production and saving trees?  We encourage all of the institutes to steal 
our thunder and create their own public web-sites with free access to their 
summer institute files or to work with either the DIG and/or the slf.  If 
you have any suggestions for which handbook companies and which institute 
evidence sets should be reproduced for public access, let us know.  We will 
listen to your arguments and not cowardly hide in private.

Already we have orchestrated a coup d??tat.  Paul Bellus, arguably the most 
successful coach in competitive debate history being the sole coach of both 
the high school and collegiate championship teams, of the University of Iowa 
has decided to GIVE all of their pre-institute work.  I am sure that you 
have heard of the ?domino theory?. This will be a tremendous resource for 
students who cannot afford to go to camp.  They will be able to get a 
head-start.  This will be a tremendous resource for other debate camps and 
the beginning of a cross-pollenization of institute research so that summer 
sharing catches fever and institutes begin to work together in ways that 
they never have before.  We hope that critical thinking will surpass 
?secret? evidence production this summer in priority.  The interesting thing 
is that Mr. Bellus is of more ?conservative suasion? but that does not 
really matter in a free access debate movement to decentralize public 
decision-making more into the hands of the people.  We cannot thank Paul 
enough for keeping his ears open to our arguments about free access.  
www.phallusjerkins.com welcomes Paul Bellus and the University of Iowa to 
our circus cyber-space.

Free access is unstoppable.  Soon, you will have no choice but to join the 
movement in the name of the free and open discussion principles that debate 
is supposedly based upon.  Thank you and goodnight.

slf

PS. We apologize for leaving our cite empty during this transitionary 
period, but later tonight you will input the 1995 Sherry Hall ?censorship 
ballot? where she crosses-out the word ?better? in the phrase ?the better 
debating was done by Trinity? and changes it to ?the ONLY debating was done 
by Trinity?.  Mr. Kern and Mr. Stroube at the time debating for the 
University of Texas were directly effected by this erasure.  Kern and 
Stroube were happy to have created a new form of affirmative debating that 
Hall was incapable of grasping at the time but pissed off at the egregious 
intimidation tactics deployed by a representative of elite Harvard Debate 
including the attribution of 18 speaker points to Kern and 10 points to 
Stroube in round 2. You reap what you sow, cowards you know.

Can someone please forward this onto the high-school list?  We are in the 
process of subscribing.




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com




From schizoliberation  Mon Jun  3 16:56:32 2002
From: schizoliberation (Schizo Liberation Front)
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 17:56:32 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] little emendation
Message-ID: <F2581ViK9sA4eXtp2Pd000136ab@hotmail.com>

in the PS, "We apologize for leaving our cite empty during this 
transitionary period, but later tonight you will input the 1995 Sherry Hall 
?censorship ballot? where she crosses-out the word ?better? in the phrase 
?the better debating was done by Trinity? and changes it to ?the ONLY 
debating was done by Trinity?" should read "but later tonight WE will 
input"...

thank you we are working on our editing.

slf


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com




From gavrilprincip  Mon Jun  3 17:29:52 2002
From: gavrilprincip (gavrilprincip)
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 22:29:52 GMT
Subject: [eDebate] 35, 000 dollars, is that about right dallas?
Message-ID: <3cfbede0.14aa.1804289383@subdimension.com>

Sources inside the planet debate inner circle reveal that
the investment at this point is about 35,000 dollars.

This means one of two things for small handbook publishers,
dallas will pressure you to sell out to his dirty alcohol
money or he will put you out of business by directing his
crack team of researchers to reproduce the arguments in your
books for his website.

or

You are not signifigant enough to appear on dallas
legitimate competition(though your books are probably much
more thoughtfully and thourgholy prepared) radar screen and
he is ignoring you, but do you think he is spending 35,000
dollars to just compete or do you think that he wants market
dominance.

The question is this, what are you going to do to protect
your valuble business?

Can you compete with someone who can invest 35,000 to put
you out of business?

Dallas gates should come on and dispell these myths if our
reporting is wrong

work now to reconfigure or suffer under the crusing imperial
grip of archduke perkins

Gavril princip
assassin
_____________________________________________________________________
// free anonymous email || forums \\ subZINE || anonymous browsing 
            subDIMENSION -- http://www.subdimension.com



From jmartin  Mon Jun  3 17:50:17 2002
From: jmartin (Josh Martin)
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 15:50:17 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] New LPW
Message-ID: <292480-22002613225017531@newwavebriefs.com>

This week's Low Point Win is up at:
www.newwavebriefs.com/lowpointwin/lpw.html

Items of note:

-In response to last week's poll question "Who would you want giving your
1AR" there was a tie for the winner. Both Busta Rhymes and The Micro
Machines Guy had 25% of the vote -- about 90 votes each -- proving that
speed is a valued commodity. Britney Spears was a close third with 23%. I'm
not sure what that means. Explore for yourselves. Vladmir Putin lead the
losers.

-I'm aiming to release new editions on Tuesdays, as once the fall starts it
wont be feasible to do on Sundays, just so Fritch knows. :)

-Jason Hernandez -- I acidentally deleted your email, send it again please?

-As always, thanks to the staff. Still looking for more contributors, again
as always. If you got something funny then email it to me.

-You can now get LPW shirts and stuff. Is that cool or what?

-Anyone know how to subscribe to the cx-l? I swear I've looked all over the
web and can't find any current info.

-About the whole listserve thing. I'm not sure you have to switch to
moderators or anything. Reading it on the web works great -- I dont worry
about my in-box exploding when I'm away for a while and I can pick and
chose what to read, no worry about deleting something I didn't mean to,
which I do a lot. Just change your options to not deliver mail to you and
you can still post. Kerp does a tight job. No doubt. 

Um, that's it. See you next week.
Josh Martin




From gavrilprincip  Mon Jun  3 18:37:18 2002
From: gavrilprincip (gavrilprincip)
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 23:37:18 GMT
Subject: [eDebate] planet debate and denial of service attacks
Message-ID: <3cfbfdae.2ee2.1804289383@subdimension.com>

A report from the underground-

Whispers from the underground say that planet debate may
come under rolling denial of service attacks, from the talk
it sounds like the intent is to make service from ther
server unreliable enough at the begining of the season and
close to important tournaments that users demand their money
back, seems like folks are multiplying the startegies for
resisting planet debate hegemony,  the question is two fold?

1)What are you going to do in the name of escaping planet
debate alcohol money?

2)What is planet debate going to have spend on security?

Gavril
_____________________________________________________________________
// free anonymous email || forums \\ subZINE || anonymous browsing 
            subDIMENSION -- http://www.subdimension.com



From hwestrom  Mon Jun  3 19:25:42 2002
From: hwestrom (Heather Westrom)
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 20:25:42 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE
Message-ID: <LAW2-F95XFs6iIio20J0000db39@hotmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020603/a68a5212/attachment.htm 


From wishfull  Mon Jun  3 19:26:35 2002
From: wishfull (Michael Roston )
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 20:26:35 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] New LPW
Message-ID: <EMCGCHJNHAGHKAAA@shared1-mail.whowhere.com>

>>>
-In response to last week's poll question "Who would you want giving your 
1AR" there was a tie for the winner. Both Busta Rhymes and The Micro 
Machines Guy had 25% of the vote -- about 90 votes each -- proving that 
speed is a valued commodity. Britney Spears was a close third with 23%. I'm 
not sure what that means. Explore for yourselves. Vladmir Putin lead the 
losers. 
>>>

dood, Pootie-poot was *way* under-rated.  ya'll better watch out.


---
Michael Roston
-enemy of freedom

"At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."
                    -President Richard Nixon, May 18, 1971



Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com



From dbteam  Mon Jun  3 21:49:22 2002
From: dbteam (UWG Debate Team)
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 22:49:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [eDebate] PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE
In-Reply-To: <LAW2-F95XFs6iIio20J0000db39@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0206032247520.5509-100000@astro1.westga.edu>

you can check out anytime you'd like, but you can never leave...


welcome to the Hotel Perfornication...


Bob Terwilliger





On Mon, 3 Jun 2002, Heather Westrom wrote:

>
> This is the third time that I have tried to unsubscribe!!   If I am doing
> this incorrectly, please let me know so that I can fix this!!!
>
> All My Best,
>
> [emlove.gif]  Heather
>
> ________________________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: Click Here
> _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber
> list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>




From gavrilprincip  Tue Jun  4 00:32:28 2002
From: gavrilprincip (gavrilprincip)
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 05:32:28 GMT
Subject: [eDebate] Small publishers AND STUDENTS WHO WORK FOR THEM...(GREEDY MONOPOLISTS FROM CAMBRIDGE NEED NOT READ)
Message-ID: <3cfc50ec.95e.1804289383@subdimension.com>

YOU MAY NOT AGREE WITH THE TACTICS OF THE DEBATE UNDERGROUND
BUT YOU MUST RECOGNIZE THE INFORMATION WE BRING...

pLANET DEBATE AIMS AT MARKET DOMINANCE.

nO ONE WILL DOUBT THAT.

BUT THE QUESTION YOU MUST BE ASKING YOURSELF IS WHY DO YOU
PUBLISH YOUR HANDBOOK? IS IT SO THE STUDENTS CAN HAVE YOUR
MATERIALS, AND YOU CAN DEFRAY THE COSTS OF PUBLISHING SAID
MATERIALS?

IS IT TO GIVE YOUR STUDENTS JOBS SO THEY DONT HAVE TO WORK
OFFCAMPUS?

DALLAS PERKINS DOESNT CARE ABOUT A LICK OF THIS AND WANTS TO
SPREAD THE POWER OF HIS SIGNIFICANT WEALTH EARNED FROM
CORRUPT AND DISGUSTING ENTERPRISES (HOW MANY OF YOU GREW UP
WITH AN ALCOHOLIC, DALLAS WAS LIVIN LARGE OFF OF YOUR
BEATINGS, ABUSE, SADNESS, AND TORTURE)SOLELY IN ORDER TO PUT
YOU OUT OF BUSINESS.

DALLAS AND HIS PLANET DEBATE MINIONS WILL NO DOUBT SPIN SOMe
STORY ABOUT WHY COMPETITION IS OK IN A CAPITALIST SOCIETY,
AND JUST BECAUSE THEY SPEND SO MUCH MONEY DOESN'T MEAN THEY
ARE BAD FOLKS. i CALL BULLSHIT ON YOU AND ALL OF YOUR DIRTY
MONEY DALLAS HURTKIDS, YOU WONT REACH OUT , YOU WILL
CONTINUE YOUR ELITE POSTURINGS AND YOU WILL RAISE YOUR
PRICES WALMART STYLE AFTER THE MARKET IS WEENED.

THUS THIS LETTER IS A PETITION:
iF YOU BELIEVE THAT DALLAS PERKINS SHOULD GIVE EVEN A
PORTION OF THE MONEY HE HAS GIVEN TO PLANET DEBATE TOWARD
THE BOSTON URBAN DEBATE LEAGUE  THEN FORWAD THIS EMAIL BACK
TO EDEBATE WITH YOUR SIGNATURE ATTACHED.

gAVRIL PRINCIP
dB8UNDRgRND
_____________________________________________________________________
// free anonymous email || forums \\ subZINE || anonymous browsing 
            subDIMENSION -- http://www.subdimension.com



From gavrilprincip  Tue Jun  4 00:52:28 2002
From: gavrilprincip (gavrilprincip)
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 05:52:28 GMT
Subject: [eDebate] lookin for spies
Message-ID: <3cfc559c.c70.1804289383@subdimension.com>

If you have some knowledge about Planet Debate and its
market domination startegies and you would like the chance
to voice those issues but fear for your carrer as the empire
lines itself up, give me the info and i'll report on it.
I'll protect you as a nameless source. It is my belief that
many of you wish you could spill the beans but fear for your
job (with planet debate?), so pass the info my way and i
will can be your voice. mmmkay?

gavril princip
_____________________________________________________________________
// free anonymous email || forums \\ subZINE || anonymous browsing 
            subDIMENSION -- http://www.subdimension.com



From schizoliberation  Tue Jun  4 03:09:33 2002
From: schizoliberation (Schizo Liberation Front)
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 04:09:33 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] slf retreats from edebate...
Message-ID: <F1461oeVspXyuxN0Gpf0001519c@hotmail.com>

for now.  our next post will simply be an announcement of material scanned 
into our web-site that will be hosted in India.  we will cease all 
ad-hominem and extreme parody tactics despite our views on their 
"legitimacy".  return to situation normal, perhaps.

we will for now move our activities to other sites.  www.phallusjerkins.com 
and the DIG site.  as editors of the "parhessia" (free speech) section of 
the DIG site, we are currently working on a think-tank documentary proposal 
that will involve students in an experimental documentary film project to 
probe the boundaries of critical thinking about democracy.  primary 
research, i.e. digging up dirt and whatever else can be found about 
think-tanks, will be the focus of the early stages.  we have acceptance from 
Dan Kern, former Texas debater and cinematographer of the newly released 
Devil's Playground documentary on Amish adolescent deviants, to bring his 
specific cinematic knowledge to the table and make this project happen.  we 
refuse to teach critical theory in a vacuum.  we want to show how new forms 
of expression can be produced by forms of organization not bound to the 
hierarchical structures of competitive debate that normalize through the 
WIN-LOSS.  anyone interested in the project need only contact us @ 
schizoliberation at hotmail.com.  we will post to the high school list as soon 
as the proposal reaches the point of more specific definition.

despite all of the flack, we appreciate the community's willingness to allow 
us to voice our opinions and hope that free speech will always nullify calls 
for various forms of censorship like the dubious ones proposed by tuna at 
vermont.  it has been a privilege and an honor...

slf



_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com




From dig  Mon Jun  3 20:48:29 2002
From: dig (Debate Information Group)
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 21:48:29 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] DiG Pilots (you might call them editors)
Message-ID: <200206040148.g541mTS05684@cross-x.com>

Hello as the DiG evolves we will need people who are willing to take a guidnace role over various sections.

The pilots will set the direction and course of the project they take on and we will work out agreements about how to forward material

the pilots will also be  partialy responsible for calling for and compiling submissions, for now i will do the web work, but when i get my own server the pilots will have password access to their section of the site.

The DiG is excited to note the announcement of Jack Stroube as the pilot of parrhessia, I'm sure he will do excellent work exploring the role of free speech in true democracy. Please contact Jack if you would like to explore this idea further. This is the First of many DiG projects which does not focus solely on preparation for competive debate, but instead on using debating skills to address the world outside the moving train.

Next week we will be announcing Pilots for the 
Teacher Resource Network
and 
Black Book.

We are currently seeking folks to take this role with the 
Activist Research Center
&
Critical Debate Studies.

If you are interested in working with either of these sections let me know.

I'll announce the pilots of these sections on June 15th, so talk to me soon if you are interested.

Andy
DiG



From let_the_american_empire_burn  Tue Jun  4 06:12:51 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 06:12:51 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Disclosing in on Discipline - Response to Lexy (and an update on me project)
Message-ID: <F136O1Rxevg9gn3ihiX0000c17c@hotmail.com>

lexy writes: "[Pot-smoking debaters] are punished for putting the
security of the summer program and university at risk."

i'm trying to place that claim, that these security measures are necessary 
to fuctional programs, under some scrutiny, and to counter-balance the 
conventional risks with new ones: lawsuits, protests, boycotts, etc - but 
that's just my personal opinion. you certainly don't have to agree with my 
whack beliefs to agree that public documentation of disciplinary records is 
a good idea.

lexy: "I think it's funny that you believe that parents and debaters will be 
surprised and upset that debaters are punished for smoking dope at camp. 
They are, after all, warned in detail about this possibility in the 
contracts that they sign before camp. As a camp director, I have sent 
students home for a number of reasons, including smoking in the dorms. 
Interestingly, no parent has ever protested my sending their child home for 
smoking dope."

under normal circumstances, a parent is only aware of one student being 
punished, that is, their child (and perhaps some cohorts). this fuctions to 
exonerate institutional authority by assigning blame completely on the 
individual 'criminal.' instead of simply claiming that personal actions are 
the whole of 'the discipline problem,' i intend to problematize 
institutional practices as well. if we can understand 'discipline' as an 
issue of collective responsibility, then perhaps we can widen the framework 
of discussion, and conceptualize new ways of critical thinking&acting on the 
matter at hand. perhaps if parents knew the percentage of students punished 
at institutes, and the exact risk of their child being kicked out, then 
their concern might be greater. i gotta ask you though - as a camp director, 
do you have a problem with sending disciplinary records to cx-l and 
e-debate?

lexy: "Which, I suppose, might support your notion that there is demand for 
a camp experience without discipline. So go ahead and set one up. I'm sure 
that you'll attract a group of wonderful students and instructors, and 
you'll make my job easier as well."

i'm homeless and poor, so i doubt i can lighten your load at the present 
time. yet due to the existence of sales tax (and that my parents paid their 
taxes on time since they've been financially indepedent), institutes 
operating under the state university system (in texas at least) already have 
set up camps under my name and with my money. so if a camp uses public funds 
(or uses the auspices of state-funded educational programs), then its 
legally obligated to supply my broke ass with whatever public documents i 
desire, from budgets to e-mails to disciplinary records. if institutes claim 
they have no choice but to follow the law, that's fine ... then they have no 
choice but to submit to open records laws as well.

i don't believe there's any such entity as a 'rule-less society' or "a camp 
without discipline." this is why critics of authority will never be out of a 
job and have no excuse for laziness. in foucault's terms, an impatience for 
liberty necessarily entails a hyper-activism. what's crucial is to 
constantly question discipline, to understand its fuctioning and be willing 
to counter its abuses when necessary, by whatever means necessary (even, as 
crazy as it sounds coming out of my mouth, legal means).

(sadly, i don't have time to respond to shalmon's post, but i think we 
understand each other's positions well enough now - i don't think its just 
an issue of 'pot-smoking' though. i don't even have the slightest idea what 
some students and teachers get punished for, hence my curiousity.)

for an update, i shortly intend to request disciplinary records from the 4 
leading debate camps (at UT, at UMich, at Dartmouth, at Kentucky), quoting 
the specific clauses of the open records laws of their various states as 
pertinent. Not that asking for disciplinary records from state universities 
is a new thing at all - there's precedents up the wahzoo. but some institute 
directors, not mentioning anyone's name here (COUGH-rollins-COUGH), seem to 
think that ignoring the issue will make it go away, when unfortunately it 
only makes them in violation of the law. (as any cop will tell ya, ignorance 
of the law does not excuse non-compliance.)

and on june 5th (err tomorrow), i'll begin passing around my little petition 
to see if anyone else remotely cares about disclosure. (i know for sure that 
more than a few high skoolers and their parents that i've talked to care 
enough to sign, but i've yet to determine whether coaches do)

anyway, will you consider signing it?
  pretty please with sugar on top?

:luvkev


p.s:

Washington was fairly creative: practically created the american presidency 
- although we now know it was all really Adam Weishaupt.

Dave Matthews used herion for a while; not that i'm suggesting it helped his 
music :)

But what about Reggae, mon?

I'd be just as interested to know how many teachers and students were kicked 
out of camps for using herion or other opiates: i doubt more than a few 
though - only a precious few have that much guts, Iggy Pop's name be praised 
on high forever

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com




From dave  Tue Jun  4 09:09:28 2002
From: dave (David Steinberg)
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 10:09:28 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Only for COOP!
Message-ID: <002701c20bd1$73e7b2b0$d1c1ab81@NB3015>

Christopher Cooper,


    Please get in touch!  thanks,

dave

David L. Steinberg, Director of Debate

University of Miami
PO Box 248127
Coral Gables, FL  33124

Wolfson Building #3015
305-284-5553 (office)
305-284-5216 (fax)

dave at miami.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020604/8347c816/attachment.html 


From dave  Tue Jun  4 09:44:18 2002
From: dave (David Steinberg)
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 10:44:18 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] 02-03 Calendar Update (06/04)
Message-ID: <004b01c20bd6$51426d90$d1c1ab81@NB3015>

Still wishing for information about:



Johnson County CC (JV Nats)
Columbia
William Jewell

UMKC

George Mason

LSU (Mardi Gras?)
Heart of America (Kansas)



 

UNOFFICAL and Incomplete 2002-2003 CEDA/NDT Tournament Calendar (as of 06/04)

 

 

09/06-08

 

09/13-15          3rd Annual Las Vegas Round Robin (13-16; apply to Tim at pacedebate at aol.com)

 

09/20-22          Georgia State University (Sat - Mon), University of Wyoming, King's College, Western Washington, Wichita State, Fresno State

 

09/27-29          Middle Tennessee State University, University of Northern Iowa (28-30)

 

10/02-03          Round Robin (University of Kentucky)

 

10/04-06          Southern Utah (Oct. 5-6), University of Kentucky (Oct. 5-7), Northern Illinois, Santa Rosa, Rochester

 

10/11-13          University of Richmond (Sat-Mon), University of Puget Sound, University of Alabama

 

10/18-20          Pepperdine, Cap City/Catholic University of America (19-21), Emporia (19-21)

 

10/25-27          Vanderbilt, Harvard (Sat-Mon), Loyola-Chicago, Macalester, University of Oregon

 

11/01-03          Appalachian State, Wayne State (02-04), West Point/USMA

 

11/08-10          UCO (N,JV,O), Liberty, CSU-Northridge, University of Wisconsic-Oskosh (9-10)

 

11/15-17          Wake Forest University (16-18), Binghamton (16-17)

 

11/21-24          National Communication Association Conference (New Orleans)

 

11/29-12/01

 

12/06-08          John Carroll University, Arizona State University

 

12/13-15

 

12/20-22

 

12/27-29          University of Southern California (29-31)

 

01/03-05          California State University at Fullerton (2-4)

 

01/10-12          University of West Georgia (11-13)

 

01/17-19          GSL at University of Utah (16-20), Miami (Ohio) (18-20), Baylor (18-20)

 

01/24-26          USAFA(Air Force), USNA(Navy), CSU-Chico

 

01/31-02/02     Neil Warren JV Round Robin (site TBA, contact Joe Carver), Cornell (2/1-2), ADA's JV and Novice Round Robin @ Trinity

 

02/07-09          Western Washington, Northwestern University (08-10), West Virginia University

 

02/14-16           San Diego State University

 

02/21-23           East Regionals/D8

 

02/28-03/02      Towson

 

03/07-09           Northwest CEDA Champs @ Whitman, DSR-TKA Nats @ Western Kentucky (8-10), Northwestern Novice Nats (8-10), ADA Nationals @ Boston College

 

03/14-16

 

03/20-24          CEDA Nationals (Arizona State)

 

03/28-30          Pi Kappa Delta @ Morgan State (27-29)

 

04/03-07          NDT (Emory University)

 

04/11-13          Phi Rho Pi Community College Nationals (April 13-18)

 

04/18-20

 

04/25-27

 



 



 

David L. Steinberg, Director of Debate

University of Miami
PO Box 248127
Coral Gables, FL  33124

Wolfson Building #3015
305-284-5553 (office)
305-284-5216 (fax)

dave at miami.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020604/5f694ae1/attachment.htm 


From lexdevil  Tue Jun  4 09:53:40 2002
From: lexdevil (green lexy)
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 7:53:40 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] RE: [eDebate]Response to Lexy
Message-ID: <41200262414534086@mindspring.com>

>perhaps if parents knew the percentage of students punished 
> at institutes, and the exact risk of their child being kicked out, then 
> their concern might be greater.

I think you'd find that the percentage is small enough that parents would
not be concerned.  And that kids would assume, as they do now, that they
would most likely escape detection.  I know your answer will be that we'll
never know unless the records are released.  I'm just telling you that I
think that the records are unlikely to shock anyone, so you're going to a
great deal of effort for little effect.

>i gotta ask you though - as a camp director, 
> do you have a problem with sending disciplinary records to cx-l and 
> e-debate?

That would be up to the larger company for which I work.  It's their
information, not mine.  I have nothing against being a whistle blower, but
I'll save that for a situation in which I believe that I have evidence of
wrongdoing.  I also think that there are some privacy issues at stake.  I
know you just want aggregate data, but if the numbers are released by camp
and by year, it will be pretty easy for many to tell who got caught doing
what.  We are, after all, talking about relatively small groups of people.  
 
> But what about Reggae, mon?

We probably disagree here, but I strongly prefer the early stuff ('60s Ska
and Rock Steady) to Marley, though I must admit a liking for '70s/'80s dub.
I like my music hooky or hard, sometimes both.  Marley always struck me as
hippie shit.  Blasphemy, I know.
 

Lexy




From kellycongdon  Tue Jun  4 11:03:05 2002
From: kellycongdon (Kelly Congdon)
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 11:03:05 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] is it the self in adam lee that...
Message-ID: <LAW2-F116fyQgeDKvPE000152cb@hotmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020604/8b7dc848/attachment.html 


From yeastephie  Tue Jun  4 11:52:53 2002
From: yeastephie (stephanie budge)
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 16:52:53 +0000
Subject: [eDebate] joe carver
Message-ID: <F1148VUkRacUtI9dm5U000119e8@hotmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020604/96035223/attachment.htm 


From hbkzero  Tue Jun  4 12:48:58 2002
From: hbkzero (HBK ZERO)
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 17:48:58 +0000
Subject: [eDebate] James Thomas (WGA) Please
Message-ID: <F159SZN2wfTXIZ3fy1o000124e2@hotmail.com>

Hey james, this is Cameron Ward from fullerton, i need to talk to you about 
the ADI this summer, would you please backchannel me at killax99 at hotmail.com 
thanx dude, talk to you soon

-Cameron

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.




From stannardmatt  Tue Jun  4 13:44:40 2002
From: stannardmatt (matt stannard)
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 12:44:40 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] Wyoming Debate Cooperative Announcements
Message-ID: <F1467eKI208HGw3LDY900013cb8@hotmail.com>

1. Dates for the 2002 Wyoming Debate Cooperative are August 3-17.  When our 
final list of participants is complete, we will post that list, along with 
details on how to get to Laramie, the expected schedule of the cooperative, 
and other relevant information.

2. Cost of housing is $200.  Evidence sets last year were $160.  Students 
should also bring meal and work supply money.

3. We have heard from the following schools:

Capital University
Colorado State University
Emporia State University
Macalester College
Mansfield University
Mercer University
Regis University
Southwest Missouri State University
SUNY-Bighamton
University of Denver
University of Missouri Kansas City
University of Northern Iowa
University of Texas San Antonio
University of Texas Dallas
University of Wyoming
Wayne State University

4.  We would like to begin the final confirmation process for participants.  
If you are a coach or debater planning on attending the cooperative, please 
send me an email confirming your attendance--even if you have emailed me in 
the past.

5.  We have some great coaches coming in, but we really need more.  Please 
volunteer two weeks of your time to help make this project a success.  
Please help students who cannot otherwise afford to attend an institute, or 
who simply want to attend cooperative alternatives such as WDC.  Be a part 
of what some people have called the most successful summer evidence 
production project in the last two years.  Look at it any way you want to, 
but we need coaches to volunteer and work at the cooperative.

Please contact me with any questions or concerns.

stannard

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.




From bberg6  Tue Jun  4 14:59:41 2002
From: bberg6 (Brandon Berg)
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 13:59:41 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] Sarah Holbrook Contact Info - URGENT HELP!
Message-ID: <F1598PXJEz2QsXyWQBB0000e114@hotmail.com>

If anybody knows a way to contact Sarah Holbrook other than email, could you 
please contact me, it is extremely urgent that I get in touch with her 
before 6/5/02.

Thanks,
Brandon Berg
bberg6 at aol.com

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com




From totalbs3000  Tue Jun  4 23:45:28 2002
From: totalbs3000 (tom payne)
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 23:45:28 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Topic meeting on wednesday
Message-ID: <F213FpRLwliNVwUCJSc0000ce17@hotmail.com>


   Ok, I know the location, but I can not find anywhere the time this 
shindig starts.  I am assuming since Whalen posted dates and hotel 
locations, the meeting is still open to the public, as usual.  If someone 
could backslap, or post the start time for the topic meeting wouild GREATLY 
appreciate it.

MArtin Harris

p.s.  you can ignore the email address, I was pissed that my school account 
has not been working very well lately, and had to create a dummy hotmail 
account.

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com




From Zompetti  Wed Jun  5 00:40:55 2002
From: Zompetti (Zompetti at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 01:40:55 EDT
Subject: [eDebate] Looking for Andy Silverman
Message-ID: <ac.2847b4a7.2a2efe67@aol.com>

Sorry to use bandwidth....

but...if you know how to reach Andy, please let me know.

Or, Andy, if you see this, please backchannel me.

Thanks,

zomp



From swhalen  Wed Jun  5 01:04:48 2002
From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen)
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 23:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Topic meeting on wednesday
In-Reply-To: <F213FpRLwliNVwUCJSc0000ce17@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.1020604230347.21760A-100000@apollo.sfsu.edu>

Steve has informed the committee that we will meet at 6pm when everyone
arrives on Wednesday.

Shawn Whalen

Director of Forensics
San Francisco State University
swhalen at sfsu.edu
(415) 338-1097

On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, tom payne wrote:

> 
> 
>    Ok, I know the location, but I can not find anywhere the time this 
> shindig starts.  I am assuming since Whalen posted dates and hotel 
> locations, the meeting is still open to the public, as usual.  If someone 
> could backslap, or post the start time for the topic meeting wouild GREATLY 
> appreciate it.
> 
> MArtin Harris
> 
> p.s.  you can ignore the email address, I was pissed that my school account 
> has not been working very well lately, and had to create a dummy hotmail 
> account.
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
> http://www.hotmail.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> 




From schizoliberation  Wed Jun  5 01:13:27 2002
From: schizoliberation (Schizo Liberation Front)
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 02:13:27 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] is it the self in adam lee that...
Message-ID: <F164BRQLItiwma7vGUQ00005814@hotmail.com>

kelly,

so a semi-balanced perspective.

you don't agree with pam about my qualifications.  you probably also don't 
agree with what emerson said that i "didn't get hired".  you probably 
remember that i was awarded the 1/4 time and the plug was pulled shortly 
after calling for student sydnicalism and other overhauls at UT like salary 
equalization that rollins didn't like.  how come y'all let them twist things 
like that?  i remember the day i was "fired".  you called it "scapegoating".

i have been quiet about personal details at UT until emerson, hoe, and lee 
started twisting my strategies into "revenge against UT".  yeah, i 
backslided into the sewer.  they have yet to even really publicly deal with 
the criticisms i made of the UT program before i was fired or the ones 
afterward.  they are not all based in revenge.  i began my critical process 
as an awarded 1/4 time graduate assistant.  instead, they keep pointing to 
my motivations in way that mischaracterizes critiques of the UTNIF.  i would 
see no need to talk about any of this stuff as long as the debate remains 
with the critiques of the functioning of the UT program as a commodifier of 
"kritical" thinking which includes how selective discipline works as a form 
of cronyism.  i am sure that you would have no problems conceding that if 
the disciplinary process that were applied to me had been applied to 
shanahan, rollins, mcbride, breshears, kuswa, congdon, beeton, broady, and 
the list goes on that they would all have been fired for "doing something 
that threatened the existence of the program".  so far i have received no 
apology from rollins or breshears for their actions and their obvious (to 
you and me) double standards.  instead i get bullshit PR LIE strategies like 
"he was just mad that he didn't get hired", a convenient rephrasing that 
they know is a LIE given the letter i received awarding a 1/4 time.  yeah, 
UT dabait is real fucking cool.

the critiques go beyond selective discipline to kritical cooption through 
"performativity", to competitive focus linked to budgetary concerns, to 
smoozing the communications department and playing a weak role on campus, to 
lack of sociological research.

NONE OF THESE SPECIFIC THINGS, anybody at UT dabait engages.  instead when 
the critiques start to synergize and gather strength, they come back with 
all this crap about i am just pissed off for not getting hired.  you called 
it a "cop out" yourself when emerson tried it.

if the texas team is going to continue to mask "disciplinary power" 
exercises and have an official policy of lying to protect power from 
critique and "cop out" of serious critiques of their program unnecessarily 
referring back to what happened when i got fired, then we have no problems 
reinvoking the disciplinary processes that were deployed against us 
according to principles of reciprocity.  in other words, if they would just 
shut the fuck up, then none of this would be happening.  maybe it would be 
better for them to defend against the serious critiques and come with me 
into a shift in the conversation.

none of this is particularly using "alienation" tactics to promote 
revolution.  this is about squaring things up with old friends.  we contend 
that UT debate (loosely deployed to include emerson) brought all of this 
shit back up.  this is fairly evident in their inability to answer specific 
critiques of the program.  perhaps, their emotional attachments to the 
program incite emotional responses that fail and go nowhere leaving them 
still with the critiques to face.

if we were indiscriminate, we would have done what we were accused of upon 
firing and brought a lawsuit for "vehicular homicide".  as in the hoe 
demands, we challenge you to offer a better path than the cyber one we have 
chosen.  UT debate wants no accountability for the firing and the double 
standards which it has exposed.  if we were to take the disciplinary path of 
reciprocity that their actions ask for, then we would have taken this to 
courts accused the directors of libel for spreading rumors to justify a 
firing and said "OK, you started this.  x threatened the program with this 
behavior.  y threatened the program with this behavior and on".  WE 
DISCRIMINATELY CHOSE NOT TO NUKE THE PROGRAM and reserve accountability on 
basically closed-circuit on edebate.  they must face the community with what 
they do and have done as disciplinarians and why IT IS SICK that they get 
away with a cool chic "anti-disciplinarian" ethos.  after the firing, i can 
not sit still with NO ACCOUNTABILITY.  the statements of your friends in a 
sinister way attempt to dismiss accountability in glaringly fake public 
relations moves.

it is not that hard to just admit double-standards and selective discipline 
and go on.  instead UT debate is plagued by the "positive media syndrome".  
afraid of engaging the issues that they are confronted with.  students and 
staff are afraid to tell rollins he made a mistake and that the "he 
threatened the existence of the program" rhetoric is hollow horse shit and 
do you square your private disciplining with your public kritical bullshit.

it would be wrong for me to let them off the hook.  escalation is one way of 
learning the "dead-end" nature of certain rhetorical strategy.  try to 
protect the media image and it gets worse.

the palestinian issue is over-simplified.  one does not have to condone 
suicide bombings in pizzerias or at homes celebrating passover to not be 
morally opposed.  the problem that omri and co. are facing is that they are 
in a kantian kind of way isolating the ethics of these acts to the narrow 
confines of "one person killing civilians".  palestinian tactics must be 
further contextualized.  edward said makes this point over and over again 
without endorsing "suicide bombings" of civilian targets.  one thing to 
consider that i learned when i was in israel is that the entire society is 
militarized and that given the all-encompassing rules for military service 
the whole civilian-military line is blurred much like it was in nazi germany 
when civilians got bombed.  i have never seen "total mobilization" like i 
saw my 6 days in israel.  they say it is to defend against "terrorism".  the 
overwhelming domination that the palestinians face creates desperation.   
said has made this point over and over.

also, remember that the islamic jihad and the hamas were promoted by israel 
in the late 80s to weaken arafat.  noriega, bin laden.  same thing but 
israel promoting terrorists and then turning their backs later.  israel 
successfully weakened arafat and then turned him into a hero when he was 
backed into a shitty deal at oslo.  opportunistic, israel then turned back 
on the islamic jihad and hamas to weaken them since like the black panthers 
they had created a social safety net of medical care, education, etc.

also, arguably the "suicide bombings" of civilian targets has been effective 
in exposing israeli domination.  exaggerated israeli counter-responses are 
condemned internationally.  more of the israeli public shifts to the peace 
movement realizing that the hard-liner rhetoric of "safety through 
militarization" is false and instead "we better start dealing with the 
palestinians".  one does not have to condone these acts to reflect on their 
efficacity.

slf

>From: "Kelly Congdon" <kellycongdon at hotmail.com>
>To: schizoliberation at hotmail.com
>CC: edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: Re: [eDebate] is it the self in adam lee that...
>Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 11:03:05 -0500
>




_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Kelly Congdon" <kellycongdon at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [eDebate] is it the self in adam lee that...
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 11:03:05 -0500
Size: 5413
Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020605/4c23052c/attachment.mht 


From schizoliberation  Wed Jun  5 03:25:40 2002
From: schizoliberation (Schizo Liberation Front)
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 04:25:40 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] emendation 2 congdon reply concerning UT debate
Message-ID: <F30097Yrlr6UZq10yAV000152ae@hotmail.com>

the statement: "i have been quiet about personal details at UT until 
emerson, hoe, and lee started twisting my strategies into "revenge against 
UT" should read "i have recently been quiet...".

of course, a year ago we challenged UT on the firing and experimented with 
an edebate reciprocity process NOT IN THE COURTS OR EVEN SERIOUSLY WITH THE 
COMM DEPARTMENT.  i believe that i have sufficiently demonstrated WHY the 
selective deployment of disciplinary power and the selective ignition of 
disciplinary mechanisms ARE CLEARLY BAD IDEAS especially when the team ethos 
has been built around some kind of chic foucaultian anti-disciplinarian 
"foundation".  the problem that UT faces is that they are caught in a 
situation where they can't see themselves doing anything in the face of this 
demonstration.  they can't find a line of flight from selective discipline 
so they choose to mask and cover-up arbitrary displays of discipline that in 
our case probably ruined our career given our virtual anonymity-invisibility 
on the college scene and almost exclusive investment in the UT program.  i 
remember hearing "go get a job somewhereelse" said in a way that it was 
obvious that that would not be easy and that i was basically fucked.

i hope someone can evaluate our "indiscriminate" tactics in light of what we 
intended to achieve.  the edebate public being duped into the insanity alibi 
or their inability to grasp the strategies being deployed are not real good 
answers to their deployment.  i.e. from your perspective congdon maybe what 
we have done is NOT a good idea but isn't that an indictment of the 
disciplinary process of which our tactics are merely a sub-set, i.e. should 
UT debate not be more discriminant with their recurring "scape-goating" 
ploys?  might it not be better for students and the staff and finally stand 
up to central administrators and stop the dangerous selective deployement of 
disciplinary power via work strikes or whatever other form of sabotage would 
raise the costs?  could they not easily use foucault's arguments to back up 
the strikes?  would this not demonstrate how previously commodification of 
critical argument at UT has skewed their understanding of foucault and the 
relation between his theory and practice and that they have been leading 
students into classic cooption strategies evident in the statements of pam 
and adam?

but recently i think if you review the record my focus has been on critiques 
of institute commodification and strangehold on experimentation with 
non-competitive forms of debate.  there have been very few if any personal 
details in the recent approach until we met the responses we have been 
talking about.

you will also see no defense by anyone directly associated with UT debate of 
these practices.  kuswa is obviously the best in this regard and that is 
probably why he and we are still able to talk on backchannel.  we appreciate 
the extremely different approach he has taken from rollins and breshears.  
kuswa is not afraid to engage critiques of the UTNIF.  kuswa has not once 
recently accused us of simpleton revenge.  even if we don't agree, we 
appreciate kuswa and his active pedagogy.

if you review the record, you will see that our actions are not 
indiscriminate.  we escalate when UT does.  in the name of discrimination, 
we are willing to continue this discussion without unnecessarily broaching 
embarrassing personal details related to UT debate.  we would love for once 
to see a UT debater or coach defend against commodification and other 
critiques instead of back-sliding into emotional, personal renditions.  we 
would love for one UT debater or coach to publicly acknowledge that our 
tactics are not exclusively rooted in revenge and that, rather, many of 
these critiques are the same ones we launched PRIOR to getting fired.   we 
would love for one UT debater or coach to come forth with a public 
realization that YOU CAN'T FIRE CRITIQUES.

slf


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From kkuswa  Wed Jun  5 03:55:27 2002
From: kkuswa (kevin kuswa)
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 04:55:27 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] emendation 2 congdon reply concerning UT debate
In-Reply-To: <F30097Yrlr6UZq10yAV000152ae@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <4.1.20020605044659.00a88100@facstaff.richmond.edu>

strew-be,

one question i had that might help follow what you call "a different path
of questioning" is about your views of the school, particularly graduate
school.

when you were considering graduate school at ut (or elsewhere) what
was it about the academic institution that attracted you?  If you had
decided to go to graduate school, would it have been in order to coach
the team and make some money for it?  would it have been primarily
for some non-debate related reason?  why communication studies?
and, do you think the only way to work with debate at the collegiate
level is through attending school?

what happened with your motions to work at the free debate cooperative?

finally, is ut really the pinnacle of foucauldian hypocrisy or do you have
more first-hand knowledge with which to express yourself in terms of ut?
what about all that is ut debate that is between and beyond you,
myself, or any other single individual?  are you speaking for/to/at all ut
debaters, or simply those you have had personal contact with (limited
or extensive).?

keep in mind i think this is best stuff hashed out backchannel, but your
references to edebate as some sort of arbiter (sp?) force my questioning
to start here.

kevin



From mmk_savant  Wed Jun  5 09:50:54 2002
From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok)
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 10:50:54 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] ans Stroube
Message-ID: <OE75htWrwuVjtQUGUzL0000df7c@hotmail.com>

"one does not have to condone these acts to reflect on their efficacity."

one does, however, have to condemn them to be a human being.

as one must condemn your attacks to be a decent person.

Michael Korcok

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020605/eebf8d9f/attachment.htm 


From mbauer2  Wed Jun  5 10:09:18 2002
From: mbauer2 (Mike Bauer)
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 10:09:18 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] gina lane please
Message-ID: <scfde356.061@gw.bsu.edu>

Gina,
Will you back channel me please?
thank you,
mike bauer




From neilsbutt  Wed Jun  5 10:46:01 2002
From: neilsbutt (Neil Butt)
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 11:46:01 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] dates for web pages
Message-ID: <F125SIQK9VPRfLC7A9B0000f676@hotmail.com>

Doubtless many of you have already discovered this, but for what it's worth:

If you are using Netscape, you can right click the page, select "View Info" 
and it will usually (though not always) have the date modified along with 
the other info.

I haven't found any similar shortcut in Explorer, but I'm anxious to try 
Jim's method.

-Neil Butt
JCU


>From: "Jim Hanson" <hansonjb at whitman.edu>
>Reply-To: <hansonjb at whitman.edu>
>To: "LD Listserv" <ld-l at world.std.com>,        "CX HS Policy Listserv" 
><cx-l at debate.net>,        "IE Listserv" <IE-L at cornell.edu>,        "Parli 
>Listserv" <parli at willamette.edu>,        "EDebate Listserv" 
><edebate at ndtceda.com>
>Subject: [eDebate] dates for web pages
>Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 22:20:51 -0700
>
>picked up this great tip for finding out the date for web pages:
>
>type this into where the address is for the web page you are looking at:
>
>javascript:alert(document.lastModified)
>
>make sure you type it exactly this way--with the caps done just like above.
>
>then, press enter
>
>the date the page was last updated will pop up in a small dialogue box (you
>won't lose the page you were on).
>
>jim :)
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
>http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




-Neil Butt
JCU


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com




From michelinmassey  Wed Jun  5 11:13:51 2002
From: michelinmassey (Michelin C. Massey)
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 09:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] questions for jack
In-Reply-To: <F164BRQLItiwma7vGUQ00005814@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20020605161351.61544.qmail@web13005.mail.yahoo.com>

dear jack,

i have attempted to read your posts the best i can. 
they are often hard to read because i get your
pronouns mixed up; i do not know the "we" to which
your refer.  i think your most recent posting in
response to kelly sums up your position quite well, so
i would like to ask some questions which will help me
(and others) better understand your message (if people
still have that desire).

1. what outcome do you hope to accomplish with your
criticism of the UTNIF and the UT program in general? 
i don't mean to sound so utilitarian, but what's the
purpose if it is not for personal revenge.  is your
motive to criticize for the sake of criticism?  is it
your hope that UT will engage you in a discussion over
its institutional practices in a public forum?

if it's the latter, i don't think that anyone from the
current UT power structure would be interested in
doing so.  no one would be interested in having a
discussion with someone who has publicly insulted
others who have attempted engagement or who airs dirty
laundry for all in the community to see.  if you and i
were friends and i told you something very
incriminating about me... suddenly we were to have a
discussion that became heated and you aired that
revelation to everyone around, why would i (or anyone
else) ever want to be put in that situation?

2. where do you want to go from here?  if your desire
is to organize movements or to disrupt disciplinarian
institutional practices through some other means, how
does your current method of posting to this
listservice dozens of times daily help you in that
process?  it's been a long time since you've started
and some interesting ideas have come to the forefront.
 the problem, though, is that there's been a shrinkage
in the discussions in this forum.  we had some good
topic talk, but that was soon drowned out by your and
kevin's continued grievances with various disciplinary
practices.  what does it mean?

i have a lot of other questions and i ask these
sincerely.  i understand how it feels to be treated
unfairly and lash out angrily when others criticize my
pain.  but i also believe truly that it is really
important to learn lessons from that pain and to move
on from there.  if you feel like you were treated
unfairly, this is not the forum.  you will receive no
redress from UT or anyone else by calling people names
or issuing complex criticisms against institutions. 
UTNIF will still have hundreds of kids attend their
camps in policy, LD, and individual events.  UTNIF
will, again, make thousands of dollars this upcoming
june and july.  the UT debate program will still
recruit talented debaters and get teams into elims at
highly competitive tournaments.  you will receive no
engagement in a critical discussion about practices
because they fear something you may say about them.

this discussion is immaterial to 99.9% of the people
on this list.  maybe 2-3% are reading because they are
curious about potential contradictions between selling
ideas critical of discipline and control, while
deploying those precise methods to solidify power. 
all i'm saying is that you may not be reaching your
audience.  i hope these questions and this post will
get you to reconsider your methods...

best,

michelin massey.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com



From cpuuri  Wed Jun  5 11:58:40 2002
From: cpuuri (Cory Puuri)
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 09:58:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] dates for web pages
In-Reply-To: <F125SIQK9VPRfLC7A9B0000f676@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20020605165840.66116.qmail@web13908.mail.yahoo.com>

Just a quick note on Jim's method. The revision date
may change daily if there is a page asset that changes
daily (i.e. a page counter, a banner ad, etc.).

Cory

--- Neil Butt <neilsbutt at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Doubtless many of you have already discovered this,
> but for what it's worth:
> 
> If you are using Netscape, you can right click the
> page, select "View Info" 
> and it will usually (though not always) have the
> date modified along with 
> the other info.
> 
> I haven't found any similar shortcut in Explorer,
> but I'm anxious to try 
> Jim's method.
> 
> -Neil Butt
> JCU
> 
> 
> >From: "Jim Hanson" <hansonjb at whitman.edu>
> >Reply-To: <hansonjb at whitman.edu>
> >To: "LD Listserv" <ld-l at world.std.com>,        "CX
> HS Policy Listserv" 
> ><cx-l at debate.net>,        "IE Listserv"
> <IE-L at cornell.edu>,        "Parli 
> >Listserv" <parli at willamette.edu>,        "EDebate
> Listserv" 
> ><edebate at ndtceda.com>
> >Subject: [eDebate] dates for web pages
> >Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 22:20:51 -0700
> >
> >picked up this great tip for finding out the date
> for web pages:
> >
> >type this into where the address is for the web
> page you are looking at:
> >
> >javascript:alert(document.lastModified)
> >
> >make sure you type it exactly this way--with the
> caps done just like above.
> >
> >then, press enter
> >
> >the date the page was last updated will pop up in a
> small dialogue box (you
> >won't lose the page you were on).
> >
> >jim :)
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >eDebate mailing list
> >eDebate at ndtceda.com
> >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber
> list, go here:
> >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Neil Butt
> JCU
> 
> 
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device:
> http://mobile.msn.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber
> list, go here:
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com



From dig  Wed Jun  5 05:42:26 2002
From: dig (Debate Information Group)
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 06:42:26 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] DiG Down For A Few Days
Message-ID: <200206051042.g55AgQk17066@cross-x.com>

Well Not really, down, the info up therre will work, however in the next few days i will be switching computers however there will be a slight coverage gap where i wont be able to upload or make any changes, but on the other side things should be good

Andy
Dig


-- 
Debate Information Group
http://dig.ndtceda.com/




From stannardmatt  Wed Jun  5 15:01:16 2002
From: stannardmatt (matt stannard)
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 14:01:16 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] WDC additions
Message-ID: <F210viLvoFfoqwIxb3H00007314@hotmail.com>

Two more schools have confirmed:

University of Rochester
Albertson College

Still looking to hear from a few more coaches!

stannard



_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From mavolpe  Wed Jun  5 11:15:51 2002
From: mavolpe (megan volpert)
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 11:15:51 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] seeking helpful people...
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20020605105802.00a6dae0@mail.ilstu.edu>

>a friend of mine has two brothers that--as you are reading this--are 
>riding their bikes with hundreds of others across 575 miles of california 
>in 7 days.  some of you may have already heard of the california aids 
>ride.  it's a major charity event that raises money for aids research, 
>education, medication, et cetera.  each of the riders is required to raise 
>2700 bucks.  basically, these two brothers of my friend are far short from 
>that amount when i last spoke to one of them last week.  despite that, 
>they are doing the ride.  whatever part of the 2700 apiece they don't come 
>up with will be going on their credit card, even though both of them are 
>broke college kids like most of the people on this listserv.  so, how can 
>you help?  you can send them some money.  any size donation would be super 
>duper helpful for them, because they still need about 3200 total.

in terms of knowing your money isn't going into some random stranger's 
wallet.  i assure you this is no hoax of the kind we've been spammed with 
on edebate lately.  (a) i know these dudes personally and have donated some 
money to them myself, and (b) the california aids ride is a widely 
publicized event--turn on the tv and you can see these two dudes for 
yourself.  if you want to help my friends out, send a check made out to 
"California AIDS Ride" to:

tom and matt moran
900 east first street, apt#105
los angeles, ca 90012

if you're still a skeptic about the credibility of what i'm asking, check 
out the website for the ride, www.bethepeople.com, and see for yourself 
what it's all about.  also, the website can do donations by credit 
card.  however, if you're wanting to contribute money to the event, i hope 
you'll send it straight to my friends instead.  also, if you've got friends 
who're into doing good deeds, could you forward this e-mail to them?  tons 
of thanx.  :-)

~m

---------------------------------------------------------------
ART IS WHY I GET UP IN THE MORNING.
---------------------------------------------------------------
                    ~ani difranco




From aogletree  Wed Jun  5 17:31:57 2002
From: aogletree (Aaron Ogletree)
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 22:31:57 +0000
Subject: [eDebate] No representation in France
Message-ID: <F217pjpKTJwrPlKjlZd00018b30@hotmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020605/94cabb9b/attachment.html 


From niravsp  Wed Jun  5 19:32:08 2002
From: niravsp (Nirav Patel)
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 00:32:08 +0000
Subject: [eDebate] Robert Thomas
Message-ID: <LAW2-F12592JzE48u5u000163a5@hotmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020606/e6f91803/attachment.htm 


From electriceli  Wed Jun  5 20:03:01 2002
From: electriceli (Eli Crittenden)
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 01:03:01 +0000
Subject: [eDebate] (no subject)
Message-ID: <F253G49YVpzSvuXLwIJ00013570@hotmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020606/dad5da00/attachment.html 


From matt  Wed Jun  5 21:27:32 2002
From: matt (Matthew Schiros)
Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 22:27:32 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] South Park
Message-ID: <000401c20d01$b7a44640$e8ce79a5@ROIDER>

Did anyone see the NAMBLA South Park episode?  More importantly, has
Kevin Sanchez?
Roider

----matt at schiros.net----MSchiros at AIM-----------
Matthew Schiros
Double Gyroid Productions
202-271-2065
-----------------------------------------------




From Zompetti  Wed Jun  5 23:12:11 2002
From: Zompetti (Zompetti at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 00:12:11 EDT
Subject: [eDebate] DSR-TKA
Message-ID: <16e.ea2cefd.2a303b1b@aol.com>

Does anyone have any information on the 2003 DSR-TKA tournament?

thanks,

zomp



From losnegard  Thu Jun  6 00:31:19 2002
From: losnegard (Chris Losnegard)
Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2002 22:31:19 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Topic Committee Meeting, Day 1
Message-ID: <F52wQqIMwkhTCy3ekB10000e9ae@hotmail.com>

After a some technical issues and what I hear was a wild goose chase for a 
computer disc and an internet connection, here's an outline/brief 
description of today's events at the topic committee meeting.  Four hours of 
this and I'm already exhausted....

--Chris

-----------
Here is a quick rundown of the CEDA/NDT Topic Meeting as of June 5:

1.General introduction of the treaties topic area
a.US Constitution mention of Foreign Affairs (specifically with regard to 
the creation of treaties ~ Article II, 2 Clause 2)
b.Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
c.Background on the terms of art : Signature, Ratification and Accession

2.Discussion re: Verb Issue One : ?ratification?
a.Considerations
i.?should ratify?
1.concerns w/ treaties currently requiring signature
2.concerns re: accession vs. ratification
3.ultimately decided that requirement of signature poses a smaller problem 
than accession issues

ii.?should ratify and/or sign?
1.allows ?signing only?
2.does not solve issues of accession

iii. ?should ratify, sign and/or accede?
1.grammatically cumbersome
2.same problem as above

iv.?should ratify, sign and ratify, or accede?
1.same problems as iii
2.possible issues w/ delayed ratification or implementation until window is 
closed for ratification (thus acceding)

v.?should consent to be bound?
1.extended debate over definition of the phrase
2.contextual definitions vary widely
3.concerns that this leaves signing only as an option
4.definition seems to vary w/ treaty

vi.attaching specific verb to each treaty
1.currently researching which verbs accompany which treaties
2.concern that verbs would be misappropriately assigned
3.concern about mid-season ?unsigning? and topicality consequences as a 
result of assigning specific verbs to each treaty as these verbs may change 
as the season progresses
4.seems to solve accession problem

vii.?should ratify or accede to?
1.consideration of inserting phrase ?if necessary? following ?accede to?
2.consideration of inserting phrase ?immediately? prior to entire phrase
3.seems to leave the door open for delayed FIAT affirmatives


b.Final Decisions (as of tonight)
i.Researching appropriate verb choices for each treaty
ii.If verb assignment seems to be ambiguous, we are looking at the ?should 
ratify or accede to? phrase before a list of treaties
iii.If verb assignments are feasible, we are considering placing the 
appropriate verb before each individual treaty in the list

3.Discussion re: Verb Issue Two : ?Execution?
a.General agreement that a verb of this type be included in the resolution 
to assure more than just ratification w/ no resulting action
b.Execute vs. Implement

i.No apparent legal distinction b/t the two
ii.Concerns that ?execute? may imply shooting or killing a treaty
iii.Ultimately decided on ?implement? as it is slightly more used than 
?execute?

c.concern re: affirmative ground if forced to implement legislation

4.Verb/Adverb issue three : ?without reservation?
a.Lengthy discussion re: addressing the issue of reservations in the wording 
of the resolution
b.Three distinct questions
i.Theory : does including ?without reservation? guarantee neg CP ground to 
create reservations?
1.including the phrase seems to grant competitiveness for reservation CP?s 
for a portion, at least, of the judging pool

ii.Ground : which team should have reservation ground? Is aff ground 
sufficient w/o ability to include reservations?
1.agreed that whoever possesses the ability to make reservations has the 
stronger ground
2.discussion over who should possess this ground
3.ultimately decided a phrase mentioning reservations should not be 
explicitly included in the resolution wording; the issue should be debated 
out in round

iii.Predictability: is there too much bi-directional aff ground if 
reservations are allowed in the plan?
1.predictability will swing both ways


At this point in the meeting, we are looking at a resolution w/ the 
following wording:

?The USFG should ratify or accede to, and implement one of the following 
treaties: [insert list of treaties]?

or

?The USFG should enact one of the following: ratify [insert treaty], sign 
and ratify [treaty], accede to [treaty] ??  ~ we are still looking at how to 
incorporate ?implement? into this wording structure

The debatability of various treaties will be comprehensively discussed 
tomorrow.


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com




From QLTiersky  Thu Jun  6 08:12:07 2002
From: QLTiersky (QLTiersky at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 09:12:07 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] more debaters in the news...I think
Message-ID: <4A2D937B.048A2A80.0257AA48@aol.com>

>From today's Washington Post:

The Supreme Court is apparently saving the best for last. 
With only about four weeks remaining until the court takes its annual three-month summer recess, 25 of this term's 77 cases are undecided. 
. . .
There's nothing necessarily abnormal about the court's backlog, those familiar with the court's internal workings say.

 Two factors determine the court's pace of production. One is the sheeramount of writing that has to be done; the other, the contentiousness of the issues.

 "It's difficult to focus on any one particular case, no matter how important, because of all the other opinions that have to be written," says Tom Goldstein,a lawyer who specializes in Supreme Court litigation. 


Assuming it's the same one, Tom Goldstein debated at UNC in the early 90s.



From stannardmatt  Thu Jun  6 11:34:35 2002
From: stannardmatt (matt stannard)
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 10:34:35 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] updated WDC list
Message-ID: <F109BbKP7Ie8tlMazUS00005058@hotmail.com>

20 schools so far...

Albertson College
Capital University
Colorado State University
Emporia State University
Eastern New Mexico University
Lewis and Clark College
Macalester College
Mansfield University
Mercer University
Regis University
Southwest Missouri State University
SUNY-Binghamton
University of Denver
University of Missouri Kansas City
University of Northern Iowa
University of Rochester
University of Texas San Antonio
University of Texas Dallas
University of Wyoming
Wayne State University

Keep me posted with questions or confirmations.
stannard

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com




From blackdebateguy  Thu Jun  6 13:49:46 2002
From: blackdebateguy (doug dennis)
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 11:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] weber state/u of u debaters
Message-ID: <20020606184946.92832.qmail@web13108.mail.yahoo.com>


can one of you all backchannel me asap...it's pretty time urgent

 

doug d



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020606/b07cbf26/attachment.htm 


From dperkins  Thu Jun  6 14:27:48 2002
From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins)
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 15:27:48 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Topic Committee Meeting, Day 1
In-Reply-To: <F52wQqIMwkhTCy3ekB10000e9ae@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.33.0206061518050.12681-100000@is07.fas.harvard.edu>

This may be mindless negative bias on my part, but I feel that allowing
the aff the right to ratify (or whatever) with reservations is a mistake.

It has already been observed that this will expand affirmative ground, and
that it will allow the aff to occupy ground that would otherwise be
attractive for the negative.  That's bad, but it's not the only problem.

Consider this.  Allowing the aff to insert reservations effectively means
that the aff does not have to ratify any (existing) treaty at all.  For
example, if landmines were on the list, the aff could ratify with some
exception carved out that only effects the Korean peninsula.  Of course,
nobody else in the world would really see that as a ratification of the
treaty, so what the aff is really proposing is a subtle diplomatic
strategy to provoke renegotiation of the treaty, or perhaps some other
goal.  the only safe prediction for the neg is that any consistently
successful strategy will soon become the subject of a new aff
"reservation."

dp





From privethedge  Thu Jun  6 14:44:10 2002
From: privethedge (Duane Hyland)
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 12:44:10 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Topic Committee Meeting, Day 1
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.4.33.0206061518050.12681-100000@is07.fas.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <20020606194410.73075.qmail@web10003.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi, It does seem that allowing the Aff to insert "with reservations" or words there of would have the effect of spiking out a lot of pertinent debate and destroying a lot of neg ground. The landmine treaty is an excellent example - simply exclude Korea and you destroy a lot of good debate. Duane

"Very bored in Barad-Dur. Nothing to do but play Scrabble with Orcs. Is very annoying as Orcs only know Black Speech of Mordor. You try spelling Azg Nazg Gimbatul for a triple word score. Yeah, I didn't think so."  Secret Diary of the 5th Wring Wraith - LOTR
"Have agreed to carry Ring to Mordor. In hindsight, probably a bad move." - Frodo's Diary - LOTR



 


 



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020606/13049475/attachment.html 


From ucodebate  Thu Jun  6 14:54:03 2002
From: ucodebate (ucodebate at att.net)
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 19:54:03 +0000
Subject: [eDebate] Topic Committee Meeting, Day 1
Message-ID: <20020606195403.ZOZT5116.mtiwmhc23.worldnet.att.net@webmail.worldnet.att.net>

I agree with Dallas and Duane,

Giving the aff the ability to act with reservations 
effectively eliminates the case debate.  As I recall, 
that is the reason the community voted for this 
resolution.  Treaties promised a limited number of affs 
and specific germane negative counterplan and 
disadvantage/net benefit ground.  Giving the aff the 
ability to act with reservations means that the aff can 
spike out of things and usurp that specific ground.

The Implication of allowing the aff the reservation 
ground = increased reliance on kritiks at the expense of 
specific case debate/cp-nb debates. A huge and 
blunderous error that would totally negate the reason 
that the community overwhelmingly endorsed this 
resolution.

My thoughts,

Jason Stone
Director of Debate
100 N. University Ave.
Department of Communication
University of Central Oklahoma
Edmond, OK 73034
(405) 974-5584 (o)
> This may be mindless negative bias on my part, but I feel that allowing
> the aff the right to ratify (or whatever) with reservations is a mistake.
> 
> It has already been observed that this will expand affirmative ground, and
> that it will allow the aff to occupy ground that would otherwise be
> attractive for the negative.  That's bad, but it's not the only problem.
> 
> Consider this.  Allowing the aff to insert reservations effectively means
> that the aff does not have to ratify any (existing) treaty at all.  For
> example, if landmines were on the list, the aff could ratify with some
> exception carved out that only effects the Korean peninsula.  Of course,
> nobody else in the world would really see that as a ratification of the
> treaty, so what the aff is really proposing is a subtle diplomatic
> strategy to provoke renegotiation of the treaty, or perhaps some other
> goal.  the only safe prediction for the neg is that any consistently
> successful strategy will soon become the subject of a new aff
> "reservation."
> 
> dp
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate



From cwheat99  Thu Jun  6 15:00:41 2002
From: cwheat99 (Chris Wheat)
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:00:41 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Topic Committee Meeting, Day 1
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.4.33.0206061518050.12681-100000@is07.fas.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <20020606200041.39482.qmail@web11201.mail.yahoo.com>

I think Dallas has a really good point, but I don't
think that's completely true.  I went to the topic
committee meeting last night and there was a very long
discussion concerning reservations.  Beforehand I
agreed with Dallas and felt that the aff should not be
able to make any reservations.  Some pretty good
arguments, though, were made:

*Most treaties restrict the types of reservations that
can be made.  For example, the text of the land mine
convention states that "The Articles of this
Convention shall not be subject to reservations." 
Hence, a reservation that made it apply to everywhere
by the Korean peninsula would probably be illegitimate
due to the statues provided in the treaty text.

*Even if that weren't true, any and all reservations
would have to be within the object and purpose of the
treaty.  That's the advisory ruling from the ICJ in
1990 (year may be wrong) concerning the Genocide
Convention.  In Dallas' example, the fact that no
other country in the world would consider the Korean
exemption as ratification proves that the US really
didn't ratify it.

That of course begs the question "what is the object
and purpose?"  I think that the literature on the
nature of reservations post-1990 is relatively deep,
in addition to the "object and purpose" behind these
treaties and what the treaty organizers would
sacrifice in order to enter it into force.  If nothing
else, I think the merits and reasonings behind
treaties provide for interesting debates that go
beyond whether or not the treaty is a good idea.

I would agree that there are some problems with my
reasoning.  But, I think the alternative is less
desirable: only allowing affs to pass the treaty and
that's it.  That limits the number of affs to the
number of treaties on the topic.  Giving the aff the
ability to create reservations expands the number of
possible affirmatives while not fundamentally changing
the research on the topic.  It's just that you can
turn some of your cards that say "Treaty X is bad
because of Y" into an aff, which is nothing new.

Chris Wheat
Washington Univ.-St. Louis

=====
Christopher O. Wheat
cwheat99 at yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com



From privethedge  Thu Jun  6 15:08:58 2002
From: privethedge (Duane Hyland)
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:08:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Topic Committee Meeting, Day 1
In-Reply-To: <20020606200041.39482.qmail@web11201.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20020606200858.51489.qmail@web10007.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi, Right..but using Land Mines for instance, the only reason the US refuses to sign the treaty is Korea - if you sign the treaty you're bound by the obligations of it. I can't see how you could, as Dallas pointed out, trully sign, and ratify, the treaty, but then claim some kind of exemption for Korea. If you could, the debate would be, almost, pointless because it's Korea that fuels the debate. I think to allow spikes is dangerous, I think all or nothing would lead to better debate, it would certainly provide ground that is distinctly affirmative and partitioned from the negative's ground. Just my two cents. Duane

"Very bored in Barad-Dur. Nothing to do but play Scrabble with Orcs. Is very annoying as Orcs only know Black Speech of Mordor. You try spelling Azg Nazg Gimbatul for a triple word score. Yeah, I didn't think so."  Secret Diary of the 5th Wring Wraith - LOTR
"Have agreed to carry Ring to Mordor. In hindsight, probably a bad move." - Frodo's Diary - LOTR



 


 



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020606/37877d00/attachment.htm 


From gp3  Thu Jun  6 21:53:44 2002
From: gp3 (glenn prince)
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 02:53:44 +0000
Subject: [eDebate] Liz Wiley please
Message-ID: <LAW2-F80iB4JeO9DJwS0001929c@hotmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020607/4d553bb0/attachment.html 


From wishfull  Thu Jun  6 23:02:26 2002
From: wishfull (Michael Roston )
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 00:02:26 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] will there be any need for a resolution ballot?
Message-ID: <MCLKKIKENINGLAAA@shared1-mail.whowhere.com>

Losnegard kindly relays:

>>>
At this point in the meeting, we are looking at a resolution w/ the 
following wording: 

The USFG should ratify or accede to, and implement one of the following 
treaties: [insert list of treaties] 

or 

The USFG should enact one of the following: ratify [insert treaty], sign 
and ratify [treaty], accede to [treaty]  ~ we are still looking at how to 
incorporate implement into this wording structure 

The debatability of various treaties will be comprehensively discussed 
tomorrow. 
>>>

We're looking at "a resolution?"

What diversity will the topic ballot permit?

Is the five/ten/fifteen choice going to our option for diversity?




---
Michael Roston
-enemy of freedom

"At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."
                    -President Richard Nixon, May 18, 1971



Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com



From bgaston76  Thu Jun  6 23:48:07 2002
From: bgaston76 (Bryan Gaston)
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 21:48:07 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Topic Committee Meeting, Day 1
Message-ID: <JDOMCKLEJMLINAAA@mailcity.com>

 Imagine a debate world where the affirmative has the ability and a mandate by the resolution to write in plan spikes to destroy the best  negative ground you have, and every time the negative came up with a new strategy to stop the 90% affirmative winning percentage, that strategy is useless in a few days because of a the new spike......that may be taking this position to the extreme, but allowing the affirmative to ratify with reservations could make all next year similar to the above.  

If some of the arguments are true, concerning the fact treaties contain disclaimers about how and what kinds of reservation are allowed under that treaties framework, that would limit the number of reservations.  However, I don?t like the idea of a topic with reservations.   I would be very skeptical to vote for a resolution wording allowing it, and if that option is going to be presented the topic committee has a responsibility to list of all the possible types of reservations allowed by the treaties listed.  In my mind that would be necessary information to determine division of ground.  I mean how the can we vote for a topic when the division of ground is not clear.....

W. Bryan Gaston
UCO Assistant Coach
bgaston76 at lycos.com
405-330-9020
--

On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 13:08:58   
 Duane Hyland wrote:
>Hi, Right..but using Land Mines for instance, the only reason the US refuses to sign the treaty is Korea - if you sign the treaty you're bound by the obligations of it. I can't see how you could, as Dallas pointed out, trully sign, and ratify, the treaty, but then claim some kind of exemption for Korea. If you could, the debate would be, almost, pointless because it's Korea that fuels the debate. I think to allow spikes is dangerous, I think all or nothing would lead to better debate, it would certainly provide ground that is distinctly affirmative and partitioned from the negative's ground. Just my two cents. Duane
>
>"Very bored in Barad-Dur. Nothing to do but play Scrabble with Orcs. Is very annoying as Orcs only know Black Speech of Mordor. You try spelling Azg Nazg Gimbatul for a triple word score. Yeah, I didn't think so."  Secret Diary of the 5th Wring Wraith - LOTR
>"Have agreed to carry Ring to Mordor. In hindsight, probably a bad move." - Frodo's Diary - LOTR
>
>
>
> 
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>---------------------------------
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup


_______________________________________________________
WIN a first class trip to Hawaii.  Live like the King of Rock and Roll
on the big Island. Enter Now!
http://r.lycos.com/r/sagel_mail/http://www.elvis.lycos.com/sweepstakes



From PWRFORWARD  Fri Jun  7 04:40:43 2002
From: PWRFORWARD (PWRFORWARD)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 04:40:43 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Looking forward to seeing you again!
Message-ID: <20020607094017.KNPW7249.out004.verizon.net@Itanaeoig>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020607/6702aebb/attachment.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: audio/x-midi
Size: 94893 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020607/6702aebb/attachment.bin 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 478 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020607/6702aebb/attachment.obj 


From govnt_man  Fri Jun  7 06:57:39 2002
From: govnt_man (The Drake)
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 07:57:39 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Topic Committee Meeting, Day 1
Message-ID: <F90dOgl4rhYQYx3G5aY0000004a@hotmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020607/c384cf3a/attachment.html 


From dperkins  Fri Jun  7 07:34:12 2002
From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 08:34:12 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [eDebate] will there be any need for a resolution ballot?
In-Reply-To: <MCLKKIKENINGLAAA@shared1-mail.whowhere.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.4.33.0206070831360.21364-100000@is06.fas.harvard.edu>

This does seem to be a fair question.  Let me sharpen it a bit.  It seems
to me that there may be legitimate differences within the community about
the values at stake in the question of whether affs may ratify with
reservations.  Maybe the committee could allow the community to vote on
that issue by giving some choices that allow reservations and some that
preclude them?

dp

On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Michael Roston  wrote:

> Losnegard kindly relays:
>
> >>>
> At this point in the meeting, we are looking at a resolution w/ the
> following wording:
>
> The USFG should ratify or accede to, and implement one of the following
> treaties: [insert list of treaties]
>
> or
>
> The USFG should enact one of the following: ratify [insert treaty], sign
> and ratify [treaty], accede to [treaty]  ~ we are still looking at how to
> incorporate implement into this wording structure
>
> The debatability of various treaties will be comprehensively discussed
> tomorrow.
> >>>
>
> We're looking at "a resolution?"
>
> What diversity will the topic ballot permit?
>
> Is the five/ten/fifteen choice going to our option for diversity?
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Michael Roston
> -enemy of freedom
>
> "At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."
>                     -President Richard Nixon, May 18, 1971
>
>
>
> Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>




From cwheat99  Fri Jun  7 08:27:50 2002
From: cwheat99 (Chris Wheat)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 06:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Topic Committee Meeting, Day 1
In-Reply-To: <12d.1246f2a7.2a312c50@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20020607132750.52391.qmail@web11208.mail.yahoo.com>

> That's why it would make a good topic - just like
> the sanctions topic. Very 
> few plan mechanisms but still plenty of aff ground
> because of the number of 
> potential advantages.
> 
> Tim
> 

I would have to default to you and other people in the
community on the sanctions topic, simply because I
didn't debate it much.  But, I think that there are a
couple important points about that resolution:

*It included the term "all or nearly all".  I don't
know how many teams actually used "nearly all" for
their plan text, but it seems to me that term is an
even more expansive term than allowing reservations,
mainly because the literature would specify which
reservations were and were not legit.  A team could
always spike out of "good" sanctions.

*The term "constructive engagement" expanded the
number of plan mechanisms you could utilize.  Sure,
you had to lift sanctions on one of the nations of the
list, but you had to do more than that, giving affs
more options in terms of plan mechanisms.

I may be off about this, though.  I would welcome any
insight on this.

Also, to my best knowledge, most treaties that the US
adopts are passed with reservations.  The most
standard US reservation is that the US won't follow
any clause in a treaty that violates the US
Constitution.  The term "without reservations" would
ensure that would never happen.  Worst case scenario,
every neg CPs with the Constitutional reservation and
runs some politics good scenario.  I don't think
that's cool, although I'm unsure of its MPX on
negative strategy.

Bryan Gaston wrote about the possibility of plan
spikes, which will happen.  To take it to another
extreme, though, what about the example above?  Which
provides a better debate?  I feel like the aff at
least has a fighting chance with mine.  I also don't
think that there is ever a clear division of ground. 
We see that with "all or nearly all" parts of the
sanctions topic, "development asst. good/bad", &
"USAID good/bad" args on the Horn, and "sov. good/bad
& self-dterminiation good/bad" args on Indian Country.
 All of these were aff and neg args.  I think division
of ground is a desirable goal, but tricky teams will
always subvert it.

In all due respect, I don't think the debate of "is
this treaty good or bad" will nessecarily happen as we
want it to, mainly because we'll debate some
reservations, either as PICs or aff mechanisms, or
both.  I just think the aff may be screwed into so few
plan mechanisms, although I will conceded that the
large number of advantage areas help.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com



From spmancuso  Fri Jun  7 08:41:51 2002
From: spmancuso (Steve Mancuso)
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 09:41:51 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] reservations, conditions, declarations etc.
Message-ID: <3D00B81F.2060806@aol.com>

Thanks to those of you who have written on the subject of affirmative 
reservations.

The committee discussed this issue for over an hour on Wednesday, 
several times yesterday, and scheduled to discuss it one more time this 
morning.

Here is our thinking in not writing reservations out of the resolution 
for the affirmative.

First, several factors will ultimately discourage affirmatives from this 
practice very often.  (1)  there is fairly strong evidence that 
reservations undermine the solvency of the ratification - most of the 
treaties we are considering specifically say in their text that 
reservations are not permitted, (2) the negative could win an argument 
that extensive or debilitating reservations mean the affirmative is no 
longer "ratifying" - there are definitions of ratify that support this.

Second, if the affirmative does include one or more reservation they 
will create reasonably predictable ground for the negative.  The 
treaties that do permit reservations specifically say that any 
reservation has to be written out and on file with the UN when the 
instrument of ratification is deposited, so presumably the affirmative 
would have to have their reservations written out in the plan.  Most of 
the reservations we have seen, for example, maintaining the 
public/private distinction under CEDAW, maintaining voluntary women in 
combat under CEDAW, create strong negative ground themselves.  They also 
arguably create strong negative counterplan ground to ratify without 
reservation.

Finally, we felt that explicitly excluding reservations in the 
resolution would go a long way to legitimizing counterplans that 
ratified with reservations, which we felt created the same 
ground/predictability issues that you fear from the affirmative.  This 
would especially be the case if some of the resolutions on the ballot 
said "without reservation" and some didn't.

The bottom line is that the majority of the committee (me included) 
started this discussion with the overriding goal of preventing EITHER 
SIDE from having an easy time ratifying with reservation.  Initially we 
thought that saying "without reservation" in the resolution would be the 
way to achieve that goal.  After our discussion, we came to the 
conclusion that having the resolution be silent on the issue was the 
best way to achieve that goal.

Regarding how this relates to the variety of resolutions offered for a 
vote, two thoughts.  One, there has been virtually no specific support 
either on the list, over many months, or on the committee, for 
alternatives to listing treaties.  In fact our shared experience is that 
the reason people overwhelmingly voted for this resolution was in part 
influenced by the notion that they would know which treaties they would 
be debatiing.

Second, we feel that varying the number of treaties on the various 
resolutions is a FAR more important way to promote diversity and variety 
than having votes be influenced by the relatively small disagreements 
over verbs and adverbs.  

Thanks again for you input.  

Steve Mancuso




From matt_gerber27  Fri Jun  7 09:09:58 2002
From: matt_gerber27 (Matt Gerber)
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 09:09:58 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Bryce Dietrich/Goodin from UMKC???
Message-ID: <F119kak7MIS6TNSGM5E00011701@hotmail.com>

Sorry for the clutter, could one or both of you get back to me asap? We want 
to put you to work if possible

Matt Gerber
University of Kansas

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From jbhdb8  Fri Jun  7 09:27:28 2002
From: jbhdb8 (jbhdb8 at earthlink.com)
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 07:27:28 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] reservations, conditions, declarations etc.
Message-ID: <Springmail.0994.1023460048.0.64854100@webmail.pas.earthlink.net>

Just one quick argument from a negative hack:

It seems that your reasons are not justifications so much for giving the affirmative the reservations ground as it is for one side having reservations as ground.  As usual, I think it makes sense for the negative to have that ground.  It seems MUCH more reasonable for the affirmative who is running and researching the case to ratify a particular treaty to  be ready to defend against all explicit reservations present in the literature than it is to expect the negative to do so.  I realize that the nature of the topic erodes a great deal of the side bias in preperation but does it entirely negate the side bias?  

In the end, I think this will not really make the topic an affirmative love fest but why should the aff get this ground instead of the neg?

Josh 

On Fri, 07 Jun 2002 09:41:51 -0400 Steve Mancuso <spmancuso at aol.com> wrote:

Thanks to those of you who have written on the subject of affirmative 
reservations.

The committee discussed this issue for over an hour on Wednesday, 
several times yesterday, and scheduled to discuss it one more time this 
morning.

Here is our thinking in not writing reservations out of the resolution 
for the affirmative.

First, several factors will ultimately discourage affirmatives from this 
practice very often.  (1)  there is fairly strong evidence that 
reservations undermine the solvency of the ratification - most of the 
treaties we are considering specifically say in their text that 
reservations are not permitted, (2) the negative could win an argument 
that extensive or debilitating reservations mean the affirmative is no 
longer "ratifying" - there are definitions of ratify that support this.

Second, if the affirmative does include one or more reservation they 
will create reasonably predictable ground for the negative.  The 
treaties that do permit reservations specifically say that any 
reservation has to be written out and on file with the UN when the 
instrument of ratification is deposited, so presumably the affirmative 
would have to have their reservations written out in the plan.  Most of 
the reservations we have seen, for example, maintaining the 
public/private distinction under CEDAW, maintaining voluntary women in 
combat under CEDAW, create strong negative ground themselves.  They also 
arguably create strong negative counterplan ground to ratify without 
reservation.

Finally, we felt that explicitly excluding reservations in the 
resolution would go a long way to legitimizing counterplans that 
ratified with reservations, which we felt created the same 
ground/predictability issues that you fear from the affirmative.  This 
would especially be the case if some of the resolutions on the ballot 
said "without reservation" and some didn't.

The bottom line is that the majority of the committee (me included) 
started this discussion with the overriding goal of preventing EITHER 
SIDE from having an easy time ratifying with reservation.  Initially we 
thought that saying "without reservation" in the resolution would be the 
way to achieve that goal.  After our discussion, we came to the 
conclusion that having the resolution be silent on the issue was the 
best way to achieve that goal.

Regarding how this relates to the variety of resolutions offered for a 
vote, two thoughts.  One, there has been virtually no specific support 
either on the list, over many months, or on the committee, for 
alternatives to listing treaties.  In fact our shared experience is that 
the reason people overwhelmingly voted for this resolution was in part 
influenced by the notion that they would know which treaties they would 
be debatiing.

Second, we feel that varying the number of treaties on the various 
resolutions is a FAR more important way to promote diversity and variety 
than having votes be influenced by the relatively small disagreements 
over verbs and adverbs.  

Thanks again for you input.  

Steve Mancuso

_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at ndtceda.com
To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate



From jhutchin  Mon Jun  3 16:35:18 2002
From: jhutchin (Jeremy Hutchins)
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 16:35:18 -0500 
Subject: [eDebate] KC Summer Cooperative
Message-ID: <C18E28011272D41180AD00B0D0496C0805710191@ns-exch05>

Hi Everyone,

I am still working on the Kansas City Debate Cooperative for August 5th
through August 10th.  Tomorrow, I will send out housing and registration
details to those who have contacted me.  I have secured housing at the
Holtze Executive Village in Overland Park.  You can check out their website
at <http://www.holtze.com/home.htm>.  If you are interested in attending
please let me know ASAP.  

I hope you can join us this summer in KC!

Thanks -- Jeremy



From sharris  Tue Jun  4 14:58:11 2002
From: sharris (Harris, Scott L)
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2002 14:58:11 -0500 
Subject: [eDebate] The topic  and e-debate
Message-ID: <06EB4CB0225B3F498418311D9D6A28AA01FF1A7A@bluebird.mail.ku.edu>


I logged onto e-debate for the first time in weeks to try and make sure I
was up on community thoughts on the topic and discovered that the load of
absolute crap on the list serve makes it way too difficult to use it for a
practical purpose.  Something must be done to return this to a useful means
of communication.  This is absolutely ridiculous.  How do people who get
this garbage in their inbox deal with it?



From natebear  Thu Jun  6 11:52:23 2002
From: natebear (Nathan Whittaker)
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 10:52:23 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] Joe Carver
Message-ID: <F4GolGqj5l06Y6cVB5I000187bf@hotmail.com>


Backchannel please.

NATE

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com




From Sapel  Thu Jun  6 15:28:46 2002
From: Sapel (Sapel)
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 15:28:46 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Topic Committe Meeting/Reservations Inclusion
Message-ID: <3D017016@webmail.ku.edu>

I agree wholeheartedly with Dallas et al that allowing the aff to ratify 
w/reservations is a bad idea. I think something that was implicit in Dallas' 
post is really important to this debate: that for the US to ratify 
w/reservations fundamentally changes the nature of the treaty. This is a 
reason why the aff has ground/offense back to any ratify w/reservations CP in 
the form of credibility DAs and an infinite number of solvency args. Thus the 
topic isnt necessarily skewed heavily in the neg's favor by forcing an aff to 
ratify the treaty w/o reservations. To me this also preserves key predictable 
ground for the aff and neg and makes for clearer topicality debates and 
substantive debates in general. When the topic wordings already seem to be 
confusing with respect to the "signing and/or ratifying" debate why not keep 
this area of the resolution clear? At a miniumum why not have two of the topic 
wording proposals differ in this respect and then allow the community to vote 
on whether or not ratifying with reservations is aff or neg ground? (I'm not 
at all familiar with the way in which the wording of the resolutions is 
decided so if that doesnt make any sense please disregard the question). 
-sara





From mmk_savant  Fri Jun  7 11:01:21 2002
From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 12:01:21 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] ans Mancuso
Message-ID: <OE54FdU2NlhhZbkZvHa0000fcc6@hotmail.com>

sounds good.

one thing:  i like the idea of resolutions that sign/ratify/accede and ones that sign/ratify/accede and implement.
in particular, i have concerns about implement:  not sure how serious they are yet, but a set of resolutions without implementation is a safety-valve.

the most serious concern at the moment is that i haven't seen much literature for ratify and implement.

there is a split between authors for ratification and authors who advocate particular policies for addressing problems, some of which may or may not be implementations of treaties.  and that could be a serious problem because forcing affirmatives to glob together 2 plans (plank 1: ratify, plank2: emissions trading with reforestation and breeders) without solvency authors for the combinations will make a big mess.

the Kyoto Protocol is somewhat of an exception here but only somewhat:  although there is a ton of literature about how to control global warming/decrease fossil fuel use/decrease greenhouse gas emission, very little of that literature is framed as or discussed as implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.  Furthermore, even for Kyoto, which appears to have the fullest implementation discussion, the literature seems largely focussed on setting up agendas and meetings to discuss whether implementation is possible and what implementation would look like: not at all promising for good debates about implementing Kyoto.  my impression of the implementation literature for the other treaties is that it is an even worse shambles.

additionally, implementation opens up unknown after unknown that is left closed without it.  for example, what is implementation of Kyoto besides actually decreasing greenhouse emissions to 5% below 1990 levels? (T depends on solvency or implementation isn't a limiter)  does every article pf a given treaty have to be implemented by the aff plan part2? (have you read the Law of the Sea Treaty?  that book could stun an ox).  could one run "implement Kyoto in the manner of the affrimative plan plank2 except not for the purpose of "sustainable development" as stated in the Protocol Article 2 - and yes, they are nontopical if their plan plank2 is not an implementation of explicit purpose language

anyway, those are some concerns about adding implementation.  not sure if they amount to all that much, but they are a reason to have some variation in the verbs.

Michael Korcok
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020607/73b7ebef/attachment.htm 


From kerpen  Fri Jun  7 11:45:22 2002
From: kerpen (Phil Kerpen)
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 12:45:22 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Virus Filtering Back
Message-ID: <3D00E322.4090604@ndtceda.com>

The filter is back in place and eDebate should now be fully operational
as it was before the crashes.  Several worms slipped through when 
filtering was down--sorry about that.

Also, going subscriber only was a good idea--the number of scam emails 
has truly skyrocketed the past couple of weeks, but none of them made it 
through.  A reminder--if you are not a subscriber and you want posting 
privs, email me and I'll add you to the approved list.  (I have also 
been adding people who try to post when I let there posts through--so if 
you've had a post held for approval that later went through, you should 
now be able to post without approval.)

Again, I apologize for the recent downtime.

Thanks.




From kerpen  Fri Jun  7 12:16:19 2002
From: kerpen (Phil Kerpen)
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 13:16:19 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Observation about Resolution Ballot
Message-ID: <3D00EA63.70403@ndtceda.com>

Folks, and especially the committee:

It is IMPERATIVE that you appreciate the massive implications of the 
switch to single-transferable-vote (STV).

SPLINTERING IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE.

It doesn't matter how many resolutions are on the ballot.  It is 
*impossible* for more desired resolutions to split and a less desired 
resolution to win.

Under STV, no resolution can win unless it has 50% of the vote.  The 
purpose of the ranking is *entirely* so that a series of instant runoff 
elections can be held until one resolution has over 50% of the vote.

THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO RANK ALL TOPICS.  Under STV, your vote is not 
split or weighted.  ONLY your top choice gets your vote, unless that 
choice is eliminated for receiving the fewest votes.  Then ONLY your 
second choice gets your vote, unless that choice is eliminated.  And so on.

In the presidential election, under STV you could have voted Nader 1, 
Gore 2.  Your vote would be for Nader in the first count.  Then, when 
Nader was eliminated, your vote would be for Gore.

Now, here's the point-- there is NO REASON not to put 8 or 10 or 12 
resolutions on the ballot under the new system.  Under the old system, 
that would have been an awful mess of unpredictable splintering.  Under 
the new system THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE.  Instead, there would be a series of 
instant runoffs until the truly best-preferred resolution got over 50% 
of the vote.  Period.

So include all the permutations of different verbs and treaty lists. 
 THERE IS NO DOWNSIDE.

Thank you.




From sharris  Fri Jun  7 12:57:41 2002
From: sharris (Harris, Scott L)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 12:57:41 -0500 
Subject: [eDebate] will there be any need for a resolution ballot?
Message-ID: <06EB4CB0225B3F498418311D9D6A28AA01FF1A83@bluebird.mail.ku.edu>

 
This was an issue we discussed as well.

One of the concerns raised in our discussions is that if we placed an option
of "unconditional" or "without reservation" wording for each of the topics
it risks creating a situation where if the topic without the qualifier wins
affirmatives would be potentially empowered to make arguments that
affirmative reservations are legitimate because the community voted against
making the reservations unconditional.  Our discussions let to a consensus
that the problems created by including unconditional were greater than the
problems created by leaving it out (as Steve articulated earlier).




-----Original Message-----
From: Dallas Perkins
To: Michael Roston
Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
Sent: 6/7/02 7:34 AM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] will there be any need for a resolution ballot?

This does seem to be a fair question.  Let me sharpen it a bit.  It
seems
to me that there may be legitimate differences within the community
about
the values at stake in the question of whether affs may ratify with
reservations.  Maybe the committee could allow the community to vote on
that issue by giving some choices that allow reservations and some that
preclude them?

dp

On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Michael Roston  wrote:

> Losnegard kindly relays:
>
> >>>
> At this point in the meeting, we are looking at a resolution w/ the
> following wording:
>
> The USFG should ratify or accede to, and implement one of the
following
> treaties: [insert list of treaties]
>
> or
>
> The USFG should enact one of the following: ratify [insert treaty],
sign
> and ratify [treaty], accede to [treaty]  ~ we are still looking at
how to
> incorporate implement into this wording structure
>
> The debatability of various treaties will be comprehensively discussed
> tomorrow.
> >>>
>
> We're looking at "a resolution?"
>
> What diversity will the topic ballot permit?
>
> Is the five/ten/fifteen choice going to our option for diversity?
>
>
>
>
> ---
> Michael Roston
> -enemy of freedom
>
> "At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."
>                     -President Richard Nixon, May 18, 1971
>
>
>
> Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail
account at http://www.eudoramail.com
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>

_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at ndtceda.com
To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




From BERCHNORTO  Fri Jun  7 14:01:45 2002
From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 15:01:45 EDT
Subject: [eDebate] WVU early invite
Message-ID: <186.8d7ad39.2a325d19@aol.com>

Hi, everyone!
On behalf of the West Virginia University debate team, I'm pleased to offer 
an early invitation to the 3rd Annual John A. Jacobsohn Memorial Mountaineer 
Classic Debates.  Except for hotel information and a few other details 
(perhaps this is the year we really run the Friday night bowling tournament), 
you will find a complete invitation below.  We think the tournament offers 
some special features including:
**team awards, including one for a smaller program.
**a newcomer award for the best performance by someone in their first or 
second lifetime debate tournament.
**presentation of the Jacobsohn award to someone in the debate community who 
has performed significant public service.
**deep discounts in entry fees for geographic diversity and for smaller 
programs.
**a tournament with novice and JV emphasis the weekend of Northwestern.
**Mountaineer hospitality!!

We wish to thank Tim O'Donnell and the Mary Washington College debaters for 
stepping aside so that we might host that weekend, and we look forward to 
welcoming many old and new friends.

--Neil Berch
West Virginia University


June 7, 2002


Dear Friends and Colleagues:

On behalf of the West Virginia University Debate team, I am pleased to invite 
you to the third annual John A. Jacobsohn Memorial Mountaineer Classic 
Debates, to be held in Morgantown, February 7-9, 2003.  The tournament, 
sponsored by WVU's Eberly College of Arts and Sciences and supported by the 
WVU Alumni Association, will be sanctioned by both CEDA and ADA.  As 
indicated, the tournament will honor the memory of our late colleague John 
Jacobsohn.  The Saturday evening banquet, in addition to all the other usual 
amenities, will feature the presentation of the 3nd annual Jacobsohn award to 
a member of the debate community who has also done significant public 
service.  We expect to be joined at the banquet by Professor Jacobsohn's 
family.

We will hold 6 preliminary rounds of debate in each division (junior varsity 
and novice-since this is the same weekend as Northwestern, we will only offer 
a varsity division if sufficient demand exists), followed by the maximum 
number of elimination rounds allowed by ADA and NDT rules.  The resolution 
will be this year's national policy debate resolution, and the time limits 
will be 9-3-6, with ten minutes of preparation time for each side. Rounds one 
and two will be pre-set.  Rounds three through six will be power matched.  We 
will operate under the rules of the ADA, a copy of which may be obtained upon 
request.  The WVU debate team supports CEDA's sexual harassment policy, and 
we will enforce it.  

We expect to have competition in two divisions of debate, junior varsity and 
novice.  The eligibility rules for these divisions will be as indicated in 
the ADA rules. WVU debaters may participate in the preliminary rounds, but 
they will not be eligible for awards, and they will not advance to 
elimination rounds.

Awards will be given to the top eight teams in the novice and junior varsity 
divisions, and to the top 10 speakers in each division.  Ties between teams 
will be broken on the basis of:
1. adjusted points
2. total points
3. opponent wins
4. coin flip
Speaker awards will be based upon adjusted points.  Ties will be broken by:
1. total points
2. judge variance

Special awards will be presented to the school that wins the most debates 
during preliminary rounds, the school that is not ranked in the NDT top 50 as 
of January 15, 2003 winning the most debates during preliminary rounds, and 
the novice speaker with the highest speaker points in her/his first or second 
lifetime debate tournament.

Judges:  Each school is responsible for providing a qualified judge for each 
one or two teams entered in the tournament.  A judge will be responsible for 
covering three preliminary rounds for each team entered.  All judges are 
required to judge through the quarter final round or one round after your 
last team is eliminated, whichever occurs
later.  A VERY LIMITED number of judges will be available for hire at $100 
per uncovered team.  If you need to hire judges, please enter early!

Entries:  Please send me your entries by 4:00 PM on Tuesday, February 4, 
2003.  Entry fees are $80 per team, which will cover a variety of amenities, 
including the banquet at the WVU Erickson Alumni Center, a hospitality room 
with healthy and less-healthy snacks, awards, passes for debaters to the 
nationally recognized Friday and Saturday night WVU Up All Night programs, 
travel on WVU's Personal Rapid Transit system, and receptions for coaches on 
Friday and Saturday nights.  We think these fees are reasonable, and we 
expect to lose over $2000 on this tournament, as we did the last two years. 
However, two of our primary goals are to bring debate to new schools and 
debaters, and to bring debaters from different regions together.  In that 
spirit, we are offering the following entry fee discounts (note that you may 
only take the largest discount for which you are eligible):
$20 reduction in fees for all teams from schools outside of West Virginia, 
Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and the District of Columbia.
$45 reduction in fees for all teams from schools not ranked in the NDT top 50 
as of January 15, 2003.
$45 reduction in fees for all two-person debate teams with both members 
debating in their first or second lifetime debate tournament.  
Please advise me of eligibility for fee reductions when you register.

Entries may be sent by telephone (304-293-3811, ext. 5290), fax 
(304-293-8644, or e-mail (nberch at wvu.edu or berchnorto at aol.com).  Any teams 
or judges dropped after 12:00 noon on Wednesday, February 5 will incur a 
charge of $50. We would be especially appreciative of early entry estimates.

Hotel arrangements will be announced shortly, but we again expect a flat rate 
of around $60 for up to 4 people, most likely with breakfast included.

Schedule (and please note that we will vigorously enforce the 15 minute 
forfeit rule):

Friday, February 7:
12:30 PM-2:30 PM:  Registration on the 3rd floor of Woodburn Hall (the 
building with the clock)
3:30  Opening meeting
4:30  Round 1
6:45  Round 2
10:00 Reception for Coaches and Judges at hotel

Saturday, February 8:
7:00  Round 3 and 4 Pairings available at hotel and at Woodburn Hall
8:00  Round 3
10:15 Round 4
12:15 Lunch on your own (please note the Food Court in the Mountainlair just 
across the street from the tournament rooms.  It features a burger place, a 
Sbarro's, a sandwich shop, and a Chinese fast food establishment).
1:30  Round 5
4:00  Round 6
7:30  Banquet at Erickson Alumni Center
10:00 Reception for Coaches and Judges at hotel

Sunday, February 9:
7:00  Elimination round pairings released at hotel and Woodburn Hall.  
8:00  First elimination round
10:30 Second elimination round
1:30  Third elimination round
other elimination rounds to follow at 2.5 hour intervals as needed.

Morgantown is easily accessible by Interstate 68 from the East, and by 
Interstate 79 from the North and South.  We will provide more detailed 
directions upon entry, as we await the completion of some construction before 
deciding which way into town to recommend.  The hills of West Virginia are 
beautiful any time of the year, but they are especially pretty in February 
(really!).  We hope to see many of you, and we look forward to returning the 
hospitality that many of you have shown us these past several years.


Sincerely,



Neil Berch
Associate Professor of Political Science
and Debate Coach
on behalf of the WVU Debate Team

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020607/e49f3975/attachment.html 


From kkuswa  Fri Jun  7 14:22:35 2002
From: kkuswa (Kevin Kuswa)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 15:22:35 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] early richmond invite
Message-ID: <014c01c20e58$af1c3ed0$17b8a68d@richmond.edu>

Hi all.  Thanks to the topic people for all their hard work.  This information will soon be on our web site (location tba) and I can send you a word attachment if that helps.  Hope to see you in October.



Kevin 







Announcing the...

 

 

Jay Weinberg Autumn Debate Tournament 
at the University of Richmond

 

October 12-14, 2002 (Sat.-Mon.)

 

 

 The University of Richmond Debate Team would like to take this opportunity to invite you to the 2002 Jay Weinberg Autumn Debate Tournament to be held on October 12th , 13th and 14th.  We will be offering 8 rounds of preliminary competition and we hope to break to at least Octos in two divisions (with a semis break-out for JV).  If we have enough teams in each division, we will host three distinct divisions of competition.  The tournament will abide by ADA, CEDA, and NDT rules.  Any conflict will be resolved by the Director in consultation with the Tab Room Director.     

 

 

Lodging

 

    The tournament hotel is the Best Western Executive Hotel.   They will offer a $65 flat rate for up to four occupants. They are located at 7007 West Broad Street, Richmond, VA 23294, phone: (804) 672-7007, fax: (804) 672-7007.  Our contact is Shantelle McCray and you should mention "Richmond Debate" to obtain the group rate.  The group rate is available Friday, Oct. 11 through Monday, Oct. 14th (or longer if necessary).  Talk to Shantelle McCray if you have any problems.  There are a number of other hotels in the area with slightly higher rates.  Let us know if you would like phone numbers/locations.

 

    Pairings and lists of breaking teams will be available at the hotel and on campus.  We will host a small coaches reception on Saturday night and a larger gathering on Sunday night, both at the Best Western.  In addition, the Best Western will be providing a complimentary "Deluxe Breakfast" for hotel guests, including waffles, bacon, and the usual breakfast amenities.

 

    The cut-off date for the group rate is Sept. 20, 2002, although you may still obtain the rate after that date if rooms are available.  Register early to avoid problems.

 

Hope to see you out here.  If you have not seen the campus, that's reason enough to add us to your schedule.  Our goal is to provide lots of debates, great judging, and a reasonable schedule.

 

Kevin Kuswa and the UR Spider Debate Team

 

 

CONTACT INFO: 

 

Kevin Douglas Kuswa, Phd
Director of Debating
Dept. of Rhetoric and Comm. Studies
University of Richmond
Richmond, VA 23173
email: kkuswa at richmond.edu
phone: 804-289-8269   fax: 804-287-6496                cell: 804-370-9392 (emergencies only)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FORMAT 

 

At the 2002 Jay Weinberg Autumn Debate Tournament the "treaties" resolution (agreed to by CEDA vote) will be debated.

 

Participants will engage in eight rounds of preliminary competition in all levels.  The time limits will be 9-3-6 with 10 minutes of prep.

 

The Tournament will abide by the CEDA constitution's statements on eligibility, sexual harassment, and evidence challenges.  The tournament will be sanctioned by CEDA, NDT, & ADA.  If any of these rules or bylaws conflict with one another, determinations will be made on a case-by-case basis by the tab room and the tournament director. 

 

The ADA definitions of novice, JV, and open eligibility will be in effect.  Elimination rounds will begin on Monday morning.  Teams will advance into elimination rounds based on the following criteria:

 

1) win-loss record,

2) total team points,

3) adjusted team points,

4) double-adjusted team points,

5) total team ranks.

 

We will not break brackets.  Advancing teams will be up to the discretion of the coach and the school involved.

 

ENTRIES and FEES and JUDGES
 

We have a $90 entry fee per team.  We have a $200 entry fee for each uncovered team.  We are attempting to assist teams without judges by only adding $10 per prelim and $30 for Monday morning (thus, the $200 fee for uncovered teams).  This does not cover the cost of hiring outside judges.  We strongly encourage you to bring your own judges.  Keep in mind that each covered team MUST provide a judge available on Monday. 

 

Observers.  The trend to charge for observers is necessary to keep food costs manageable and to make sure that the judges and participants are adequately fed.  Non-judging observers (or judges with less than half a commitment) will be charged $45.

 

If you have extra judges you would like to bring, please contact us and we will work out compensation. 

 

In the spirit of encouraging new debate, we will continue to waive entry fees for new programs or programs with financial hardships.  We also have a very limited amount of free housing available.  Please contact us no later than Sept. 15th if you have these needs.  Priority will be given to those teams traveling from the most distant locations.

 

ENTRIES ARE DUE BY PHONE, FAX, OR E-MAIL NO LATER THAN MONDAY, OCTOBER 7th  AT 5:30 PM.  A late fee of $25 per team may be assessed, particularly if you have not expressed your intent to register by that time.  Please contact us early - a rough head count is always appreciated ahead of time. There is no limit to the number of teams entered by a school.



 

AWARDS
 

Speaker awards will be given to the top 10 debaters in at least two divisions on the following criteria: 1) total speaker points, 2) adjusted speaker points, 3) double-adjusted speaker points, 4) total ranks, 5) adjusted ranks, 6) win-loss record, 7) thumb wrestling best 2 out 3 matches.  Our speaker awards also function (as writing utensils) J.

 

We will award trophies through at least quarters in both divisions and through semis for the "JV break-out" rounds.   If enough teams compete in JV, we will award trophies at least through quarters.

 

TRAVEL
 

UR debate will provide transportation to and from Richmond International Airport.  Please phone the Best Western or the team at the numbers above to confirm availability.  To rent vehicles, we will need to know of your plans by Sept. 15th to guarantee transportation.  

You can often find cheaper fares into Norfolk, VA (75 min.), Dulles (90 min.), or BWI (2hrs).

 

REGISTRATION: 

 

Registration will be held Friday evening at the Best Western lobby between 7-10 PM.  Late registration is on campus Saturday morning, although we require a phone call if you cannot make registration by 10:00 pm on Friday.  Campus maps will be available there and on the web site (http://www.richmond.edu/visitors/gettinghere/).   You can park in the commuter lots behind the School of Business.  We will have a parking pass for you at registration.

 

 

DIRECTIONS TO EVERYWHERE: http://www.richmond.edu/visitors/gettinghere/

 

To Hotel:

 

>From I-95 or From I-64 West:

>From I-95, take Exit 79 onto I-64 West. Go approximately 3 miles. Take Exit 183-C

for Broad Street West.  Proceed straight on Broad Street for approximately one hundred yards.   Turn left at the second light Emerywood Parkway  (The Commerce Center/Embassy Suites Entrance. Proceed down Emerywood Parkway for 100 feet.  Turn left at the Best Western Entrance into the Shoney's parkinglot.  The Best Western is straight ahead.

 

>From I-64 East:

Take Exit 183. Make sure you take Broad Street West. Take a left on Glenside Drive and go ? a mile to Broad Street (first light after you turn left; a K-Mart on the corner). Turn left onto Broad Street. Proceed straight on Broad Street for approximately one hundred yards.   Turn left at the second light Emerywood Parkway  (The Commerce Center/Embassy Suites Entrance. Proceed down Emerywood Parkway for 100 feet.  Turn left at the Best Western Entrance into the Shoney's parking lot.  The Best Western is straight ahead.

 

>From the University of Richmond:

 

>From the parking lot off of Ryland Circle, make a left onto Gateway Road. Make the second left onto Campus Drive. Make the right onto Boatwright Drive. Turn left onto Three Chopt Road. At the second light, take the right turn yield onto Glenside (also known as Horsepen). Stay on Glenside. Turn left onto Broad Street. Proceed straight on Broad Street for approximately one hundred yards.   Turn left at the second light Emerywood Parkway  (The Commerce Center/Embassy Suites Entrance. Proceed down Emerywood Parkway for 100 feet.  Turn left at the Best Western Entrance into the Shoney's parking lot.  The Best Western is straight ahead.

 

To the University of Richmond.

 

>From the Best Western turn right onto Broad Street. Get into the right lane. Take the right turn yield onto Glenside. Drive to the fifth traffic light (Three Chopt Road). Turn left on Three Chopt. Continue straight for 8/10 mile. Turn right onto Boatwright Drive (approximately .5 mile after the traffic signal). At the bottom of the hill, make a left onto Campus Drive. Make the first right onto Gateway Road. To get to Jepson Hall, take the second right onto Ryland Circle and park in the parking lots on your left.



 

>From the west:

 

FROM I-64

Take Exit 183/Glenside Drive south. Continue south on Glenside Drive to the fourth traffic light (Three Chopt Road). Turn left on Three Chopt. Continue straight for 8/10 mile. Turn right onto Boatwright Drive (approximately .5 mile after the traffic signal). At the bottom of the hill, make a left onto Campus Drive. Make the first right onto Gateway Road. To get to Jepson Hall, take the second right onto Ryland Circle and park in the parking lots on your left.

 

US 60 (Midlothian Turnpike)

Turn left on State Route 147 (Huguenot Road) continue to Three Chopt Road, turn left on Three Chopt Road. Turn left on Towana Drive (approximately .5 mile after turning onto Three Chopt). Make a left onto Gateway Road. To get to Jepson Hall, take the second right onto Ryland Circle and park in the parking lots on your left.

 

>From the southwest:

 

US 360 (Hull Street Road)

Take Rte. 288 North to the Powhite Parkway (toll road). Continue for nine miles to State Rte. 150 (Chippenham Pkwy.) North. After two miles, exit onto State Rte. 147 (Huguenot Road). Turn right on State Route 147. You will pass over the James River on the Huguenot Bridge. Proceed to the second traffic light after the bridge (Three Chopt Road). Turn left on Three Chopt. Turn left on Towana Drive (approximately .5 mile after turning onto Three Chopt). Make a left onto Gateway Road. To get to Jepson Hall, take the second right onto Ryland Circle and park in the parking lots on your left.

 

>From the north:

 

FROM I-95 (Do not take I-295!)

Take Exit 79 off I-95 to I-64 west continue west on I-64. Take Exit 183-A/Glenside Drive south. Continue south on Glenside Drive to the fifth traffic light (Three Chopt Road). Turn left on Three Chopt. Continue straight for 8/10 mile. Turn right onto Boatwright Drive (approximately .5 mile after the traffic signal). At the bottom of the hill, make a left onto Campus Drive. Make the first right onto Gateway Road. To get to Jepson Hall, take the second right onto Ryland Circle and park in the parking lots on your left.

 

>From the east:

 

FROM I-64

Going West on I-64. As you approach the city of Richmond, I-64 West merges with

I-95 North. Take I-95 North to exit 79 back onto I-64 West. Take Exit 183-A/Glenside Drive south. Continue south on Glenside Drive to the fifth traffic light (Three Chopt Road). Turn left on Three Chopt. Continue straight for 8/10 mile. Turn right onto Boatwright Drive (approximately .5 mile after the traffic signal). At the bottom of the hill, make a left onto Campus Drive. Make the first right onto Gateway Road. To get to Jepson Hall, take the second right onto Ryland Circle and park in the parking lots on your left.

 

>From the south:

 

I-85 to I-95

Take Exit 79 off I-95 north to I-64 west, continue west on I-64. Take Exit 183-A/Glenside Drive south. Continue south on Glenside Drive to the fifth traffic light (Three Chopt Road). Turn left on Three Chopt. Continue straight for 8/10 mile. Turn right onto Boatwright Drive (approximately .5 mile after the traffic signal). At the bottom of the hill, make a left onto Campus Drive. Make the first right onto Gateway Road. To get to Jepson Hall, take the second right onto Ryland Circle and park in the parking lots on your left. Looking forward to seeing you in Richmond this October!!!

 

 

 



-- TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE--

 

Friday, October 11

 

7-10 PM: Registration at the Best Western, room number tba

 

Saturday, October 12
 

7:15-8:00 AM                   Late Registration at tournament site (T.H. Commons, 2nd Floor)

7:30-7:45 AM                 Pairings Released at hotel and campus (rounds 1 & 2)

8:30 AM                              Round 1

11:00 AM                            Round 2

 

1:00 - 2:00                        Lunch  (Commons-outside weather permitting)

 

2:15                                       Round 3

4:30                                      Round 4 (powered hi/low off first 2)

 

 

Sunday, October 13
 

7:30  AM                             Pairings Released at hotel and campus 

8:30 AM                              Round 5 (high-high off first four)

11:00 AM                            Round 6 (hi-low off first four)

 

1:00 - 2:00                        Lunch  (Commons-outside weather permitting)

 

2:15                                       Round 7 (high-high off first 6)

4:30                                      Round 8 (hi-low off first 6)

 

 

Teams breaking listed at the Best Western after Round 8

 

Coaches reception at Best Western room TBA @ 9:30pm-1:30am

 

ALL JUDGES ARE OBLIGATED AT LEAST THROUGH THE FIRST ELIM ON MONDAY

 

Monday, October 14

 

7:30 AM:                 Pairings released, hotel and campus

 

8:30 AM:                             First Elimination Round

 

11:15 AM:                 Awards Ceremony

 

12:15 PM:                            Second Elim Round                &    Necessary Break-Out Rounds

 

3:00 PM:                             Third Elim Round                &    Necessary Break-Out Rounds

 

6:00 PM:                             Fourth Elim Round                

 

9:00 PM:                             Fifth Elim Round (if necessary)

 



2002 Richmond Tournament (Oct. 12-14)

Registration Form

 

School:__________________                Director/Coach:___________________

 

Email:__________________                Hotel while here: _________________________

 

Address:_____________________________________________________________

 

Phone:_____________ (cell)_______________                Fax:__________________

 

 

Team Member A                   Team Member B                Division: (Novice or JV/Open) 

                                                                                                                Indicate JV or Open for break-out

 

1.                                             .                                                                                                               

 

2.                                            .                                                                                                               

 

3.                                            .                                                                                                               

 

4.                                            .                                                                                                               

 

5.                                            .                                                                                                               

 

6.                                            .                                                                                                               

 

7.                                            .                                                                                                               

 

(use back/new sheet for additional)

 

JUDGES:                Name                                      Limitations                                                   Conflicts
 

.                                               .                                                                                                               

 

.                                               .                                                                                                               

 

.                                               .                                                                                                               

 

.                                               .                                                                                                               

 

 

Fees:                ____Teams @ $90 each                            $_________

 

                ____Uncovered Teams @ $200 each             $_________

 

                                Total:                                                         $_________

 



 

Call, Fax, or Email Entries to Dr. Kevin Kuswa.

 

 

Dept. of Rhetoric and Comm. Studies
University of Richmond
Richmond, VA 23173

 

 

 

 

 


email: kkuswa at richmond.edu
phone: 804-289-8269   fax: 804-287-6496

Cell: 804-370-9392 (emergencies only)

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020607/068c2358/attachment.htm 


From Spmancuso  Fri Jun  7 14:54:45 2002
From: Spmancuso (Spmancuso at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 15:54:45 EDT
Subject: [eDebate] topic ballot
Message-ID: <146.f9e5a39.2a326985@aol.com>

Here are the three topics that will appear on the ballot:

(1) Resolved that the United States Federal Government should ratify or 
accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;
The Kyoto Protocol; 
The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court;
The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and 
Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty;
The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on 
Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.


(2) Resolved that the United States Federal Government should ratify or 
accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:

The Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste with the 
1995 Ban Amendment;
The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against 
Women;
The Kyoto Protocol; 
The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court;
The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and 
Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty;
The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on 
Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.

(3) Resolved that the United States Federal Government should ratify or 
accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:

The Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste with the 
1995 Ban Amendment;
The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;
The Convention on Biological Diversity;
The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against 
Women;
The Convention on the Rights of the Child;
The Kyoto Protocol; 
The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court;
The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and 
Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty;
The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on 
Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.


Steve Mancuso




From kkuswa  Fri Jun  7 15:39:43 2002
From: kkuswa (Kevin Kuswa)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 16:39:43 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] topic ballot
References: <146.f9e5a39.2a326985@aol.com>
Message-ID: <01b401c20e63$746989e0$17b8a68d@richmond.edu>

wow--good work folks.  i am a little surprised that all three options
have treaties in different areas, but that's the way the process works.
no matter what, adv. areas will be VERY diverse.

kevin
spide(r)bate

----- Original Message -----
From: <Spmancuso at aol.com>
To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:54 PM
Subject: [eDebate] topic ballot


> Here are the three topics that will appear on the ballot:
>
> (1) Resolved that the United States Federal Government should ratify or
> accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:
>
> The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;
> The Kyoto Protocol;
> The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court;
> The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and
> Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty;
> The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation
on
> Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.
>
>
> (2) Resolved that the United States Federal Government should ratify or
> accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:
>
> The Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste with the
> 1995 Ban Amendment;
> The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;
> The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
> Women;
> The Kyoto Protocol;
> The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court;
> The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and
> Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty;
> The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation
on
> Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.
>
> (3) Resolved that the United States Federal Government should ratify or
> accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:
>
> The Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste with the
> 1995 Ban Amendment;
> The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;
> The Convention on Biological Diversity;
> The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
> Women;
> The Convention on the Rights of the Child;
> The Kyoto Protocol;
> The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court;
> The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and
> Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty;
> The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation
on
> Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.
>
>
> Steve Mancuso
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




From mmk_savant  Fri Jun  7 15:47:23 2002
From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 16:47:23 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] okay...
Message-ID: <OE49KQYvOrbKiA8K6Kc00010149@hotmail.com>

so i just missed the public discussion about

The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty;

and

The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Strategic Offensive Reductions?

just asking, did i miss the public discussion?  maybe while edebate was having spasms?
would someone mind re-posting that public discussion?

Michael Korcok

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020607/0120e312/attachment.html 


From jd.rollins  Fri Jun  7 16:05:41 2002
From: jd.rollins (Joel Rollins)
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 16:05:41 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] cate morrison
Message-ID: <B9268A54.6076%jd.rollins@mail.utexas.edu>

are you out there!  contact me. 




From wishfull  Fri Jun  7 16:02:26 2002
From: wishfull (Michael Roston )
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 17:02:26 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] resolution ballot
Message-ID: <NFKCLLJJGDFKLAAA@shared1-mail.whowhere.com>

I agree with Kuswa's commendations.

As far as the inclusion of the Moscow Treaty between US and Russia, did the committee read something I missed?  While Joe Biden ensured the adminsitration that there would be about a half dozen hearings on the treaty (see http://www.clw.org/control/newsupdates/020606.html ), I haven't seen anything to indicate it wouldn't be ratified before the end of the year.  There certainly won't be any Helms-ian antics obstructing it, and I haven't seen a single comment from members of the Senate saying they were going to do everything in their power to kill the treaty.  

Basically, people who want more than four treaties should not vote for the first resolution because that's what you're going to be left with by the end of the year.

And whatever happened to the Law of the Sea Convention?  


---
Michael Roston
-enemy of freedom

"At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."
                    -President Richard Nixon, May 18, 1971



Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com




From wishfull  Fri Jun  7 16:09:54 2002
From: wishfull (Michael Roston )
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 17:09:54 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] death penalty ban
Message-ID: <KCHBBAKPOJFKLAAA@shared1-mail.whowhere.com>

There has been some referencing of the death penalty ban in a few places.  Steve listed it in treaties under consideration in a message he sent out early in May, or maybe late in April, and I think it was used as an example of human rights treaties in the Leong/Dutcher back and forth on the CRC

here's a few paragraphs I wrote on the death penalty for a briefing paper I wrote for the topic committee:

2.  Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty

At this stage of the development of international human rights law, this treaty may be the lost crown jewel.  Few issues are more serious and pressing than whether or not states should execute their citizens (or the citizens of other states when applicable) for criminal reasons.  Thus far, only 53 states have signed this treaty - fewer have ratified it.  Many states continue to view execution as an integral element of law and order within their societies.

The debate community is no stranger to the death penalty, and it was seriously debated and discussed during the criminal procedure topic of 1994-95.  Beyond specific treaty concerns, the efficacy and necessity of the death penalty will be an area of affirmative and negative ground that is fairly divided.  Once the US signed and ratified such a treaty, it would be taking a very progressive stance that is very much out in front of many of its allies.  Moreover, such a statement by the US would send a very particular human rights signal that would create ample ground for both the affirmative and negative sides to evaluate.

Specific issues about the treaty are also available for debate.  The treaty creates room for reservation in time of war, and the signal that such a reservation sends could be debated out.  Additionally, the treaty requires that the UN Secretary General be notified of a state of war by a party wishing to perform an execution, which has obvious impacts upon the military strategy of any state-party in this era of undeclared wars.  Moreover, the treaty mandates the pre-emption of sub-national governing units within federated states, which would add ground about the merits of federalism to the debate.  

Finally, it is not evident that this treaty is necessary - it is entirely possible that domestic legislation in the United States could have similar international impacts as the signature and ratification of a treaty abolishing the death penalty.  Debating the relative international signals of a treaty versus domestic legislation will provide ample counterplan ground for the negative side.

To view the text of this treaty, see:  http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/b5ccprp2.htm 


---
Michael Roston
-enemy of freedom

"At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."
                    -President Richard Nixon, May 18, 1971



Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com




From mmk_savant  Fri Jun  7 16:25:29 2002
From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 17:25:29 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] thank you Mr. Roston
Message-ID: <OE70y7rjcxtniFKULPE0000fde5@hotmail.com>

looks good.

did the same sort of discussion happen about including SORT?

like, what were the arguments FOR including a treaty which formalizes the unilateral actions of the US and Russia which was just negotiated and signed 2 WEEKS AGO and which will almost certainly be ratified?

in particular, what was the devastatingly GOOD reason to do so which guaranteed that it would be debated because it appeared in all 3 of the resolutions?

Michael Korcok
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020607/57437ff8/attachment.htm 


From ucodebate  Fri Jun  7 17:20:57 2002
From: ucodebate (ucodebate at att.net)
Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 22:20:57 +0000
Subject: [eDebate] topic ballot
Message-ID: <20020607222058.CSLK13408.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@webmail.worldnet.att.net>

Thank you to everyone on the topic committee and in the 
community who obviously did a lot of work to make sure 
that they got all the action verbs right.  I think that 
the resolutional verbs reflect that extra effort.

I wish that there had been some extra effort to discuss 
the BILATERAL US/RUSSIA initiative.  I viewed this as a 
potential uniqueness answer not a topic area.  Notice 
all the treaties on the proposed list are multilateral.  
What gives?

I?m pretty sure this won?t be a potential case area the 
whole year.  I think that the phase, ?if not ratified by 
the United States.? Indicates that the topic committee 
is pretty sure it will be passed as well.  Isn?t this 
like the only thing, other than drop bombs, that bush 
has wanted to do with other countries?  

It also appears to really confuse a lot of good generic 
ground on the resolution.  All of the affirmative can 
now say that they are bilateral instead of 
multilateral.  Not cool.

Also,  what gives?  Why do you have to debate at least 7 
treaties to debate about CEDAW?  Are you telling the 
folks who would like to debate about feminism that they 
will have to go for the middle of the road 7 treaties 
unless they don?t want to talk about the rights of women 
and children.  I would have liked to have seen this one 
in the short list of treaties (5).  

I guess nobody will be happy with all possible 
resolutions, but the Russia treaty is an affront to the 
discussions previously had on the list.  I have cut and 
pasted the last word that I got about which treaties we 
were considering below.  The BILATERAL us/russia treaty 
is NOT on the list.  I thought I was following this very 
closely.  Maybe strobe, et al made me miss a pivotal 
post.  But I doubt it.  What is the justification?  Am I 
wrong?  Was this discussed?  If not I think that the 
committee should speak to this.

From: 	Steve Mancuso <spmancuso at aol.com> [ Save 
address ] 
To: 	edebate at ndtceda.com 
Subject: 	[eDebate] Now, which treaties? 
Date: 	Fri, 17 May 2002 19:40:44 -0400 

  Here is the list of treaties the Topic Committee is 
currently 
investigating.  We are looking at two groups of 
treaties, those that 
need only to be ratified, and those that need to be 
signed and ratified. 
 Some "treaties" may not be sufficiently formal to be 
ready for signature.

If you would like us to consider an additional one, 
please send me some 
internet cites/sites containing affirmative and negative 
arguments.  I'm 
especially interested in treaties in the collective 
defense, environment 
and trade agreement areas.


Kyoto on Climate Change
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
UN Convention to End Discrimination Against Women
Law of the Sea
International Criminal Court
Small Arms
Bioweapons Convention
Ottawa Landmine Convention
Fissile Material Cutoff
Terrorism Finance
Death Penalty
Migrant Workers
Protocol on Biosafety


Steve Mancuso
Topic Commitee Chair



--
Director of Debate
100 N. University Ave.
Department of Communication
University of Central Oklahoma
Edmond, OK 73034
(405) 974-5584 (o)
> Here are the three topics that will appear on the ballot:
> 
> (1) Resolved that the United States Federal Government should ratify or 
> accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:
> 
> The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;
> The Kyoto Protocol; 
> The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court;
> The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and 
> Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty;
> The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on 
> Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.
> 
> 
> (2) Resolved that the United States Federal Government should ratify or 
> accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:
> 
> The Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste with the 
> 1995 Ban Amendment;
> The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;
> The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against 
> Women;
> The Kyoto Protocol; 
> The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court;
> The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and 
> Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty;
> The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on 
> Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.
> 
> (3) Resolved that the United States Federal Government should ratify or 
> accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:
> 
> The Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste with the 
> 1995 Ban Amendment;
> The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;
> The Convention on Biological Diversity;
> The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against 
> Women;
> The Convention on the Rights of the Child;
> The Kyoto Protocol; 
> The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court;
> The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and 
> Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty;
> The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on 
> Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.
> 
> 
> Steve Mancuso
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




From kschriver  Fri Jun  7 20:08:35 2002
From: kschriver (Schriver, Kristina)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 18:08:35 -0700 
Subject: [eDebate] topic ballot
Message-ID: <DDD44CED28C8D111B7CF00805F6F5FD9077E2508@MAPLE>

I'll let will, steve or shawn speak to the bi-lateral issue.

But, I can in part answer your question about the exclusion of CEDAW in the
list of five. Steve Harris spoke eleoquently to the idea of having diverse
topics on each resolutional choice. The committee agreed. We also achieved
consenus of the inclusion of ICC, CTBT, Kyoto, and Death penalty. CEDAW
nearly made the list but those not supporting its inclusion felt it made the
small rez choice very human rights focused. 



-----Original Message-----
From: ucodebate at att.net
To: Spmancuso at aol.com
Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
Sent: 6/7/02 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] topic ballot

Thank you to everyone on the topic committee and in the 
community who obviously did a lot of work to make sure 
that they got all the action verbs right.  I think that 
the resolutional verbs reflect that extra effort.

I wish that there had been some extra effort to discuss 
the BILATERAL US/RUSSIA initiative.  I viewed this as a 
potential uniqueness answer not a topic area.  Notice 
all the treaties on the proposed list are multilateral.  
What gives?

I'm pretty sure this won't be a potential case area the 
whole year.  I think that the phase, "if not ratified by 
the United States." Indicates that the topic committee 
is pretty sure it will be passed as well.  Isn't this 
like the only thing, other than drop bombs, that bush 
has wanted to do with other countries?  

It also appears to really confuse a lot of good generic 
ground on the resolution.  All of the affirmative can 
now say that they are bilateral instead of 
multilateral.  Not cool.

Also,  what gives?  Why do you have to debate at least 7 
treaties to debate about CEDAW?  Are you telling the 
folks who would like to debate about feminism that they 
will have to go for the middle of the road 7 treaties 
unless they don't want to talk about the rights of women 
and children.  I would have liked to have seen this one 
in the short list of treaties (5).  

I guess nobody will be happy with all possible 
resolutions, but the Russia treaty is an affront to the 
discussions previously had on the list.  I have cut and 
pasted the last word that I got about which treaties we 
were considering below.  The BILATERAL us/russia treaty 
is NOT on the list.  I thought I was following this very 
closely.  Maybe strobe, et al made me miss a pivotal 
post.  But I doubt it.  What is the justification?  Am I 
wrong?  Was this discussed?  If not I think that the 
committee should speak to this.

From: 	Steve Mancuso <spmancuso at aol.com> [ Save 
address ] 
To: 	edebate at ndtceda.com 
Subject: 	[eDebate] Now, which treaties? 
Date: 	Fri, 17 May 2002 19:40:44 -0400 

  Here is the list of treaties the Topic Committee is 
currently 
investigating.  We are looking at two groups of 
treaties, those that 
need only to be ratified, and those that need to be 
signed and ratified. 
 Some "treaties" may not be sufficiently formal to be 
ready for signature.

If you would like us to consider an additional one, 
please send me some 
internet cites/sites containing affirmative and negative 
arguments.  I'm 
especially interested in treaties in the collective 
defense, environment 
and trade agreement areas.


Kyoto on Climate Change
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
UN Convention to End Discrimination Against Women
Law of the Sea
International Criminal Court
Small Arms
Bioweapons Convention
Ottawa Landmine Convention
Fissile Material Cutoff
Terrorism Finance
Death Penalty
Migrant Workers
Protocol on Biosafety


Steve Mancuso
Topic Commitee Chair



--
Director of Debate
100 N. University Ave.
Department of Communication
University of Central Oklahoma
Edmond, OK 73034
(405) 974-5584 (o)
> Here are the three topics that will appear on the ballot:
> 
> (1) Resolved that the United States Federal Government should ratify
or 
> accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:
> 
> The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;
> The Kyoto Protocol; 
> The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court;
> The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil
and 
> Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty;
> The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian
Federation on 
> Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.
> 
> 
> (2) Resolved that the United States Federal Government should ratify
or 
> accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:
> 
> The Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste with
the 
> 1995 Ban Amendment;
> The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;
> The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against 
> Women;
> The Kyoto Protocol; 
> The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court;
> The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil
and 
> Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty;
> The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian
Federation on 
> Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.
> 
> (3) Resolved that the United States Federal Government should ratify
or 
> accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:
> 
> The Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste with
the 
> 1995 Ban Amendment;
> The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;
> The Convention on Biological Diversity;
> The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against 
> Women;
> The Convention on the Rights of the Child;
> The Kyoto Protocol; 
> The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court;
> The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil
and 
> Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty;
> The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian
Federation on 
> Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.
> 
> 
> Steve Mancuso
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at ndtceda.com
To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




From ksherwood01  Sat Jun  8 00:10:19 2002
From: ksherwood01 (Ken Sherwood)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 22:10:19 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Looking for Aimee Anderson
Message-ID: <000001c20eaa$c8cf1940$2002a8c0@kitchen>

Anyone out there who has an address for Aimee, please let me know.
 
Thanks
 
Ken Sherwood
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020607/68c8a922/attachment.html 


From cisneros_jd  Sat Jun  8 01:13:21 2002
From: cisneros_jd (Josue Cisneros)
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 23:13:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] topic ballot
In-Reply-To: <DDD44CED28C8D111B7CF00805F6F5FD9077E2508@MAPLE>
Message-ID: <20020608061321.37830.qmail@web20107.mail.yahoo.com>

i have to agree with the sentiments that have been
shared recently on edebate.  there seem to be a couple
of problems with the inclusion of the bilateral
US/Russian treaty.  

1.  just that: it's bilateral!  just as was uttered
earlier, having all multilateral treaties provides for
some generic ground that we can all rely on.  however,
throwing in this bilateral treaty seems like it will
make that work obsolete in some instances.  

2.  even if this isn't a concern, the concensus
expressed by others is that this treaty will be
ratified before the end of the first semester.  is it
a good idea to make a staple treaty of ALL THREE
resolutions one that will only last for a few months? 
What if the sancitons topic would have been "lift all
or nearly all sanctions on one or more of the
following: Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba
but only until the Wake Forest tournament"?  what is
the point of including this treaty if it has the
chance of being ratified.  woudln't we be better
served by including one of the other treaty that seems
to have more community support?

2.  also, this treaty wasn't discussed in or
introduced to the community.  why did the committe
choose to include it without letting the debate
community know about it, especially on a topic that
seems to necessitate so much community involvement.  

4.  this treaty seems to go against the very spirit of
the topic paper with talked about the benefit of
multilateral treaties becasue of the good debates over
things like inhternational law and modeling that they
woudl spark.  

some have said that the committe feared put CEDAW on
the resolution becasue it would be too "human rights
focused" but what is the point of putting two treaties
that deal with the stockpiling adn use of nuclear
weapons.  we all know that a huge debate on the CTBT
treaty will be dealing with Russian nukes, do we
really need a seperate treaty to deal with this?  Has
the topic committe talked about how these two issues
will relate to each other?  I think it would be more
beneficial and intersting to include two human rights
treaties that deal with such different aspects of
human rights than it is to include two nuclear
proliferation treaties.  will our arguments from one
to the otehr really differ than much?  

i dont' know if these comments, which are mostly
reiterations of what others have said, can have any
effect or if the deal is pretty much sealed.  but, at
leat i think the community would like some kind of
explanation about why and how this treaty came about
to be included in the resolutions without any notice
in discussions.  i mean we even had a summary of the
first days' proceedings for goodness' sake and we
didn't have any notice of this.  

anyway, these comments are not meant to disparage or
ignore the work of the topic committe.  every other
aspect of the potential resolutions and the work you
have put into them is great.  i commend you all for
your great work, really.

much love,
david cisneros
mercer



=====


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com




From sharris  Sat Jun  8 01:45:31 2002
From: sharris (Harris, Scott L)
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 01:45:31 -0500 
Subject: [eDebate] topic ballot
Message-ID: <06EB4CB0225B3F498418311D9D6A28AA01FF1A85@bluebird.mail.ku.edu>

A Brief explanation of how the bilateral Russia treaty ended up on the
ballot.


The debate over the bilateral treaty was an issue the committee spent a lot
of time on.  We spent time wednesday night and thursday morning discussing
which treaties to consider.  By late thursday morning we had reached a
decision to exclude treaties which were not yet really finished (BWC, small
arms, fissile, etc), to exclude the land mine convention and law of the sea
largely on the grounds that they are too slanted for the affirmative, to
exclude the terrorism treaties because they were already ratified last
december, to exclude the Biosafety Protocol because you have to ratify the
CBD before you can be a part of the Protocol and to exclude the migrant
workers treaty for reasons I can't remember.  That left the number of
treaties we were dealing with a little more limited and members of the
committee were commissioned over the lunch break to investigate other
treaties we might consider.  Someone raised the possibility of looking to
see if there were any bilateral economic or arms control treaties that might
be options.  

Will Repko reported back that afternoon on two treaties, the Basel
convention and the U.S. Russia Arms control treaty and several members of
the committee did additional research to assess the debatability of these
treaties.  We talked about a lot of issues related to the arms control
treaty including the fact that its bilateral nature makes much of the
generic argument ground from other treaties inapplicable, fear that it may
be ratified and if the affirmative could still run it but only have to
implement it the debate is drastically altered, and concern that the treaty
is so recent that the literature is fully developed.  We tried to resolve
the post ratification problem by conditioning its topicality on it not being
ratified (and I pray our wording accomplished that goal).
     
Steve did a great job trying to operate the committee by concensus but this
was an area where ultimately we had to make decisions by voting.  There were
some committee members who were very excited about the inclusion of the
Russia treaty and some who didn't want it at all. 
We first decided that we would have 3 ballot options of 5,7,and 9 treaties.
Other options on the table when we voted included 6,7,8; a parallel list
which left Russia out; a single option that left Russia out, and various
other permutations.  We proceeded to a vote on which treaties to include in
each list.  There was concensus for the base four of CTBT, Kyoto, ICC and
Death Penalty.  The vote on the 5th treaty was 
5-4 between Russia and CEDAW.  I think we returned to near unanimity in
ranking Basel 7th and the CRC and CBD 8th and 9th.

As a result it is true that if you want to debate CEDAW you will also have
to accept including the Basel convention and if you want to debate the
Rights of the Child you will need to allow the CBD to be topical as well.  


My own belief is that the lists are really 4 1/2, 6 1/2, and 8 1/2 since I
believe the Russia treaty will be ratified during the season and become no
longer topical.  Some members of the committee believe it will not be
ratified during the season and were even willing to put money on it.  At
least all of the treaties which get added if you vote for the larger topics
have the same multilateral nature that will allow all of the generic
positions to apply so I think there is not that much down side to voting for
either of the larger topic options.

I do want to give a special thank you to Steve for doing an excellent job
chairing the committee and to all of the non committee members who attended
the meeting for their very valuable contributions to the process.





-----Original Message-----
From: ucodebate at att.net
To: Spmancuso at aol.com
Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
Sent: 6/7/02 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] topic ballot

Thank you to everyone on the topic committee and in the 
community who obviously did a lot of work to make sure 
that they got all the action verbs right.  I think that 
the resolutional verbs reflect that extra effort.

I wish that there had been some extra effort to discuss 
the BILATERAL US/RUSSIA initiative.  I viewed this as a 
potential uniqueness answer not a topic area.  Notice 
all the treaties on the proposed list are multilateral.  
What gives?

I'm pretty sure this won't be a potential case area the 
whole year.  I think that the phase, "if not ratified by 
the United States." Indicates that the topic committee 
is pretty sure it will be passed as well.  Isn't this 
like the only thing, other than drop bombs, that bush 
has wanted to do with other countries?  

It also appears to really confuse a lot of good generic 
ground on the resolution.  All of the affirmative can 
now say that they are bilateral instead of 
multilateral.  Not cool.

Also,  what gives?  Why do you have to debate at least 7 
treaties to debate about CEDAW?  Are you telling the 
folks who would like to debate about feminism that they 
will have to go for the middle of the road 7 treaties 
unless they don't want to talk about the rights of women 
and children.  I would have liked to have seen this one 
in the short list of treaties (5).  

I guess nobody will be happy with all possible 
resolutions, but the Russia treaty is an affront to the 
discussions previously had on the list.  I have cut and 
pasted the last word that I got about which treaties we 
were considering below.  The BILATERAL us/russia treaty 
is NOT on the list.  I thought I was following this very 
closely.  Maybe strobe, et al made me miss a pivotal 
post.  But I doubt it.  What is the justification?  Am I 
wrong?  Was this discussed?  If not I think that the 
committee should speak to this.

From: 	Steve Mancuso <spmancuso at aol.com> [ Save 
address ] 
To: 	edebate at ndtceda.com 
Subject: 	[eDebate] Now, which treaties? 
Date: 	Fri, 17 May 2002 19:40:44 -0400 

  Here is the list of treaties the Topic Committee is 
currently 
investigating.  We are looking at two groups of 
treaties, those that 
need only to be ratified, and those that need to be 
signed and ratified. 
 Some "treaties" may not be sufficiently formal to be 
ready for signature.

If you would like us to consider an additional one, 
please send me some 
internet cites/sites containing affirmative and negative 
arguments.  I'm 
especially interested in treaties in the collective 
defense, environment 
and trade agreement areas.


Kyoto on Climate Change
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
UN Convention to End Discrimination Against Women
Law of the Sea
International Criminal Court
Small Arms
Bioweapons Convention
Ottawa Landmine Convention
Fissile Material Cutoff
Terrorism Finance
Death Penalty
Migrant Workers
Protocol on Biosafety


Steve Mancuso
Topic Commitee Chair



--
Director of Debate
100 N. University Ave.
Department of Communication
University of Central Oklahoma
Edmond, OK 73034
(405) 974-5584 (o)
> Here are the three topics that will appear on the ballot:
> 
> (1) Resolved that the United States Federal Government should ratify
or 
> accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:
> 
> The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;
> The Kyoto Protocol; 
> The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court;
> The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil
and 
> Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty;
> The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian
Federation on 
> Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.
> 
> 
> (2) Resolved that the United States Federal Government should ratify
or 
> accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:
> 
> The Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste with
the 
> 1995 Ban Amendment;
> The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;
> The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against 
> Women;
> The Kyoto Protocol; 
> The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court;
> The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil
and 
> Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty;
> The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian
Federation on 
> Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.
> 
> (3) Resolved that the United States Federal Government should ratify
or 
> accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:
> 
> The Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste with
the 
> 1995 Ban Amendment;
> The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;
> The Convention on Biological Diversity;
> The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
Against 
> Women;
> The Convention on the Rights of the Child;
> The Kyoto Protocol; 
> The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court;
> The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil
and 
> Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty;
> The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian
Federation on 
> Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.
> 
> 
> Steve Mancuso
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at ndtceda.com
To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




From schizoliberation  Sat Jun  8 02:08:53 2002
From: schizoliberation (Schizo Liberation Front)
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 03:08:53 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Re: koos-wa+UT dabait hypocrisy
Message-ID: <F147hcBkrATT7mIGGAb0001a211@hotmail.com>

MESSAGE REMOVED





From schizoliberation  Sat Jun  8 02:16:17 2002
From: schizoliberation (Schizo Liberation Front)
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 03:16:17 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] questions for jack
Message-ID: <F143ROXdif9PS7RPMek00002e64@hotmail.com>

massey,

we don't like the feigned neutrality of psychoanalysis.  we won't ad-hom you 
but you've got it all backwards.

1) pain is too heavy and grave.  you miss all of the jokes that keep our 
friends laughing.  ain't the sad militants that the psychoanalysts would 
like to triangulate us into.  missing out on the ways we play with policy 
discourse.  often we are making light of the revenge that was taken upon us 
when we got fired.

2) you underplay the results of our work on edabait. this gives you the air 
of the establishment.  what are your thoughts on the Debate Information 
Group and our theoretical role in its formation?  how do you think piracy 
will transform UT dabait and others' relation to the medium?  how bout free 
access?

slf

slf

>From: "Michelin C. Massey" <michelinmassey at yahoo.com>
>To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: [eDebate] questions for jack
>Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 09:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
>
>dear jack,
>
>i have attempted to read your posts the best i can.
>they are often hard to read because i get your
>pronouns mixed up; i do not know the "we" to which
>your refer.  i think your most recent posting in
>response to kelly sums up your position quite well, so
>i would like to ask some questions which will help me
>(and others) better understand your message (if people
>still have that desire).
>
>1. what outcome do you hope to accomplish with your
>criticism of the UTNIF and the UT program in general?
>i don't mean to sound so utilitarian, but what's the
>purpose if it is not for personal revenge.  is your
>motive to criticize for the sake of criticism?  is it
>your hope that UT will engage you in a discussion over
>its institutional practices in a public forum?
>
>if it's the latter, i don't think that anyone from the
>current UT power structure would be interested in
>doing so.  no one would be interested in having a
>discussion with someone who has publicly insulted
>others who have attempted engagement or who airs dirty
>laundry for all in the community to see.  if you and i
>were friends and i told you something very
>incriminating about me... suddenly we were to have a
>discussion that became heated and you aired that
>revelation to everyone around, why would i (or anyone
>else) ever want to be put in that situation?
>
>2. where do you want to go from here?  if your desire
>is to organize movements or to disrupt disciplinarian
>institutional practices through some other means, how
>does your current method of posting to this
>listservice dozens of times daily help you in that
>process?  it's been a long time since you've started
>and some interesting ideas have come to the forefront.
>  the problem, though, is that there's been a shrinkage
>in the discussions in this forum.  we had some good
>topic talk, but that was soon drowned out by your and
>kevin's continued grievances with various disciplinary
>practices.  what does it mean?
>
>i have a lot of other questions and i ask these
>sincerely.  i understand how it feels to be treated
>unfairly and lash out angrily when others criticize my
>pain.  but i also believe truly that it is really
>important to learn lessons from that pain and to move
>on from there.  if you feel like you were treated
>unfairly, this is not the forum.  you will receive no
>redress from UT or anyone else by calling people names
>or issuing complex criticisms against institutions.
>UTNIF will still have hundreds of kids attend their
>camps in policy, LD, and individual events.  UTNIF
>will, again, make thousands of dollars this upcoming
>june and july.  the UT debate program will still
>recruit talented debaters and get teams into elims at
>highly competitive tournaments.  you will receive no
>engagement in a critical discussion about practices
>because they fear something you may say about them.
>
>this discussion is immaterial to 99.9% of the people
>on this list.  maybe 2-3% are reading because they are
>curious about potential contradictions between selling
>ideas critical of discipline and control, while
>deploying those precise methods to solidify power.
>all i'm saying is that you may not be reaching your
>audience.  i hope these questions and this post will
>get you to reconsider your methods...
>
>best,
>
>michelin massey.
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
>http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
>http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com




From let_the_american_empire_burn  Sat Jun  8 03:00:38 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 03:00:38 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Kuswa's "VERY Diverse" Topic Area & Zizek's 'Kynical Subversion'
Message-ID: <F172tLDd6Dtkyw0PuWM00010a3a@hotmail.com>

a "VERY diverse" area which is extremely limited, you would agree Kuswa, by 
the term 'the United Sates Federal Government' writ so damn large???

Oh, and are you or your colleagues famaliar with the work of Slavonian 
critic Slavoj Zizek, more specifically his book, The Sublime Object of 
Ideology? I'm thinking of the opening chapter in which Zizek notes that 
cynicism is the dominant culture's response to what he calls 'kynical 
subversion', or that "popular, plebian rejection of the official culture by 
means of irony and sarcasm: the classical kynical procedure is to confront 
the pathetic phrases of the ruling official ideology - its solemn, grave 
tonality - with *everyday banality* and to *hold them up to ridicule,* thus 
exposing behind the sublime noblesse of the ideological phrases, the 
egotistical interests, the violence, the brutal claims of power" (29, 
asteriks mine).

On that same page Zizek explains that the cynicism of ruling classes 
recognizes and *corrects* this kynical subversion by "still find[ing] 
reasons to retain the mask" of ideology. At the risk of scaring folks, Zizek 
concludes (p30) that run-in-the-mill critique of ideology "no longer works". 
Living in a "post-ideological" era, one must de-emphasis (deconstructive) 
textual readings (e.g: cutting & spewing cards for overly-limited topic 
areas) and start fucking with the actual operations of fantasy (e.g: SLF's 
call for piracy & strikes while simultaneously calling for hijacking & 
inventing new open channels of communication).

What do you (and anyone else who cares to respond) think?      :kev


(Zizek commentary inspired by Hortense J. Spillers' "Inauguration Day 2001" 
published in the Spring 2002 issue of William V. Spanos' & Paul A. Bove's 
journal, boundary 2.)


___________________________

wow--good work folks. i am a little surprised that all three options
have treaties in different areas, but that's the way the process works.
no matter what, adv. areas will be VERY diverse.


kevin
spide(r)bate


----- Original Message -----
From: <Spmancuso at aol.com>
To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:54 PM
Subject: [eDebate] topic ballot


>Here are the three topics that will appear on the ballot:
>
>(1) Resolved that the United States Federal Government should ratify or 
>accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:
>
>The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; The Kyoto Protocol; The Rome 
>Statute on the International Criminal Court; The Second Optional Protocol 
>to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the 
>Abolition of the Death Penalty; The Treaty between the United States of 
>America and the Russian Federation
on
>Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.
>
>
>(2) Resolved that the United States Federal Government should ratify or 
>accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:
>
>The Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste with the 
>1995 Ban Amendment; The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; The 
>Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; 
>The Kyoto Protocol; The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court; 
>The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and 
>Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty; The Treaty 
>between the United States of America and the Russian Federation
on
>Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.
>
>(3) Resolved that the United States Federal Government should ratify or 
>accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:
>
>The Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste with the 
>1995 Ban Amendment; The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; The 
>Convention on Biological Diversity; The Convention on the Elimination of 
>All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; The Convention on the Rights of 
>the Child; The Kyoto Protocol; The Rome Statute on the International 
>Criminal Court; The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant 
>on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty; 
>The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation
on
>Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.
>
>
>Steve Mancuso
>



_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com




From let_the_american_empire_burn  Sat Jun  8 06:14:07 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 06:14:07 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] UTNIF's website versus Foucault's 'Discipline & Punish'
Message-ID: <F141RvtFPb8gSDNtCn900010cc6@hotmail.com>

using UTNIF as an example, and holding it to the critical standards it sets 
for itself, here's some Foucauldian questions for debate institutes, 
specifically those using 'in loco parentis' on high skoolers.

all quotations from UTNIF's website and 'Discipline and Punish'.

"Evidence ... You can purchase (at an affordable price) the affirmative and 
negative blocks produced by your lab in excess of the lab limit (usually the 
lab limit is between 200-300 pages). In addition, you can purchase any 
blocks produced by any of the labs and any of the supplements that are 
produced by the negative generic groups."

... so evidence students produce is sold back to them? how is that 
reasonable regardless of whether the price is 'affordable'? Surely, not for 
profit, you say? Foucault answers, p243: "Not profit; nor even the formation 
of a useful skill; but the constitution of a power relation, an empty 
economic form, a schema of individual submission and of adjustment to a 
production apparatus."

"UTNIF General Curriculum ... This year we will offer nine sessions for CX 
debate. ... We will be offering at least seven different labs of varying 
skill levels. ... The standard Plan II curriculum is designed for more 
competitive debaters desiring a more rigorous orientation. We also offer 
Plan II Novice, a program for inexperienced debaters."

Foucault: "How can one capitalize the time of individuals, accumulate it in 
each of them, in their bodies, in their forces or in their abilities, in a 
way that is susceptible of use and control? How can one organize profitable 
durations? The disciplines ... [accomplish this] in four ways ...
1. Divide duration into successive or parallel segments, each of which must 
end at a specific time. For example, isolate the period of training and the 
period of practice; do not mix the instruction of recruits [or novices] and 
the exercise of veterans [or varsity][.] ...
2. Organize these threads according to an analytical plan [hell UTNIF even 
labels it Plans!] ...
3. Finalize these temporal segments, decide on how long each will last and 
conclude it with an examination [or tournament], which will have the triple 
function of showing whether the subject has reached the level required, of 
guaranteeing that each subject undergoes the same apprenticeship and of 
differentiating the abilities of each individual.
4. ... [L]ay down for each individual, according to [their] level, [their] 
seniority, [their] rank, the exercises that are suited to [them.]" p157-8. 
That's how you create a panoptic learning machine, kids; don't try this at 
home.

"Finally, Supersession offers an affordable alternative to other long-term 
institutes for those wishing an intense camp experience. We also believe 
that we have assembled the best faculty in the nation."

Foucault, "For the old ["costly"] principle of 'levying-violence', which 
governed the economy of power, the disciplines substitute the principle of 
'mildness-production-profit'. ... the production of knowledge and skills in 
the school[.]" p219. ... in short, by their own admission UTNIF proves 
Foucault's claim that discipline makes power affordable.

"Philosophy ... At Texas we have designed our curriculum to emphasize the 
complimentary aspect of debate, those elements that contribute to the 
development of individuals who will be able to examine their own lives and 
society in critical ways. We also believe that education is a cooperative 
endeavor between all members of a learning community."

"The penitentiary operation, if it is to be a genuine re-education, must 
become the sum total existence of the [debater], making of this prison a 
sort of *artificial and coercive theatre* in which [their] life will be 
*examined* from top to bottom." p251-2. and
"It is this disciplinary time that was gradually imposed on pedagogical 
practice ... [opening] the possibility of characterizing, and therefore of 
using individuals according to the level in the series that they are moving 
through; the possiblity of accumulating time and activity, of rediscovering 
them, totalized and usable in a final result, which is the ultimate capacity 
of an individual." p159-60.

In my experience, and the multiple experiences of those i've interviewed, 
UTNIF *actively encourages* pot-smoking *under the table*, and as Foucault 
notes, "drug trafficking show[s] a similar functioning of this 'useful 
delinquency': the existence of a legal prohibition creates around it a field 
of illegal practices, which one manages to supervise, while extracting from 
it an illicit profit through elements, themselves illegal, but rendered 
manipulable by their organization in delinquency. This organization is an 
instrument for administratering and exploiting illegalities." p280. Sell 
students pot, then legitimate institutional discipline by prohibiting it - 
extremely clever.

(As for the 'cooperative endeavor' comment, look to Burroughs' 'Adding 
Machine' previously quoted at length.)

"Texas staff members have published some of the most incisive meditations on 
debate's recent rethinking, making them some of the best equipped to educate 
and familiarize students with the background and attitude underlying such 
challenges."

Foucault: "The [correctional] regime must, at least in part, be supervised 
and administered by *a specialized staff* possessing the moral qualities and 
technical abilities required of educators. ... The principle of the 
technical supervision of detention." p270

UTNIF elsewhere mentions how many of its staff and students have won big 
tournaments and been awarded stuff. Foucault responds, "What we have here is 
a trasposition of the system of indulgences. And by the play of this 
quantification, this circulation of awards and debits, thanks to the 
continuous calculation of plus and minus points, the disciplinary 
apparatuses hierarchized the 'good' and the 'bad' subjects in relation to 
one another. ... It is the penal functioning of setting in order and the 
ordinal character of judging. **Discipline rewards simply by *the play of 
awards*, thus making it possible to attain higher ranks and places; it 
punishes by reversing this process.**" p181

"Activism and Performance in Debate  Activism and the performance of the 
self is the new tide in debate theory and practice! Once again the 
University of Texas is at the forefront of a new genre of arguments. These 
arguments hope to reconceptualize the relationship between policy, 
philosophy, and the role of the participants in the debate round. Viewing 
debates as an activist project opens up new theoretical and strategic ground 
for affirmatives and negatives alike. The UTNIF will have the major 
proponents and instigators of this turn on the faculty."

Foucault, "[The Panopticon] makes it possible to observe performances 
(without there being any imitation or copying), to map aptitudes, to assess 
characters, to draw up rigorous classifications and, in relation to normal 
development, to distinguish 'laziness and stubbornness' from 'incurable 
imbecility'[.]" p203. or p189-90, "[The ballot-examination] places 
individuals in a field of surveillance [that] also situates them in a 
network of writing ... It was the problem of the teaching establishments ... 
to transcribe, by means of homogenization the individual features 
established by the examination ... the educational or *military* code of 
conduct or ***performance.***"

"If you are interested in the cutting edge of debate theory, whether you 
have years of experience or you are just beginning, the UTNIF is BY FAR the 
BEST Workshop for you!! No one else's faculty even holds a feather to ours."

Foucault again, "The Panopticon functions as a kind of laboratory of power. 
... It is polyvalent in its applications; it serves to reform prisoners, but 
also ... to instruct schoolchildren, to confine the insane, to supervise 
workers, to put beggars and idlers to work ... which can be implemented in 
[mental] hospitals, workshops, schools, prisons. *Whenever one is dealing 
with a multiplicity of individuals on whom a task or a particular form of 
behavior must be imposed, the panoptic schema may be imposed [FOR YOU!!! ... 
ensuring] safe custory, confinement, solitude, forced labour and 
instruction[.]" p204,5,6.

So UTNIF cut-ups and sells Foucault's work in order to profit an institution 
that's dedicated to doing everything Foucault would call petty, insidious, 
and coercive. My my, what a cruel, ingenious cage indeed.    :kev


my apologies for any typos, i'm working on a paper on this subject (which 
doesn't mention UTNIF specifically, hence the necessity of this post) that 
attempts to write a geneology of academic debate, its disciplinary 
institutes and squads, its normalizing pedagogical and mono-competitive 
practices, and some possibilities for activism, etc - i'd appreciate any 
comments, questions, and criticism anyone out there might have about this 
project and soon up-coming posts - and thanks to those who've already 
e-mailed me (especially former UTNIFers), cuz its helped my research a good 
deal

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From dhelwich  Sat Jun  8 09:39:46 2002
From: dhelwich (David Aaron Helwich)
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 10:39:46 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [eDebate] SORT
In-Reply-To: <F141RvtFPb8gSDNtCn900010cc6@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.1020608102442.25900B-100000@sirenum.it.miami.edu>

Greetings,

Although I recognize the bilateral/multilateral concerns raised by many
folks concerning the arms 'reduction' treaty between the US and Russia, I
am less concerned about its inclusion in the topic for two reasons.

1) It is a bad treaty: a day's work from a mediocre researcher will reveal
literally dozens of reasons, from both the right and left, why a treaty
that essentially ratifies the status quo (while locking in US nuclear
unilateralism) will not only undermine US non-proliferation credibility,
but also does an end-around on the congressional oversight process by
making the most recent Nuclear Posture Review the law of the land. If
anyone wants citations, I would be more than happy to pass them along.

2) It is worth talking about: I am biased because my own research project
includes addressing public debate about SORT. That being said, the treaty
matters. It ensures that the US and Russia will maintain thousands of
warheads, extends dangerous counter-force deterrence doctrines, and
codifies Bush's controversial (and in my mind wrong-headed decision) to
keep thousands of warheads 'in storage' in case we 'need them.' (Against
whom, no one is saying) Ratification will also go a long way towards
implementing the force structure and nuclear infrastructure imagined by
the NPR, which includes a continued reliance upon MAD doctrines while
developing new, 'friendly' nuclear weapons that the US can literally use
in advancing its foreign policy objectivies.

The question of whether the treaty will be ratified is still an open one.
I sincerely hope that ratification will not occur.

David Cram Helwich




From wishfull  Sat Jun  8 09:48:07 2002
From: wishfull (Michael Roston )
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 10:48:07 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] gambling on the moscow treaty
Message-ID: <AEEBJCCBOFPNLAAA@shared1-mail.whowhere.com>

Is that bet still open?  The members of the topic committee who want to put the mean green on the table should backchannel me.

My boss is in pretty frequent communication with the guy in Joe Biden's office who is responsible for most of the Senator's nuclear and foreign affairs work.  Yesterday, before I left the office, I said "Is there any reason I missed that the treaty is going to get held up in the Senate?"  He responded "Not that I've heard."  

I mean, it works like this - a)  The people generally opposed to arms control treaties are Republicans, but the Senate is controlled by Democrats, who will get skewered in the media if they block this treaty, and the treaty is pushed by a Republican president, which means that it can't be blocked by Republicans; b)  Any implementation conditions that will be put on the treaty would be like we don't ratify until Moscow does, but Putin is the Duma-tamer and has knocked all his opponents out of the Duma.  or perhaps another condition might be that we'll pass legislation that commits the US to dismantle a greater number of warheads than it might do presently, but this in itself is not a reason to block the treaty.

The negative ground against this treaty is also pretty awful.  The best argument is that the treaty screws the NPT by ending the US committment to disarm.  But the thing about the treaty is that it doesn't mandate the retention of a responsive nuclear force - it's an option that's permitted within the treaty, but nowhere is it required.  An affirmative who wants to avoid this debate could easily mandate that their implementation includes dismantlement of US warheads down to the 1,700 level.  

I'm also not really sure what advantage the affirmative will be able to claim on this treaty if it were run straight up (although you know what it will be with the plan-spike I just suggested).  I suppose responsively flexible deterrence might be an advantage, but the truth is that the US has that in the status quo without reducing our number of warheads, so the status quo solves.  I guess if the US did not ratify, it would hurt Pootie-Poot pretty bad, but given that no one is expecting the treaty to be blocked, I'm not sure those cards will exist by the time the season starts.

I think it is worth pointing out, as I have in previous years, that there is nothing in the CEDA Constitution which binds the resolution ballot to what has been decided upon at the meeting of the Topic Committee.  While I agree that good work was completed, and that a fair effort has been made to produce a balanced resolution, the inclusion of the Moscow Treaty was a mistake.  The topic committee has corrected mistakes it has made in previous years, and so the resolution ballot should be changed.  I think there might be a strong interest in the five-treaty option on the ballot, and people shouldn't be forced to steer clear of it because they will only be stuck with four options.  Subbing in CEDAW for Moscow seems like a reasonable option to me at this moment.  Debaters and coaches should write to their regional topic committee rep and express their interest in seeing this happen.

---
Michael Roston
-enemy of freedom

"At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."
                    -President Richard Nixon, May 18, 1971



Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com




From doyle  Sat Jun  8 10:05:39 2002
From: doyle (Doyle Srader)
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 10:05:39 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] gambling on the moscow treaty
Message-ID: <200206081005141.SM00126@[209.39.34.193]>

Michael Roston wrote:

> and the treaty is pushed by a Republican president, which means that it
> can't be blocked by Republicans;

Showing my age here, but anyone remember the INF treaty debate on the
1987-88 NATO topic? The "killer amendments" argument that kept it inherent
from signing (August or September) until at least the NDT? Hmm ... Reagan
signed it ... Republicans were the ones pushing the killer amendments ...

There are a dozen reasons the analogy is inapposite, I realize, but the
point is just that little formula arguments like that tend to miss a lot.

Doyle Srader
Lecturer, Speech Communication
Stephen F. Austin State University
http://titan.sfasu.edu/~f_sraderdw/

"Good friends and excellent teachers --
Stick close to them!
Wealth and power are fleeting dreams
But wise words perfume the world for ages."
 -- Ryokan




From kkuswa  Sat Jun  8 10:13:35 2002
From: kkuswa (kevin kuswa)
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 11:13:35 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Kuswa's "VERY Diverse" Topic Area & Zizek's
  'Kynical Subversion'
In-Reply-To: <F172tLDd6Dtkyw0PuWM00010a3a@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <4.1.20020608111024.00aa5100@facstaff.richmond.edu>

i think the advantages will be diverse, not the action taken by the usfg.  the
usfg is an ossified and stale approach that we need to rid ourselves
of--even if it 
means going in the passive voice direction.

my point is that the topics encourage very diverse and often unrelated
advantages
based on the trety you deal with.

i'm familar with zizek to a degree, but your rendition below belongs more
in the low point win column (see the lpw article on Foucault coming back
to life).  in fact, the zizek paragraphs below are virtually incomprehensible.

kevin
spide(r)bate



At 03:00 AM 6/8/02 -0500, Kevin Sanchez wrote:
>a "VERY diverse" area which is extremely limited, you would agree Kuswa, by 
>the term 'the United Sates Federal Government' writ so damn large???
>
>Oh, and are you or your colleagues famaliar with the work of Slavonian 
>critic Slavoj Zizek, more specifically his book, The Sublime Object of 
>Ideology? I'm thinking of the opening chapter in which Zizek notes that 
>cynicism is the dominant culture's response to what he calls 'kynical 
>subversion', or that "popular, plebian rejection of the official culture by 
>means of irony and sarcasm: the classical kynical procedure is to confront 
>the pathetic phrases of the ruling official ideology - its solemn, grave 
>tonality - with *everyday banality* and to *hold them up to ridicule,* thus 
>exposing behind the sublime noblesse of the ideological phrases, the 
>egotistical interests, the violence, the brutal claims of power" (29, 
>asteriks mine).
>
>On that same page Zizek explains that the cynicism of ruling classes 
>recognizes and *corrects* this kynical subversion by "still find[ing] 
>reasons to retain the mask" of ideology. At the risk of scaring folks, Zizek 
>concludes (p30) that run-in-the-mill critique of ideology "no longer works". 
>Living in a "post-ideological" era, one must de-emphasis (deconstructive) 
>textual readings (e.g: cutting & spewing cards for overly-limited topic 
>areas) and start fucking with the actual operations of fantasy (e.g: SLF's 
>call for piracy & strikes while simultaneously calling for hijacking & 
>inventing new open channels of communication).
>
>What do you (and anyone else who cares to respond) think?      :kev
>
>
>(Zizek commentary inspired by Hortense J. Spillers' "Inauguration Day 2001" 
>published in the Spring 2002 issue of William V. Spanos' & Paul A. Bove's 
>journal, boundary 2.)
>
>
>___________________________
>
>wow--good work folks. i am a little surprised that all three options
>have treaties in different areas, but that's the way the process works.
>no matter what, adv. areas will be VERY diverse.
>
>
>kevin
>spide(r)bate
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <Spmancuso at aol.com>
>To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
>Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:54 PM
>Subject: [eDebate] topic ballot
>
>
>>Here are the three topics that will appear on the ballot:
>>
>>(1) Resolved that the United States Federal Government should ratify or 
>>accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:
>>
>>The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; The Kyoto Protocol; The Rome 
>>Statute on the International Criminal Court; The Second Optional Protocol 
>>to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the 
>>Abolition of the Death Penalty; The Treaty between the United States of 
>>America and the Russian Federation
>on
>>Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.
>>
>>
>>(2) Resolved that the United States Federal Government should ratify or 
>>accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:
>>
>>The Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste with the 
>>1995 Ban Amendment; The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; The 
>>Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; 
>>The Kyoto Protocol; The Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court; 
>>The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and 
>>Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty; The Treaty 
>>between the United States of America and the Russian Federation
>on
>>Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.
>>
>>(3) Resolved that the United States Federal Government should ratify or 
>>accede to, and implement, one or more of the following:
>>
>>The Basel Convention on Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste with the 
>>1995 Ban Amendment; The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; The 
>>Convention on Biological Diversity; The Convention on the Elimination of 
>>All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; The Convention on the Rights of 
>>the Child; The Kyoto Protocol; The Rome Statute on the International 
>>Criminal Court; The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant 
>>on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty; 
>>The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation
>on
>>Strategic Offensive Reductions, if not ratified by the United States.
>>
>>
>>Steve Mancuso
>>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
>http://www.hotmail.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
>http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




From wishfull  Sat Jun  8 10:42:56 2002
From: wishfull (Michael Roston )
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 11:42:56 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] gambling with doyle
Message-ID: <FDOOGMJMLFCOLAAA@shared1-mail.whowhere.com>

>>>
Showing my age here, but anyone remember the INF treaty debate on the 1987-88 NATO topic? 
>>>

Sorry, I was busy watching Voltron.

>>>
There are a dozen reasons the analogy is inapposite, I realize, but the
point is just that little formula arguments like that tend to miss a lot. 
>>>

The difference is that INF was conceived under the thinking of "arms control is good" whereas the Moscow Treaty was conceived by the same Keith Payne who once wrote that the United States could win a limited nuclear war with the Soviets.  This is a Republican treaty that was created for Republicans by Republicans.

Moreover, the Democrats have the Senate right now, and the public is overwhelmingly in favor of the Moscow Treaty - they will send it forward so that Bush can't use it as a stick to beat them with going into November.


---
Michael Roston
-enemy of freedom

"At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."
                    -President Richard Nixon, May 18, 1971



Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com




From mmk_savant  Sat Jun  8 11:07:02 2002
From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok)
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 12:07:02 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] SORT implementation
Message-ID: <OE75lGTdnwS8BurjQqd00010415@hotmail.com>

on the 1 in 5 chance that something derails ratification...

Helwich is just dead wrong because he doesn't ask himself: what does it mean to "implement" the SORT?

start with the text of SORT, of course.  this is from the Kremlin's Web site:

http://www.ln.mid.ru/website/bl.nsf/8bc3c105f5d1c44843256a14004cad37/870f079b2a60846143256bc300524805?OpenDocument

begin by reading the introduction:

"The United States of America and the Russian Federation, hereinafter referred to as the Parties, 
Embarking upon the path of new relations for a new century and committed to the goal of strengthening their relationship through cooperation and friendship, Believing that new global challenges and threats require the building of a qualitatively new foundation for strategic relations between the Parties, 
Desiring to establish a genuine partnership based on the principles of mutual security, cooperation, trust, openness, and predictability, 
Committed to implementing significant reductions in strategic offensive arms, 
Proceeding from the Joint Statements by the President of the United States of America and the President of the Russian Federation on Strategic Issues of July 22, 2001 in Genoa and on a New Relationship between the United States and Russia of November 13, 2001 in Washington, 
Mindful of their obligations under the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms of July 31, 1991, hereinafter referred to as the START Treaty, 
Mindful of their obligations under Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of July 1, 1968, and 
Convinced that this Treaty will help to establish more favorable conditions for actively promoting security and cooperation, and enhancing international stability, 
Have agreed as follows:"

to "implement" the above suggests many alternatives to the savvy, strategically-minded author of an affirmative text.  but in case you are deluding yourself into thinking that your extra-topicality/non-topicality arguments can stick the affirmative with only taking something like "the minimal actions necessary to enact the articles", proceed to the articles themselves:

"Article I 
Each Party shall reduce and limit strategic nuclear warheads, as stated by the President of the United States of America on November 13, 2001 and as stated by the President of the Russian Federation on November 13, 2001 and December 13, 2001 respectively, so that by December 31, 2012 the aggregate number of such warheads does not exceed 1700-2200 for each Party. Each Party shall determine for itself the composition and structure of its strategic offensive arms, based on the established aggregate limit for the number of such warheads.
Article II 
The Parties agree that the START Treaty remains in force in accordance with its terms. 
Article III 
For purposes of implementing this Treaty, the Parties shall hold meetings at least twice a year of a Bilateral Implementation Commission.
Article IV 
1. This Treaty shall be subject to ratification in accordance with the constitutional procedures of each Party. This Treaty shall enter into force on the date of the exchange of instruments of ratification. 
2. This Treaty shall remain in force until December 31, 2012 and may be extended by agreement of the Parties or superseded earlier by a subsequent agreement. 
3. Each Party, in exercising its national sovereignty, may withdraw from this Treaty upon three months written notice to the other Party.
Article V 
This Treaty shall be registered pursuant to Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations."

YOU, and i mean YOU are invited to find some limitation on IMPLEMENTATION above.  i point you in the general direction of 

a) "each party shall reduce and limit strategic nuclear warheads... so that by December 31, 2012 the aggregate number of such warheads does not exceed 1700-2200 for each Party."

b) "Each Party shall determine for itself the composition and structure of its strategic offensive arms, based on the established aggregate limit for the number of such warheads."

In particular, to get a sense of what the LITERATURE envisions for possible IMPLEMENTATIONS of this treaty, i point you at:

http://www.clw.org/control/sort/clwposition.html 

in particular, note the last portion of the article:

"Next Steps 
These issues should be addressed through the ratification process. The Senate should examine the complex issues surrounding arms control, nuclear nonproliferation, and disarmament in the twenty-first century to increase U.S. security. Some proposals worth considering include:

a.. Dismantle Retired Warheads It is not enough to agree to point fewer weapons at each other, as was the standard during the Cold War. The only way to prevent future redeployment and avoid the risks of warhead theft is to dismantle the weapons and associated launch platforms. 
a.. Improved Verification and Transparency Mechanisms To avoid misunderstandings and cheating, and to foster increased cooperation between the United States and Russia, we must develop methods to ensure compliance with the standards set forth in the Moscow Treaty. 
a.. Timetable Clarification The two countries should reduce their deployed arsenals to the new levels in fewer than 10 years. 
a.. Tactical Nuclear Weapons Restrictions We should pursue a policy of reduction and disarmament of these dangerous and vulnerable devices, to make certain that they do not fall into the wrong hands and are not accidentally used. 
a.. Oppose Arsenal Expansion The existing Treaty leaves both nations free to continue to improve and modernize their respective weapons stockpiles. We should abandon such programs as costly, dangerous, and counterproductive to the goals of the Moscow Treaty. 
a.. Increased Support for Cooperative Threat Reduction The CTR program to reduce the Russian military arsenal represents one of the most successful bilateral regimes ever implemented. We must expand this valuable program, because it is crucial to the success of the Moscow Treaty." 

this treaty allows the afirmative to step as left as they wanna and to tailor their implementation to YOUR negative positions as needed.
RIDICULOUS decision by the topic committee.

Michael Korcok
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020608/fb97eeb6/attachment.htm 


From kenedebate  Sat Jun  8 11:14:17 2002
From: kenedebate (Ken D)
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 11:14:17 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Law of the sea.. .no way...
Message-ID: <F291qZ4lHyLUY17LQdt0001ef4d@hotmail.com>

Ken not happy...

>From: "Harris, Scott L" <sharris at ku.edu>

.....>to exclude the land mine convention and law of the sea
>largely on the grounds that they are too slanted for the affirmative,

I musta missed all those law of the sea debates I had where negs unloaded a 
ton of case cards and disads.  The literature that I was cutting... grrrrrrr 
  certainly wasn't slanted in my opinion.  I mean come on, putting it in the 
same catagory with the Landmine ban?

I'm sorry to see one of the most comprehensive treaties ever negotiated, 
which this country STILL hasn't ratified, left off the list.

so much for gettin an early start, I'm sure I'll get over it, dammit I 
shoudla went to St Louis

Ken


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.




From wishfull  Sat Jun  8 12:49:20 2002
From: wishfull (Michael Roston )
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 13:49:20 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] another missing treaty...
Message-ID: <OOLBGGPLBEJOLAAA@shared1-mail.whowhere.com>

International Convention for the Supprssion of the Financing of Terrorism.  Remember all you folks who said we could debate terrorism under a treaties topic?

Was it discussed?  Why was it excluded?  I think this would be an even better alternative for the 'fifth' treaty because it is a unique topic area - combines law enforcement, financial services, and security issues under one document.

whatever the case, the Moscow Treaty needs to be replaced.

---
Michael Roston
-enemy of freedom

"At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."
                    -President Richard Nixon, May 18, 1971



Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com




From Spmancuso  Sat Jun  8 12:54:12 2002
From: Spmancuso (Spmancuso at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 13:54:12 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] topic ballot-Russia Treaty
Message-ID: <46156128.3B0BB7F2.0294238D@aol.com>

I'll be posting a letter later with thanks to the many people who contributed to the topic writing process.  It is very inspiring to me to discover how many people, both currently active and those who are "retired" from debate are still willing to give their time to the project of writing the topic.  Those people deserve to be mentioned by name, and I will do so on Monday.  I'm on a very short vacation now and don't have access to all the information I need to make sure no one is forgotten.

Scott Harris' description of the process by which SORT was accepted is largely accurate.  I want to speak to the substantive issues that were considered, so that perhaps our "mistake" will seem somewhat less "ridiculous" to some.

First, the substance of the treaty.  We had several people research the merits of this treaty - each for several hours at a time - people you would consider strong researchers, I think.  David Helwich is right, that it doesn't take very long to find the core arguments.  Most of the arms control think tanks already have extensive criticisms of the treaty on their web sites.

We felt there were robust affirmative advantages in US-Russian relations, and strengthening Putin, regardless of the implementation strategy of the affirmative.  We also felt that there would be a classic left-right debate on the arms control aspects depending on how the affirmative implemented the Treaty. To say that there are no drawbacks to the current treaty and implementation process, as was asserted on this list, is simply wrong.  The arms control lobby is virtually in lock step with criticisms of the treaty, that range from the fact that it encourages MIRVing, tactical nuclear weapons, unsafe storage of nuclear warheads, to the notion that it undercuts arms control verification regimes, previous arms control cuts, and counting principles that are important and that have been established in the START process.  For a representative example of this literature please look at the web page of the Arms Control Association, at the series of articles for publication in the June 2002 issue of Arms Control Today.  They outline all of the above objections in detail.

This is not surprising given that the SORT is a "Republican treaty, negotiated by Republicans, for Republicans."  It's hard to understand how one could make such a claim about the treaty then further say that there will be no significant arguments to oppose it.

Furthermore the negative ground created by US-Russian relations links, and strengthening Putin is extremely varied and powerful.  This ground survives any implementation strategy by the affirmative.

Certainly the affirmative could implement the treaty in ways that avoid many of the above liberal arms control issues.  (Although please note that they would have to specify this in their plan, as it is easy to prove that the Bush administration will not dismantle warheads or make major new concessions in the implementation stage.)  But nonetheless, the affirmative could implement their plan by agreeing to destroy the warheads, for example, undercutting the terrorism DA quite a bit.  They could also implement a mid-course proposal, something along the lines of what the Brookings Institute has advocated in the past.

In this world, would the negative have a strategy?  Certainly.  Not only do they still have all of their US-Russian relations arguments, all of their Putin arguments, but now they can make the well-documented conservative arguments against real arms control.  Given that this treaty was negotiated to correspond to the recently leaked Nuclear Posture Review, there is evidence that says NOT destroying the warheads is crucial to the flexibility envisioned by the NPR.  So there will be (and already is) a vast conservative literature at the ready for the negative against liberal implementation strategies.

One may believe that this debate is tilted to the liberal side.  That may or may not be.  But it is certainly very, very debatable.  And to suggest that the topic committee did not consider liberal affirmative implementation strategies before we included SORT is, well, ridiculous.

Two other aspects of SORT encouraged many of us to enthusiastically support its inclusion.  

First is its timliness.  Chances are very good that this treaty will be before the Senate while we are debating next year.  Many people believe it is likely to be ratified, but at the same time a horrible Republican treaty.  Several of us thought that it was particularly important for us to be debating about this very important and controversial treaty while it was being considered.

Second is the fact that it is bi-lateral.  I appreciate the view held by some, including some on the committee, that adding a bi-lateral treaty to an otherwise multi-lateral list increases the scope of the topic in a unique direction.  For many of us, that was a virtue.  Not only did we feel that it will be educational for our students to understand the important differences between mulit- and bi-lateral projects, but also that we may grow tired of the "domestic CP, international law bad" strategy.  This treaty provides additional variety to the topic - a value that we obviously were elevating in drawing up our lists of treaties.

The final issue I want to address is that of the treaty's inevitable ratification.  The objections of some who say this was bad to include in the resolution because it will be an affirmatively biased treaty, AND that it will be ratified in October, remind me of the old joke about the person who complained that not only was the food at the cafeteria bad, but the portions were too small.

We considered the liklihood of the treaty being adopted during the fall.  In fact we probably spent about 2 hours discussing the various aspects of this exact point on Friday morning and afternoon.  In the end we included an "escape hatch" so that if the treaty is ratified by the Senate, it would no longer be topical ground for the affirmative.

But I think there are compelling arguments that it may not be such a perfunctory ratification process.  Here is the story of Washington gridlock as applied to SORT.  First, the arms control lobby will pressure Democrats to push the Bush administration to adopt a stricter implementation regime.  Bush will refuse.  Democrats will be reluctant to hand Bush a victory right before the midterm election.  Democrats can hold out as champions of "real" arms control by insisting that they won't ratify the treaty unless we commit to destroying all or most of the warheads.  One of the topic committee memebers has a relative in an office of a Repbulican Senator who told him this week that they couldn't imagine the Democracts ratifying before the election.  That logic may well extend to the Presidential election in 2004.  Democrats (and it only takes 34) in favor of "real" arms control ("We support the treaty, but only if there are real cuts in nuclear warheads"), would paint the GOP as in favor of "phony" arms control, and Democrats could say that otherwise it will increase the risks of stolen nuclear weapons (and try to get concessions from the Bush administration to increase aid to pay for destroying Russian warheads - wish the President likely would refuse).  Not that implausible of a story.  BTW, see Fast-Track as an imperfect, but close parallel.

Anyhow, many of us felt that there was a good chance that the treaty would survive most, if not all of the debate topic (for purposes of full disclosure, the amount wagered on this by members of the committee was five cents); that the benefits of debating the treaty if it remains unratified are substantial; and that if it is ratified during the season the harm will not be that great.

Thank you for reading this post.  I understand that some of you will still not agree with this.  A couple of people on the committee didn't agree with it either.  

But mostly, thank you for your interest,

Steve Mancuso

P.S.  I think the Law of the Sea Treaty was rejected for reasons of timeliness, not just affirmative bias.  There have been very few articles written about US ratification in the past few years.  I don't think there was any dissent on the committee about this after hearing the discussion and report.







From Pacedebate  Sat Jun  8 13:43:22 2002
From: Pacedebate (Pacedebate at aol.com)
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 14:43:22 EDT
Subject: [eDebate] topic ballot-Russia Treaty
Message-ID: <1a1.364bb54.2a33aa4a@aol.com>

In a message dated 6/8/2002 1:03:08 PM Central Daylight Time, 
Spmancuso at aol.com writes:


> Second is the fact that it is bi-lateral.  I appreciate the view held by 
> some, including some on the committee, that adding a bi-lateral treaty to 
> an otherwise multi-lateral list increases the scope of the topic in a 
> unique direction.  For many of us, that was a virtue.  Not only did we feel 
> that it will be educational for our students to understand the important 
> differences between mulit- and bi-lateral projects, but also that we may 
> grow tired of the "domestic CP, international law bad" strategy.  This 
> treaty provides additional variety to the topic - a value that we obviously 
> were elevating in drawing up our lists of treaties.

I've agreed to stay at St. Mark's another year so I don't have a vested 
interest in the outcome of this years topic choices. However, if I were 
working with a college program I would be extremely upset by the addition of 
SORT for two reasons: 1) It was not a treaty that the topic committee  
indicated it was considering ala Mancuso's post of May 17 listing the 
treaties under consideration. That was a particularly important post because 
it allowed people to ask why some treaties weren't included and debate the 
various merits of adding treaties like Andrew Leong did. 2) The bilateral 
nature of the treaty has become one mandated by the topic committee. As 
Mancuso affirmed this is a distinctly different type of negative literature 
hoisted on the resolutions. Although, it is reasonable for it to be added to 
number two and/or three (since those are resolutions enticing to folks who 
want a bigger topic) I don't get why it was seen as so important it should 
appear on all three resolutions.
The topic committee has yet to come up with a topic limited enough for me so 
I'm a hard person to please. Now that I'm not one of their constitutents I 
guess there is no harm done :)

I thought it would be impossible for the college community to have a better 
topic than we had this year on the high school scene but even with the 
addition of SORT I think any of these three resolutions will make for a 
fantastic year of debate and an even better resolution than we had.

Great job topic committee!

Tim

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020608/03560460/attachment.html 


From venture2jeremy  Sat Jun  8 13:56:44 2002
From: venture2jeremy (JEREMY !)
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 13:56:44 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] venture2jeremy@hotmail.com
Message-ID: <LAW2-F31MezIZYD0OJF00001bbc@hotmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020608/e0315dd4/attachment.htm 


From serena_turley  Sat Jun  8 14:03:39 2002
From: serena_turley (Serena Turley)
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 12:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Urge Senators on the Foreign Relations Committee to Ratify the International Women's Treaty
Message-ID: <20020608190339.72017.qmail@web12804.mail.yahoo.com>

Just thought some of you might ffind this interesting
given the nature of the topic.

Peace.
Serena

--- Jane at Feminist Majority Foundation
<email at feminist.org> wrote:
> Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 13:41:46 -0500
> Subject: Urge Senators on the Foreign Relations
> Committee to Ratify the International Women's Treaty
> To: "Feminist Alert Newsletter"
> <fem-alert at ls.feminist.org>
> From: "Jane at Feminist Majority Foundation"
> <email at feminist.org>
> 
> Next week on June 13th, the Senate Foreign Relations
> Committee, under the
> leadership of Chairman Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE)
> and Senator Barbara
> Boxer (D-CA), is expected to hold a hearing on the
> United Nations (UN)
> Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
> Discrimination against Women
> (CEDAW). If ratified, the treaty will strengthen
> women?s rights in the
> United States as well as globally. Please urge key
> members of the Senate
> Foreign Relations Committee to vote for CEDAW?s
> ratification.
> 
> TAKE ACTION:
> http://capwiz.com/fmf1/issues/alert/?alertid=209176 
> 
> Adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979 and
> ratified by 169 countries,
> CEDAW is one of the most accepted international
> human rights treaties. 
> Yet for years it was blocked in the Senate Foreign
> Relations Committee,
> opposed by then-chair, anti-women?s rights Senator
> Jesse Helms (R-NC). 
> Today, the US remains one of 22 countries that have
> not ratified the
> Treaty.  Among them are Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iran,
> Monaco, Micronesia,
> Sudan, Swaziland, Syrian Arab Republic, San Marino,
> Tonga, and United Arab
> Emirates.  The hearing next week marks the first
> time CEDAW will be
> reviewed by the Senate since its adoption in 1979.
> 
> The US must stand strong on women?s equality.  If it
> fails to ratify CEDAW
> and instead aligns with countries where women suffer
> blatant inequalities,
> the US will not only undermine implementation of the
> Treaty worldwide, it
> will lose credibility worldwide.  It?s a disgrace
> that the US has not
> already ratified this basic human rights document
> for women.  Take action
> now!  Urge key members of the Senate Foreign
> Relations Committee to
> vote for CEDAW?s ratification.
> 
> TAKE ACTION:
> http://capwiz.com/fmf1/issues/alert/?alertid=209176 
> 
> THANK SENATORS BIDEN AND BOXER FOR THEIR LEADERSHIP
> ON CEDAW:
> http://capwiz.com/fmf1/issues/alert/?alertid=209601
> 
>  
> 
> You are currently subscribed to fem-alert as:
> serena_turley at yahoo.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> leave-fem-alert-1907039W at ls.feminist.org
> 
> http://www.Feminist.org


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com




From tejinder  Sat Jun  8 11:52:09 2002
From: tejinder (Tejinder Singh)
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 09:52:09 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Topic Ballot Thoughts
Message-ID: <3D997AA1@bearmail.berkeley.edu>

These are just my two cents on the topic ballot...

This is just my opinion, and maybe others differ on this, but I think a topic 
with 9 treaties, or 8 1/2 depending on what happens with this Russia business, 
is really big. And by really big, I mean large enough that it might 
strategically justify investing research time on generic anti-treaty 
strategies rather than on the specific merits of each treaty. Those who recall 
my earlier post may remember that the reason I like this topic (and I don't 
think I'm alone on this) is that it seems uniquely suited to facilitate a case 
debate. But as much as I want a case debate, there is no way in hell that I'm 
going to walk into UNI having only researched 6 treaties on a topic that 
includes 9, and just hoping nobody runs the other ones. I'd probably rather 
get the dust off the gender IR kritik or executive order CP or something, and 
spend my summer getting E Prime together. I base this idea on something of a 
guess. Everybody compares this topic to the sanctions topic. I think that if 
the sanctions topic had included 9 countries, the debates would have looked 
different, because people would have prioritized their research differently. 
Even as the sanctions topic existed, most squads didn't do much work on Syria. 
I can't imagine that the addition of three or four more states would have 
helped.

Maybe somebody has a compelling argument for a topic with 9 treaties in it. If 
so, I'd like to hear it. But writing now on the assumption that 9 treaties is 
whack, I think that maybe a better way to run this ballot is to include the 
resolution with five treaties, and then several resolutions that are 
combinations of the four that were added in resolutions 2 and 3 for a total of 
no more than 7 treaties. In other words, one resolution could have the core 5 
treaties, plus the CEDAW and the CBD. Another could have the 5 plus the CRC 
and the CBD, or the CRC and the Basel thingy. I think that probably the CRC 
and CEDAW shouldn't be in the topic together, because they seem to deal with a 
relatively similar harm area (though Leong's post about the benefits of the 
CRC seems to outline a relatively diverse set of places that that one could 
go). Maybe hazardous wastes and biodiversity are also similar, and so maybe 
shouldn't be in a topic together. But I think it's a mistake to force people 
who want to debate the CRC or the CBD to vote for a topic with 9 treaties.

Tejinder Singh
UC Berkeley

p.s. Last chance to get West Coast Love hats. Backchannel me.





From mmk_savant  Sat Jun  8 15:06:08 2002
From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok)
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 16:06:08 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] ans Mancuso
Message-ID: <OE68E2H1eMr7eUi9VEB00004070@hotmail.com>

first, i haven't thanked Steve Mancuso for his work on the topic and i should have and i am doing so now.  my impression is that he did a great job overall.

second, i am not so dull as not to understand the difficulty of resolution-crafting, especially in the context of a committee and limited resources.

third, it seems to me pretty clear that the process broke down at the end and that poor decisions were made as a result of a last-minute crisis.
  
while i am no fan of CEDAW or the LoST or even of the child rights treaty, all of those got public discussion, are in little danger of becoming undebatable because of ratification, and seem to me to offer more stable and predictable ground than SORT.  in any case, any of those would have been preferable to SORT as another topic to be included in each resolution.  also, public notification of either or both the difficulty of finding another treaty and of the possibility that SORT was being considered should clearly have been done, if for no other reason than this community has folks (some of whom are experts) who could have contributed opinion and information and perspective.

fourth, Michael Roston is clearly correct in characterizing SORT as a "Republican treaty by and for Republicans".  that is in the real world, the one where very likely Senate ratification occurs with minimal changes and George Bush's administration gets to implement it largely as they see fit.  in the debate world, however, that is not the case.  in debates, an affirmative which ratifies subsequently gets to specify their method of implementation as THEY see fit. and in the debate world the SORT allows the affirmative to selectively and unpredictably poach the negative's best arguments.  the treaty text is little more than "at most 1700-2200 strategic nukes in 10 years": there are very many ways to achieve that.

*** Mancuso argues that there is a unified front of objection to SORT in the arms control community.  yeah, i read those articles too.

a) none of them assume academic debate: my point is that all of those arguments can be selectively spiked by affirmative implementation. the "they are stored not destroyed" example is instructive.  an affirmative implementation can destroy them instead of storing them.  nothing prevents that and any budding extra-topicality arguments get swamped by literature that suggests that exactly that should be done as a way of implementing SORT.  the Arms Control Today articles themselves  suggest doing so.  Mancuso argues that such an implementation would itself create negative ground - well, of course, but that is a wholly inadequate answer.

b) none of the Arms Control Today articles suggest that SORT should not be ratified.  this is an open invitation to point to a "body of literature" which actually OPPOSES ratification.  the literature instead says things like "we need to do more" and "it doesn't do enough: so many opportunites were missed" and "we must make sure it doesn't roll back previous progress."  and that is a VERY BAD SIGN when literally no one will come out and say "DON'T RATIFY IT"

i want to sit on this a little bit.  here is Boese and Scoblic's lukewarm conclusion in their lead-off article in Arms Control Today:

"If the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty is assessed solely for what it is, it can be welcomed as another step in reducing deployed U.S.-Russian strategic nuclear arsenals. But it is difficult to ignore what the treaty is not, as well as what it could have been, given warming U.S.-Russian relations and the outlines for START III. And, as discussed above, the new treaty could have unintended consequences whose danger is difficult to gauge at this time.... Whether the treaty proves to be a net gain or loss for U.S. security and international stability depends in large part on how Russia chooses to deploy its remaining forces, how secure the storage or dismantlement of its downloaded warheads are, and how the relationship between Washington and Moscow evolves. Until such questions can be answered, a final verdict on the treaty's value will have to wait."
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_06/sortanaljune02.asp

and here is the introduction of John Holum's article in the same issue:

"The Bush administration should be congratulated for completing an arms control treaty and for doing so in a timely manner. This new treaty further defines an important truth: the Cold War is long over and the United States and Russia are no longer adversaries."
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_06/holumjune02.asp 

and here is Daryl Kimball's provisional conclusion:

"As the Senate reviews the treaty in the coming weeks, it will surely applaud the treaty's mandate for deployed nuclear force reductions. But the Senate should also press the administration to explain the gaps left in the treaty text and seek action from Bush on a more comprehensive and effective nuclear risk reduction strategy vis-?-vis Russia....The task now is for the United States and Russia to pursue the much-needed next steps with a more comprehensive and lasting nuclear risk reduction strategy."
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2002_06/focjune02.asp 

okay, that should provide a flavor of the state of the literature critical of SORT.  none of it says "DO NOT RATIFY" and, more importantly, ALL of it offers only criticisms which could fairly straightforwardly be prevented or answered by various and sundry methods of affirmative implementation, including directly incorporating the suggestions the authors make into the affirmative plan. i think this literature is pretty much useless for the negative and more importantly, it offers almost NOTHING that can be considered predictable and uniquely negative ground.  that is because the affirmative team and the affirmative plan are not George Bush.

*** Mancuso argues that the negative gets strengthening Putin bad and improving US-Russia relations bad.  yes they do.  they also get SPARK. but unlike Tim's team (grats on finals of ToC!  was following speech-by-speech at Bob's place), my guess is that affirmative would want to engage in those debates at every opportunity.

*** Mancuso concedes that affirmatives could implement SORT in a way which co-opts the pro-arms-control arguments, but argues that would give negatives the arms control bad positions.  indeed it would.

a) no literature specific to SORT:  this will be a one-way literature where Kimball and friends fume about missed opportunities which the aff co-opts into plan but there will be between zero and zilch literature to answer-back why doing more is bad because in the real world Kimball's more will not be done.
b) those arguments are not especially good.  the Arms Control Today authors are now working full-time for the aff.
c) predictability, predictability, predictability.  i am going to sit on predictability.

the Treaties topic area is awesome largely because affirmative plans are predictable.  SORT tosses that out the window.  the scenario above is, at a minimum, a simple reversal of the "expected" debate:  negatives now have to argue 180 degrees against their best literature base (the Arms Control Lobby).  moreover, the affirmative gets to call the shots: they can tailor the plan to be anything from a straight defense of George Bush's Vision all the way to unilateral disarmament and can co-opt just about everything in-between.  and they can do so fairly painlessly in response to the negative's strengths.   a skeleton of improved US-Russia Relations tied to a bare-bones "ratify and implement" plan with various plan modifications and advantages ready to plug into "implementation" as desired seems to me pretty deadly.  negative gets to research SPARK.

finally, on this point, Mancuso implies that the committee considered the possibility that SORT could easily be reversed by plan implementation but concluded that would be ok because the negative would get to argue arms control bad?  SURELY you all didn't reason that way.  did you?  i mean, is no biggie if aff gets to pick and choose from pretty much the full spectrum of positions to take about NUCLEAR ARMS REDUCTION?

okay, thank you for reading, and despite the above, i look forward to the Treaties topic.

Michael Korcok
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020608/1426cfd3/attachment.html 


From kenedebate  Sat Jun  8 16:15:20 2002
From: kenedebate (Ken D)
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 16:15:20 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] another missing treaty...
Message-ID: <F63YHkidcDjoYAPNXRP00000006@hotmail.com>

I've checked out Korcok's earlier post, seems to be accurate.  I think alot 
of what Helwich talks about is how the Bush administration will implement 
the treaty, not how the language of the treaty reads.

Which might be an intersting question in general.  I think Korcok's right, 
the affirmative can move far to the left.  They might not have lit to 
support it in the implementation sense, but why can't an affirmative just 
say we fiat the treaty this way, and read some we must reinterpret the way 
we look at treaties cards from some K type author.

Or they can just unload on solvency advocate until they drop.

If we have to put "unless its ratified" which it seems its going to, why 
include it in the topic in general?  If we're so sure we gotta spike it in 
the resolution....

Anyway, to revisit my earlier Law of the Sea argument, I noticed that the 
Death Penalty treaty was included.  Are you telling me that we can't include 
something like the Law of the Sea cuz its affirmatively biased, yet we can 
include the Death penalty becuase the neg lit is so good?

I cut our death penalty hit for the NDT...seems the Aff had a good argument.

I'll seperate my next argument out for a more specific thread...

Ken


>From: "Michael Roston " <wishfull at eudoramail.com>
>Reply-To: wishfull at eudoramail.com
>To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: [eDebate] another missing treaty...
>Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 13:49:20 -0400
>
>
>International Convention for the Supprssion of the Financing of Terrorism.  
>Remember all you folks who said we could debate terrorism under a treaties 
>topic?
>
>Was it discussed?  Why was it excluded?  I think this would be an even 
>better alternative for the 'fifth' treaty because it is a unique topic area 
>- combines law enforcement, financial services, and security issues under 
>one document.
>
>whatever the case, the Moscow Treaty needs to be replaced.
>
>---
>Michael Roston
>-enemy of freedom
>
>"At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."
>                     -President Richard Nixon, May 18, 1971
>
>
>
>Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail 
>account at http://www.eudoramail.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
>http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.




From kenedebate  Sat Jun  8 16:22:13 2002
From: kenedebate (Ken D)
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 16:22:13 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] About the moderation/overflow thread and the topic...
Message-ID: <F60Se4FpkM1n6yL8n8s0001efde@hotmail.com>


Just as a thought...

You know this whole Sanchez/Stroube/whoever this week argument lots of folks 
ahve been using for edebate lately kinda makes me wonder.

I could count about 12 topic committee related emails, now I know I came to 
the table late, my bad for getting out of the game for a sec, but it seemed 
the last couple of years theres been more online feedback in the topic 
committees process.

Maybe folks didnt participate this year, but it jsut seems like alot of the 
earlier thigns we talked about weren't discussed that much.  I hadnt heard 
about the new treaty being included, I thought CEDAW and LOS were a lock... 
we assigned out related assignments we were so sure, and it jsut seems like 
we limited the treaty structure a whole bunch.

Including a treaty that may be irrelevant or hella hard to debate, that 
seemed to be added at the last minute.

Now... I'll caveat it with the usual "the topic committee put in alot of 
work." type of congrats.  But maybe we need to revisit this process as a 
committee before the ballot goes out.

I ahve alot of respect for Mike Korcok, and I think he's right...

Is it possible that I missed alot of the contribution becuase of email box 
overflow due to all the junk that happens on edebate?  Or maybe some emails 
got lost in my delete fest?  If that's true then what Scott Harris is saying 
is accurate.  This forum needs to be changed to be more useful to the 
community it serves.

Maybe alot of folks did participate but I didnt see it.

Did I miss anything?

Ken


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com




From mmk_savant  Sat Jun  8 19:03:19 2002
From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok)
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2002 20:03:19 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] hmmm...
Message-ID: <OE28lCbYxeetW58l21i00010a5b@hotmail.com>

unh... Mr. Kerpen, your serving is burping out posts from a while ago again.

like that "implement" one -- i sent that in during the topic committee meeting.

and, well, it looks kinda pointless now...

Michael Korcok
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020608/102a34ec/attachment.htm 


From let_the_american_empire_burn  Sat Jun  8 20:48:11 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 20:48:11 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Did Confuse-wa really call Zizek 'incomprehensible'? (Irony Personified)
Message-ID: <F1725XFTbkdnYH47mqh0001127b@hotmail.com>

i'm sorry, you're being rather incomprehensible, Kuswa -
"usfg"? what's that?
"the passive voice direction"?? huh?
"the low point win column"? didn't catch that, either.

On the contrary, i thought Zizek was uncharacteriscally clear. While you, 
Kuswa, are somewhat cynical, you are not 'kynically subversive' in the way 
Zizek means it. For example, you'll say this forum needs to eliminate the 
words 'united states federal government' from its resolutions, but you won't 
criticize 'in loco parentis' or in any way examine instances of disciplinary 
power in this forum. Those who are really 'kynical', says Zizek, should use 
irony, sarcasm, everyday banality, and yes, even ridicule, to expose your 
'kritiky performance' for the egoistical and official-sounding bullshit that 
it really is.

While you've often leveled the pejorative of 'ideology' against Struubes and 
i, Zizek would say that you're the one who is unwilling to remove your 
ideological mask, as you are unwilling to criticize your institutional role. 
You truncate and twist 'kynicism' into your laundry list of excuses for 
ruling structures, and in a very non-subversive way; for instance, your 
sappy, mild readings of Deleuze.

Unclear still? Hmm. Hows about a simple analogy.
You're a domesticated animal that has lost the (kynical) teeth to bite the 
hands that feed you.

And folks like yourself are the reason that reasonable critiques of ideology 
no longer work, in Zizek's opinion. So to embark on a post-ideological era, 
new revolutionary escape routes should be taken. Not finding just the right 
Hardt & Negri 'card' for each 'affirmative case' on the 'treaty topic,' but 
instead hijacking the debate circuit itself.

Perhaps SLF is correct in citing Habermas for this proposed injection of 
criticism into the public sphere, but Jurgen's still a little too shy for my 
tastes; he doesn't seem to agree with attacking institutions at their 
ideological relay-points, cuz this often goes beyond mere 'ideal speech 
acts' and into 'kynical subversion' (as Zizek writes). Ever read Foucault 
talking to French high schoolers in 'language, counter-memory, practice'? 
>From beginning to end, that's a great piece of critique, which should 
stimulate activism among debaters young and old.

Again, i don't expect you to understand, but other readers (as indicated by 
backchannels i recieve) just might. Though, i suspect you could do more to 
try.    :incomprehensibly yours, kev

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.




From dhelwich  Sun Jun  9 00:30:06 2002
From: dhelwich (David Aaron Helwich)
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 01:30:06 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [eDebate] SORT implementation
In-Reply-To: <OE75lGTdnwS8BurjQqd00010415@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.96.1020609010226.16002D-100000@sirenum.it.miami.edu>

"Dead wrong"?

I think Steve defended my position better (and at least at more length ;)
than I could.

I do not disagree that the treaty leaves some wiggle-room for the aff.
However, the neg always gets 'zero is better,' which is preferable ground
from a goo/critical perspective. Schell, Lifton, and the usual
anti-nuclear hacks criticize arms control because it legitimizes the
existence of nuclear deterrence doctrines (see Falk writing in
_Indefensible Weapons_, 1982).

Second, the anti-SORT literature will improve as the summer progresses. I
am pretty confident that the Guardian and other rags will get over their
surprise that Bush advocated eliminating a few weapons and start to make
more vocal criticisms of the treaty. If anything, the lack of meaningful
response from the left reveals the effectiveness of the Bush
administration's plan to use SORT as a means of short-circuiting debate
about the NPR. A recent BAS article discussing Bush's campaign pledge to
reduce American arsenals argues that such efforts are a cooption move that
undermines effective anti-nuclear critique (see Gusterson, Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists, Nov/Dec 2001... please note the "BMD Bad" DA links ;).
The "SORT = NPR" arguments will link _as long as judges/negs hold affs to
implementing the treaties as per intent_ (which is likely a problematic
assumption on my part, and if I prove to be wrong, Korcok's dire
predictions are likely accurate). For a card-friendly rant against the
NPR, see William Hartung at
http://www.fpif.org/commentary/0012nuclear_body.html

Third, any aff that takes SORT to "near-zero" (and I think that there is a
T argument to made regarding implementation procedures that gut
fundamental assumptions of treaties) guarantees an insurmountable link to
'Bush Good.' Not pedagogically sound ground, but strategic ground
nonetheless.

best,

David Cram Helwich




From kkuswa  Sun Jun  9 01:53:40 2002
From: kkuswa (kevin kuswa)
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 02:53:40 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] treaties topic thoughts ("SORT" of, following, that which from
 a long way off look like flies, etc.)
In-Reply-To: <OE68E2H1eMr7eUi9VEB00004070@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <4.1.20020609005140.009f28d0@facstaff.richmond.edu>

hi all...great to see the conversation hone in on our topic for next year
(with the exception of the sporadic mud burps that come across the list).

anyway, a few thoughts:

1. you should read Tejinder's post on the wordings if you haven't already.
he's right that the tight case debate we were expecting on this topic may
have drifted away during the committee's move to list unrelated treaties.
on the other hand, the specificity of the treaties alone will force a lot
of case debate (contrast this to the choice last year between the Indian
Country wording and the resolution that listed specific legislation).  All
three options spell out the treaties/agreements that must be covered which
ensures some predictability.  I myself favor a topic like "Improve
international arms control treaties" which would be a lot less predictable
than what we have now but also more cohesive (in terms of advantages) than
what we have now.

2.  The SORT question.  Helwich has answered some of the objections and
Korcok's post is really good on this, but we've got to keep some things in
mind: 

a) the topic wordings are fairly set at this point.  changes are virtually
impossible after the wordings have been put out by the committee.

b) the inclusion of a vague stab at arms control into the topic does not
give the aff. unlimited ground.  things balance themselves out through
counterplans, arguments against bilateralism, limitations on aff fiat such
as requiring a clear plan, and all the positions against arms control.
Yes, it seems less predictable than the other treaties, but there are still
places for the negative to turn.  heck, high school debated "change policy
toward Russia."  high school also debated disarm last year.  the aff was
not dominant either time.  i'd be more worried about debating the death
penalty or ctb on the neg.

c) even if the aff has some unfair ground on SORT, the literature will not
be lacking on either side.  the press coverage has been pretty extensive,
most of the poli sci journals will be writing on it, the political links
between bush and putin are abundant, and the larger questions of us-russian
partnership (vs. other partnerships) are significant.  that's a good debate
to get into, even if the treaty mechanism is a little rough.  At least it
won't become the syria of the constructive engagement topic, or brunei on
south asia, or djibouti, etc.  And, if Helwich is right and the negative
actually has more ground debating the SORT, then so be it--I think the neg
could use some help on all three of these resolutions.

But,

3. The topic committee never determines how the season will shake out or
how the debates will evolve.  no matter how many assignments your squad
works on over the summer or how many committee members express their
opinions on a certain issue, there will be areas and arguments that
surprise us and defy prediction.  Debate rounds themselves will negotiate
these issues far more than the committee will.  hester says this more
eloquently every year about this time, but it's worth repeating: the topic
is just a starting point, not the end point.

4. The creation of A following??  When did following become a popular noun?
 What is following?  The object of the preposition "of," the word
"following" is the noun/adjective that helps to explain or modify the word
"one" or the word "more."  In other words, the phrase "of the following" is
a prepositional phrase modifiying "one or more."  To answer the question:
"One what?" or "More what?" we look to the object of the preposition.  That
object is "following."  How does that help us?  Good question.  What is
"following" doing here?  The topics do not say "following treaties",
"following agreements," or even "following documents."  Instead, it is just
"following."  The objects after the word following do not fill in the
gap---we have treaties, protocols, conventions, and statutes.

What's the impact to the floating "following"?  Tough to tell.  At the very
least, though, you have to wonder why the committee did not stop after the
word "implement" and then list the options with the word "or" before the
last one.  If the answer is, "We wanted the affirmative to be able to deal
with more than one," that's a pretty weak response.  Why?  Because most
affirmatives will only deal with one anyway.  In addition, adding more than
one into the plan may simply be a way to access alternate justification
theory.  Affs will just say "we defend one OR more."  So, what is the one
or more being defended?  Hmmm.  We know which agreements are being
defended, but we don't know how they are all "following."  At least last
year had the word "areas" after following.  Finally, the word "following"
in the topic does not make sense in the context of "or more."  What does it
mean to sign "more than the following"?  We don't even know what following
refers to...is "more of the following" a reference to agreements that are
not on any of the lists?  Is "more of the following" a reference to adding
more text to the document selected?  I can hear you saying, "No, 'more'
means one or two or three or four or five."  Sure, but isn't one and part
of another "more than one."  We cannot assume that the standard
interpretation is covered by the amorphous nature of "the following."
Clearly an issue to be worked out during the season, but one that we're
stuck with because the topic committee used up all the variety options on
the lists.

-----topic comments stop here

5. I apologize to Scott Harris, Kenny D, and others who have found the
number of off-topic messages to be extreme.  I have tried to ignore some of
these posts and I have tried to backchannel others to encourage discussion
that is not on edebate.  Clearly there is no good way to keep some of the
crap off the list--you just have to wade through it.  Again, I apologize
for contributing to some of it, although my intention is to engage in the
arguments that seem important (and that have not already been answered like
a million times), but even then it might be better to ignore some of them.
I will say, however, if you want to lodge some kind of critique against
me, the utnif, some philosopher you think i'm misreading, or my personal
life, don't send it to edebate.  most people just don't care, edebate is
not set up for that shit, and you're defeating yourself by increasing the
advertising for the camp i work at (after every random utnif post, we get
two or three more students to sign up--we're as big or bigger at the utnif
than ever before).  how about this, before you litter edebate, send your
trash to www.voidforchumps.com or www.this_is_useless_splatter.com.

thanks for reading,

kevin kuswa
spide(r)bate





From let_the_american_empire_burn  Sun Jun  9 05:29:52 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 05:29:52 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] KYNIC (or, more "useless splatter" from this "chump" caught in a "void")
Message-ID: <F167inkkttbTSosDGiU000115bb@hotmail.com>

uh oh, i think Kuswa is about to lose it you guys. Someone needs a joint. 
... Anyway, I appreciate his anger; at least he's being honest (for a 
change). Here's what he says about recent posts:

"Clearly there is no good way to keep some of the crap off the list--you 
just have to wade through it. Again, I apologize for contributing to some of 
it, although my intention is to engage in the arguments that seem important 
(and that have not already been answered like a million times), but even 
then it might be better to ignore some of them. I will say, however, if you 
want to lodge some kind of critique against me, the utnif, some philosopher 
you think i'm misreading, or my personal
life, don't send it to edebate. most people just don't care, edebate is
not set up for that shit, and you're defeating yourself by increasing the 
advertising for the camp i work at (after every random utnif post, we get 
two or three more students to sign up--we're as big or bigger at the utnif 
than ever before). how about this, before you litter edebate, send your 
trash to www.voidforchumps.com or www.this_is_useless_splatter.com."

I'm glad to hear of UTNIF's newfound success and I'll be happy to take 
credit for increasing UTNIF's student population. I'm not surprised in the 
least that many high skoolers are attracted to UTNIF's very liberal policies 
on marijuana smoking, and I'm certain that my (factual) advertisements would 
be more effective than UTNIF's ads, with all that crap about 'Activism in 
Debate'.

After all, you've only kicked out about 13 students or so; and you and I 
both know how many of your students (and staff) smoke lots and lots of pot. 
But aside from this saving grace, I find it more and more difficult to come 
up with reasons for UTNIF's existence - perhaps you could provide a more 
clever response than directing me to (dumbly-named) websites?

No, no, no, Mr. Foucault himself says E-debate isn't the place for this kind 
of thing, which is to say, this is the wrong forum for "critique." Big 
surprise from someone who packages and sells (non-subversive) critiques for 
a living.

And to add insult to irony, Kuswa wants high schoolers to come to his camp, 
for what reasons? So they can 'critically examine themselves'? So they can 
'learn to ask questions of disciplinary power'? For 'education and 
democratic empowerment'? (Yeah right.)

But Kuswa is above questions like these, for his institution is beyond 
reproach - and those who impolitely scrutinize his authority are best 
ignored, says Confuse-wa. But can he really expect readers to ignore what he 
has repeatedly shown time and time again? that for him 'critique' is just a 
matter of strategic debate, and that whether its Foucault or Deleuze or 
Guattari or Zizek, its all just about 'cool debate cards'. And when he 
doesn't get an award for winning an argument, readers can't expect him to 
even try. Next Confuse-wa will tell us that this is what D&G mean by 
'escape'.

Repeating a mindless argument 4 times in a debate round, that Kuswa can 
handle, that he can train others to do as well as himself. But listening to 
questions directed to the discipline of his own institution and ideology, 
that Kuswa has no time for. To repeat: 'In-round performance' that brings 
more shiny trophies, theres where Kuswa's 'rep' is - but geniune critique, 
nah, Kuswa can't be bothered with that .... and yet he is bothered, and his 
that above statement reveals this without doubt.

But why is he so peeved if my argument is so 'self-defeating'?
Why is he so angry if 'no one cares'?
Ironic.

High skoolers reading this, go to UTNIF, if you so choose, and enjoy the 
buds. But if you're expecting to learn anything about activism in debate, 
you'll learn it best by exposing Kuswa's repeated frauds upon this 
community. And don't expect to be left alone either: they'll bug you with 
lab assignments and practice speeches and speed drills and tournament 
preparation, and then tell you to be thankful for your one day off (from 
cutting Foucault's 'Madness and Civilization')

Meanwhile, I'll continue to make an example of this 'kritiky' UTNIF, which 
hypocritically deploys the ideology of mono-competitive contests in 
conjunction with the pedagogy of disciplinary skools to add, in however 
small a way, to the empire of american crapitalism, that it simultaneously 
claims to 'kritik'. (More silence expected from Kuswa.)

Outlandish? Incomprehensible? Its very clear to Zizek, Deleuze, Guattari, 
and Foucault, none of which Kuswa will respond to adequately. But after all, 
he just works here.     :kev


p.s. Thanks to K.E. for his advice that Foucault and D&G provide a better 
theoretical groundwork for these continuing criticisms of UTNIF. Zizek's 
orthodox 'Marxism' throws me sometimes as well, but I do not think he 
opposes kynical subversions which make good use of irony. His inability to 
escape from ideological fantasy is resolved (or re-unraveled) by D&G's 
willingness to see everything as real, even anal sunbeams. D&G deny fantasy, 
hence schizo-theorizing a productive unconscious, again vulnerable to 
destruction and deterritorialization. -- I dig the reference to Bakhtin 
(I've only read his stuff about novel-writing, which helped me immensely): 
the "carnivalesque" reminds me of D&G's 'pure positive mulitiplicities' and 
(to a lesser degree) Foucault's 'heterotopias'. Or better yet, Nietzsche's 
'sea'. But to the extent that radical structual changes will not occur do to 
the gutlessness of those who should know better, this pleb will continue to 
ridicule on. Appreciate your suggestion, and expect from you a helpful 
ridiculing of this genealogy I'm working on (a combination of Gary Alan 
Fine's 'Gifted Tongues' with Foucault's 'Discipline & Punish' ... though 
that's an over-simplification)

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com




From jtedebate  Sun Jun  9 07:41:16 2002
From: jtedebate (J T)
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 05:41:16 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Re:  another missing treaty...LOfS
In-Reply-To: <F63YHkidcDjoYAPNXRP00000006@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20020609124116.46193.qmail@web20103.mail.yahoo.com>


 Although it's rare, I'd have to agree with Ken D.  If biased Aff lit is the charge, there is trouble with other treaties as well.......and what's with LOS being biased aff?  When that case was ran before, everyone had full case hits...What about the dying Iraqi children we kept hearing about on sanctions...that particular aspect of the debate (don't demonize Saddam, sanctions kill kids..) was slanted Aff in the lit based on quality, not quantity of ev....and we figured out lots of crafty ways to beat those cases...Now as for LofS treaty, it's a mix of quantiy and quality of Neg. ev.  I just don't see it as true that the quantity of evidence is so slanted aff that it should not be on the ballot...maybe some of ya'll just aren't looking in the right places....Did you try reasearching the china debate over LOS?  A Greece disad?  Anti-Sub warfare? Give me a break!  I have yet to see a good reason why LofS should not be on the ballot...it encompasses areas discussed in several other treaties, like biodiversity/environment, military security, etc.  Now it's not all lexis-based, so you might have to crack open a book or use that Internet thingy...
 
JT
  Ken D <kenedebate at hotmail.com> wrote: 
I've checked out Korcok's earlier post, seems to be accurate. I think alot 
of what Helwich talks about is how the Bush administration will implement 
the treaty, not how the language of the treaty reads.

Which might be an intersting question in general. I think Korcok's right, 
the affirmative can move far to the left. They might not have lit to 
support it in the implementation sense, but why can't an affirmative just 
say we fiat the treaty this way, and read some we must reinterpret the way 
we look at treaties cards from some K type author.

Or they can just unload on solvency advocate until they drop.

If we have to put "unless its ratified" which it seems its going to, why 
include it in the topic in general? If we're so sure we gotta spike it in 
the resolution....

Anyway, to revisit my earlier Law of the Sea argument, I noticed that the 
Death Penalty treaty was included. Are you telling me that we can't include 
something like the Law of the Sea cuz its affirmatively biased, yet we can 
include the Death penalty becuase the neg lit is so good?

I cut our death penalty hit for the NDT...seems the Aff had a good argument.

I'll seperate my next argument out for a more specific thread...

Ken


>From: "Michael Roston " 
>Reply-To: wishfull at eudoramail.com
>To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: [eDebate] another missing treaty...
>Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 13:49:20 -0400
>
>
>International Convention for the Supprssion of the Financing of Terrorism. 
>Remember all you folks who said we could debate terrorism under a treaties 
>topic?
>
>Was it discussed? Why was it excluded? I think this would be an even 
>better alternative for the 'fifth' treaty because it is a unique topic area 
>- combines law enforcement, financial services, and security issues under 
>one document.
>
>whatever the case, the Moscow Treaty needs to be replaced.
>
>---
>Michael Roston
>-enemy of freedom
>
>"At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."
> -President Richard Nixon, May 18, 1971
>
>
>
>Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail 
>account at http://www.eudoramail.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
>http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at ndtceda.com
To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate


---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020609/68ede154/attachment.html 


From totalbs3000  Sun Jun  9 13:25:08 2002
From: totalbs3000 (tom payne)
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 13:25:08 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] How topic choices were made from a viewer (length warning)
Message-ID: <F72knwwPIU5vPuaAMQk00019ffb@hotmail.com>

   I think a lot of this has been covered, but I figured a NON topic members 
voice, that attended the meeting, may be helpful as sort of an objective 
observer standpoint.
   First, reaffirm Helwich and criticize Roston's position.  The meeting is 
DONE.  There are two things that always amaze me about discussions about 
topics on the E.  First is a presumption that their args are unanswered by 
the committee.  The committee heard and discussed every objection I have 
read so far.  If you wanted to know the answers, the meeting is open to all. 
  Go there.  If it is true, that EVERY year the community is reminded that 
we can fix the committee's horrible injustice thrust on the people via the 
topic, then it is also good to remind you that you could have, and probably 
should have gone to the meeting.  Or, there are probably two seats coming 
open soon, throw your hat out into the ring, campaign on you topic 
philosophy and seek the vote of the people to represent them on the 
committee, and get CEDA to pay for you to be there.  Either way, stop 
playing Monday morning quarterback, and voice opinions before the meeting.  
There was virtually ZERO discussion on the topic prior to the meeting.  
While this may not answer the Russia objections, I will get to that below.

    Why it happened the way it did.

First, the committee did not have SPSS to craft the necessary multivariate 
anova or 9X9 cross matrix to allow the community to rank any combination of 
the 9 treaties in any of the 360,000 combinations they wanted.

I made an argument (watch for the pattern here, attend meeting equals 
influence) that resolutions should test for choice.  Thus the topic choices 
should be established like a social science expirement.  Identify a variable 
type, and vary it. Why? vote splitting.  You should also keep in mind that 
the committee is REQUIRED to offer three topics.  This was lamented at least 
once.

<b>Here were the discussed ways to vary</b>

reservations  (with or without)
topic list   (keep core 4 and then swap options like 5 7 9 or all 7 but vary 
three at a time)
breadth   (set a core set of topics, and keep adding to the list)
have 6 (three with Russia three without otherwise identical).
all rights, all arms control, all environment lists

Most of these options ended up FAILING the variance test.  Do a topic with 
and without reservations is two, and begged the question of what for the 
third.  Second, reservations is not THE definable term of art.  Could call 
it clarification, declaration, bunch of other stuff, and then it don't 
matter.  It was decided to get to what the community wanted would be to 
string the resolution so tight, that it may create artificial debates.  That 
is the lit supports one thing, a treaty with an obvious reservation that 
would be normal means, but you could not topically do that.  It was argued 
that this was left better to the season to progress (believe Hester's point 
about it being a beginning not an end applies here)and develop in 
specificity, vagueness, and topicality (are you the CTBT or some other 
document that looks and smells like CTBT but is different) debates.

The do 5 7 7 suggestion.

Again, varies list length and content.  If I just want the long list 
possible, I have to pick between two options.  Thus, could artificially 
enhance the smallest list possible voice in the community by vote splitting 
the biggest topic folks.

You get the picture on the way the decisions to pick the words used, and do 
a list with 5 then 7 then 9 topics went down.  Again, if you do not think 
the committee did it right, then vote with your feet next year and COME TO 
THE MEETING.

<b>Now  How the treaties that are there got there</b>

Kyoto and CTBT were the only TRUE locks.  If you miscalced on that, then you 
just did not have your finger on the pulse of the community.  Could be 
another reason why MORE discussion PRIOR to the meeting, or meeting 
attendence would be beneficial.

After that the discussion was which three of the remaining 9 (remember it 
was decided to do 5 7 9 at this point)  Most of the meeting made suggestions 
and put death penalty and ICC next.  I asked why, and was fairly persuaded 
that

ICC is a DEFINING treaty.  It is rights based, and it was just nearly 
unsigned (or actually unsigned if you think you can do that).  It will 
effect the rest of the treaties discussion, and is an important issue to 
discuss if discussing treaties.  It is also timely, and this should be an 
important topic guider.

Death penaly.  It is one of THE crucial issues in society.  It is a defining 
issue of the nation, and students that do debate OUGHT to debate the death 
penalty before they graduate.  At the same time, this is but one mechanism 
to debate the death penalty.  The domestic counterplan, and international 
law bad, (so I was told) are pretty damning.  It is at least debatable, and 
before we judge it, we should probably get in the lit (you know those books 
they have in that library thing), and ALL the lit, not just death penalty 
good.  Those that were there said it was debatable.  They are also people I 
trust, i.e. not the kind that would run death penalty, but would have to 
answer it alot.
Thus not advocating their pet aff, just trying to craft a decent topic.

So now we have why the core four, lets see why NOT OTTAWA and UNCLOS.  You 
should keep in mind that this is a synopsis of like 20 hours of meeting over 
three days.  If you would like a full transcript, then attending the meeting 
is always a better bet.

UNCLOS went into force in 1998.  IE it is a NON-STARTER.  It exists AS LAW, 
and functions on a daily basis.  Most of those 89-98 cards get you taco.  
The US don't sign collapses UNCLOS uniqueness cards for your LOS bad args, 
don't exist.  Counterplan uniqueness for collapsing UNCLOS?  How?  And still 
doesn't answer 4 years of empirically denied on UNCLOS killing the world.  
Not hard to see how the it was debateable in 94 proves debateable now, don't 
cut it.  Second, was aff biased.  This is just true.  3 of the 4 teams in 
semis at CEDA nationals that year ran UNCLOS as an aff.  Gonzo beat UMKC on 
delay till after the NPT conference to win one of the semis brackets.  I 
don;t think that counterplan is getting you much this time around.  My wife 
lost to that same UMKC team in OCTOS, even while snaking a ballot, and I 
KNOW our case tunr hit will get you nowhere now.  And three of the 5 best 
teams that year ran it because it was strategically slanted aff.  Greece, 
China, all those EEZ battle turns are NONUNIQUE.  The treaty is in force, 
and this has RADICALLY changed the ground.  This is reflected by the DEARTH 
of 2001-2002 articles, books, and thesis.  Some people still say the US 
should ratify, but they are not good debate args.  I believe one committee 
member even called it boring.  And in case you missed it, I will repeat it 
one more time.  TIMELINESS and bias, killed UNCLOS.  On balance, ALL 9 of 
the others are better topically balanced for all good topic issues.

Ottawa.

TONS of defense.  No offense.  South Korea? Please I have watched West Point 
clown folks on that argument (the point answering mines key to Korea).  And 
no one likes ass-whiping military good args much more then the Point.  The 
mines key to korea defense cards are POLITICALLY motivated, not militarily 
motivated.  Since not many have clamored about including it, we will let 
that cover it.


Why Russia not (insert your pet treaty).

First, not sure why this is productive anymore.  Roston's point to the side, 
it is a DONE deal.  Criticisms may assist in flushing out how to vote 
arguments, but it ain;t changing the list.  It also grabs the timely 
advantage.  To quote Mancuso "To be debating a treaties topic and not talk 
about SORT would be like debating an intervention topic during the Vietnam 
War, and not including Vietnam on the list of countries."  That being said, 
it should be remembered the vote to include Russia over CEDAW was 5-4.  I 
think a STRONG reason was that to put CEDAW in the short list, would 
RADICALLY slant the topic.  While a ballot that offered a rights group, a 
arms control group, or an environment group, would have fit the ballot tests 
from above (isolated variable, three options) it was viewed by the committee 
that diversity of options was important to facilitate likes of ALL the 
community.  Facts are we have weapons junkies and rights junkies.  I DOUBT 
the sincerity of coexistability of parts of our community, but if we are to 
pretend that we are one, then we should act as one.  Thus to cow-tow to the 
K folks, or the Impact folks is contrary to that issue diversity we claim to 
support.

   That being said, the core four are 1 environment 1 arms control TWO 
rights.  To review, the core four are death penalty, Kyoto, CTBT, and ICC.  
It is true that ICC and death penalty access a DIFFERENT part of the 
"philosophical" or rights or whatever word you care to use literature, they 
are similar in what types of people prefer them to others.  To add CEDAW as 
a fifth was viewed that the topic would become HEAVILY rights focuesed.  You 
know, three out of 5, 60 percent, a MAJORITY, more options in one area then 
all OTHER areas COMBINED.  The status quo option is 2 arms, TWO rights, and 
one environment.  I know I come from a directional state school, but in the 
backwaters of Missouri, we call that there balance.  Thus to say it is 
unfair that we have two arms controls treaties and should have instead made 
it THREE rights treaties is an on face double turn to any purpoted impact of 
fairness and balance.  I got novices could figure out the logical 
inconsistencies in that argument.


After that the topics just got added as could, with an emphasis on 
maintaining balance.  Thus the reason you got to go to 9 to get to the IRC.  
Each selection after core 5 was one rights one environment.  Seemed all 
quite logical to us in the group at the time.  And since it is an open 
group, I will repeat one last time, if you don't like it, vote with your 
feet, and next year COME.

To close, one 5 minute standing applause for the topic committee.  Thanks 
for listening to my ramblings, and congrats on a nearly PERFECT job.  For a 
group that has to balance so many different issues in such a short time, 
without much benefit, you did a FANTASTIC job.  I was truly SHOCKED at the 
great leadership provided by Steve Mancuso in his attempts to achieve 
consensus regardless of length of time taken, and was surprised by the 
seemingly genuine concern for the community at large.  In the past I have 
seen some seemingly political motivations out of committee members in 
getting what was good for their squad rather then everyone involved.  While 
this is always inevitable, I thought the political slanting towards own 
desires was much less then usual, and that most discussion was investigative 
in trying to get to what was best for all, rather then steering to get what 
individuals wanted.  A much better implementation of consensus building then 
I have seen from other members of our community that preach the importance 
of consensus decision making.

That;s it, back to e-silence for me

Martin Harris

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com




From leah.white  Sun Jun  9 12:05:31 2002
From: leah.white (Leah E. White)
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 12:05:31 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] UNI Ulrich Season Opener Invite
Message-ID: <3D038ADB.328AC82F@uni.edu>

I am attaching the University of Northern Iowa Ulrich Season Opener
Invite to this message.  If you are unable to open the attachment, you
can go to our web site and access the invite there.  The address is
www.uni.edu/forensic

We will not be mailing hard copies of the invitation this year.

Please note that due to a scheduling conflict with the Waterloo
Convention Center, the tournament will be held a week later than usual.

We hope to see you in September.

Leah White
University of Northern Iowa - DOF
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: invite02.9411DEFANGED-doc
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 42496 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020609/e670f03f/attachment.obj 


From Pacedebate  Sun Jun  9 15:31:01 2002
From: Pacedebate (Pacedebate at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 16:31:01 EDT
Subject: [eDebate] How topic choices were made from a viewer (length warning)
Message-ID: <e4.28d26cc7.2a351505@aol.com>

In a message dated 6/9/2002 1:28:10 PM Central Daylight Time, 
totalbs3000 at hotmail.com writes:


> Again, if you do not think 
> the committee did it right, then vote with your feet next year and COME TO 
> THE MEETING.
> 
> 

This is lame. Yeah, it would be great if everyone could attend the topic 
committe meetings but just because people can't afford to fork over the cash 
to fly to St. Louis doesn't mean the committee doesn't have an obligation to 
keep people informed.

and

To quote Mancuso "To be debating a treaties topic and not talk 
> 
> about SORT would be like debating an intervention topic during the Vietnam 
> War, and not including Vietnam on the list of countries."

If it was so obvious then why wasn't it included on the list of treaties 
posted by Mancuso on May 17. I agree that people shouldn't ignore the 
discussion before the meetings and then go ballistic about what the topic 
committee does when it is reasonably predictable. I just don't think adding 
SORT was a predictable move and more importantly it is certainly a move that 
could have been announced a day or two before the meeting so the community 
would have had a chance to comment on it. That creates a more transparent 
process and increases the number of people that can provide input.
BTW, the arg that it's a done deal is wrong. Until the ballot is sent out 
things can be changed and in fact there have been instances where even after 
ballots have been sent out changes have been made.
None of this has to be taken as "the topic committee sucks". It is perfectly 
consistent to say that the topic committee did a great job, is more open to 
input than ever, and that they could still do a better job.

Tim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020609/9c3553d2/attachment.html 


From dbteam  Sun Jun  9 16:59:46 2002
From: dbteam (dbteam)
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 17:59:46 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Hester advocates Partial SORT Abortion
Message-ID: <3CF44016@cliff.westga.edu>

1)yes, these thoughts are late. i was at a distance learning conference and 
forgot that this was the weekend St. Louis became a place i'd ever want to 
visit...


2)thanks to the folks who braved the Show Me State and worked on the 
resolutions...the toughest job you'l never love.


3)Fuck off to those who say things like "well you should have been there" (buy 
my plane ticket asshole) or "two slots are opening up for the next election" 
(i've nominated myself twice and lost out to Hingstman and Scott - both of 
whom i'm happy with. does that mean i don't get an opinion?).

4)the choices posted so far should be altered.

a) The SORT addition is easily the most controversial and the least discussed 
among all the treaties. it should not be on all three ballots. Period. Aside 
from the fact that it was a last minute addition (which is significant but not 
my biggest complaint b/c i trust the topic committee and am willing to cut 
them slack), it effectively changes the ENTIRE focus of the Treaties topic 
area from multilateral to bilateral/multilateral. From my viewpoint, Mancuso's 
good args about why a mixed focus is beneficial aren't good enough to warrant 
TAKING THAT CHOICE OUT OF THE HANDS OF THE VOTING COMMUNITY. it seems logical 
that the SORT option would be in the resolution with the most treaties. Those 
who want a 'broader' topic can vote for it. The resolution with the least 
number of treaties should not include SORT (and there's aven an argument that 
SORT should ONLY be on the broadest choice).


b) there are two solutions. SORT should either be deleted from #1 or SORT 
should be replaced in #1 by one of the other treaties (e.g., CEDAW or CRC) 
that got some play in pre-ST. Louis discussions.


The only argument that comes close to defending the universalization of SORT 
as a treaty on all three resolution choices is that "the list was really 
limited." I'd concede that point and say, "yep, such a 'narrow' Topic should 
be one of the choices on the ballot." i've read every post on this thread and 
just don't see the case being made as to why the voters are forced to accept 
the inevitable inclusion of SORT...

hester

 




From ucodebate  Sun Jun  9 17:02:18 2002
From: ucodebate (ucodebate at att.net)
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 22:02:18 +0000
Subject: [eDebate] Change the ballot?
Message-ID: <20020609220219.ONTS19182.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@webmail.worldnet.att.net>

Yes everything that Tim says here plus a couple of 
things.

Let me start by filling the bucket:

I WILL BOLDLY ASSERT "THAT THE TOPIC COMMITTEE DID THE 
BEST JOB RESEARCHING THE POTENTIAL RESOLUTIONAL WORDINGS 
OF ANY THAT I'VE SEEN SINCE THE MERGER.  UNTIL JUST 
BEFORE LUNCH THE LAST DAY.

At that time according to the posts of Harris and 
Schriver, and Mancuso additional topics were sought.  

The analysis by Mancuso referencing Vietnam is 
interesting.

I think better analysis is a comparison of this topic to 
the Indians topic.  What if the Indians topic had read?

Resolved:  That the USFG 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; or only gaming to only 
the Commanche nation.

That is effectively what the topic committee did. They 
took a topic that was supposed to be about MULTILATERAL 
treaties and added a different kind of treaty.

The "multilateralness" of the treaties was a topic area 
limiter the same way that throughout Indian Country was 
a resolutional limiter.  All the treaties need to be 
multilateral.  All the Indian policies had to deal with 
all the tribes and couldn't be "bilateral".

I don't necessarily think that a debate about SORT and 
nuke policy is a bad thing.  A lot of the lit that I 
read recently is pretty good.  I think that it is an 
additional treaty, but that all of the literature is 
incredibly replicative of the CTBT 
Advantage/impact/kritical literature.  Hence, other than 
expanding a multilateral/unilateral discussion to also 
include a bilateralism & Russian political process 
discussion not much research burden expansion occurred. 

The expansion in research burdens is already covered by 
a lot of the ctbt stuff.  And you were going to have to 
research 5 treaties anyway.  So instead of another 
multilateral treaty you get to research SORT.  Which 
according to some of the websites I've seen and from 
Mancuso and Helwich's posts appears to be pretty easy.  
I found plenty of stuff last night; i'm not nearly as 
upset as I think I was.  I don't think that the overall 
impact is a big one.  I guess that is why I'm not as 
disappointed about the INCREDIBLY NARROW (5-4) decision 
to include SORT instead of CEDAW.  

I would have unflinchingly have voted for res one if it 
included CEDAW instead of SORT.  I still like resolution 
one.  I agree with Tijinder (Sp) and some others who 
question if the inclusion of some of the rest of the 
communities favorite treaties in the bigger resolutions 
#2 & #3 may decrease some of the case debate, if we 
debate those bigger resolutions.  

I have a real problem with the fact that the bilateral 
treaty is on all 3 resolutions.  I feel that topic 
committees in the past would have allowed that to be 
something that we discussed on the list and voted for.  
I am a little scared that the topic committee added this 
treaty with ZERO community input.  I agree:  ya'll are 
smart.  Ya'll are some of the best debate minds in the 
nation.  Ya'll are great researchers.  I'm worried about 
your ability as communicators.  Yes, you are there to 
exercise your intellect to insure that the topic is 
debatable.  However, something in one of the posts, I 
believe it was Mancuso's or Martin Harris's ( I know 
he?s not on the committee), about protecting the 
community from the overly narrow "domestic cp"/"int.law 
bad" args was a necessary evil or the perception that 
increasing education breath, when the community already 
said give us a depth topic really worries me.

Please don't forget that you are also at that meeting to 
represent the best interests of your community as well.  
I was extensively involved in student governance as a 
secondary student and as an undergraduate.  I have 
worked on several political campaigns.  You CAN NOT 
represent the people if you don't engage them and ask 
them about the policies and issues that affect them.  

I don't think that the inclusion of SORT ruins the 
topic.  Luckily, ya'll are too smart to ruin the topic.

You also appear to be smart enough or too busy to 
communicate with the community during the meeting as 
well.  The community was not represented b/c the 
community was not consulted or informed about SORT.

Thanks to everyone who helped construct these 
resolutions.  I think that this will be a valuable 
discussion area for our community.  I'm eager to learn 
about this.  I just wish that we would have been 
consulted.

I also would have loved to come to the meeting.  
However, I teach summer school to make my 
families "endz" meet.  I don't think that Martin Harris 
or anyone else would begrude me feeding and housing my 
family.  I shouldn't have to take 3 days off work and 
come to St. Louis to have some input in the final 
crafting.  Also, no one on the topic committee addressed 
Phil Kerpen's idea that lots of resolutions don't lead 
to vote splitting with the single transferable vote.  so 
several different options would not lead to vote 
splitting.   My big gripe is this.  I can't take the 
time off to come.  I shouldn't get stuck with something 
that was not disclosed before the meeting.  I should 
have a chance to be electronically represented on this 
listserv.  The SORT case area should have been discussed 
here first.

Damn it.  I waded through every single piece of Stroube, 
schiros, Sanchez, Hey let?s call them S3, litany of shit-
talking to make sure that I dutifully was appropriately 
directing our research effort and resources.  Only to a 
get a suprise resolution included instead of ones that 
WERE discussed.  I think that is unexplainable by the 
committee.  WE DESERVE INPUT.  MANY OF US WERE DUTIFULLY 
PROVIDING IT UNTIL THE COMMUNICATION FROM ST. LOUIS 
STOPPED.

Perhaps someone on the committee or someone in the 
community, perhaps the executive secretary, should be 
constitutionally required to provide updates to the 
community at large that can not attend the meeting.

I feel like disappointments about the topic wordings 
appear to be unfortunately common.  I must admit that I 
fall into that category from time to time.  I think that 
an excellent job was done by the committee and the 
community leading up to that lunch break.  Then the 
topic committee varied from community expectations in a 
serious way and did not allow the community an 
opportunity to vote its way through the question 
of "should we include a bilateral treaty in the core 
list of treaties?"  I don't think that it would have 
killed the committee to either communicate that 
intention well  before the meeting, especially if 
Mancuso?s Vietnam analysis is true, or allow for more 
voting options, (e.g. allow the community to decide 
about SORT in the core list).

The inclusion of SORT should be considered a blatant 
misrepresentation of a lot of the 
discussion/expectations that many in the community had 
before the St. Louis meetings.  I think that in the 
future the topic committee should be aware that major 
changes in the complexion of the topic are always met 
with skepticism and hostility in the community.  If 
you?re on the committee and your thinking about doing 
something radically different from all of your pre-
meeting disclosed thoughts about the topic, then only 
put that in a couple of the resolutions or in one of the 
resolutions.

Also,  I?m not sure if it matters there are no colons in 
the resolutions after resolved.  Every other resolution 
ever has had one.  Hummmmm?  Also, Kuswa?s analysis 
about the dangling following is right on.  What are we 
to do?

The ballot has not been sent out.  I think that the 
topic committee should once again do a post meeting 
conference via backchannel and finish the great job that 
they have started.  Those are a few small problems that 
will not take much time to fix.  I?m not asking for them 
to add the additional resoution:

(4)  Resolved that the United States Federal Government 
should ratify or accede to, and implement, one or more 
of the following:

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; The Kyoto 
Protocol; The Rome Statute on the International Criminal 
Court; The Second Optional Protocol to the International 
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the 
Abolition of the Death Penalty; The Convention on the 
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.

But while your hashing it out, if you feel like it 
wouldn?t hurt to include it and see what the community 
thought and let us vote on it.  I KNOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD 
FEEL MORE REPRESENTED; AND LESS PRESCRIBED TO.

Thanks for reading,

Jason Stone
Director of Debate
100 N. University Ave.
Department of Communication
University of Central Oklahoma
Edmond, OK 73034
(405) 974-5584 (o)
> In a message dated 6/9/2002 1:28:10 PM Central Daylight Time, 
> totalbs3000 at hotmail.com writes:
> 
> 
> > Again, if you do not think 
> > the committee did it right, then vote with your feet next year and COME TO 
> > THE MEETING.
> > 
> > 
> 
> This is lame. Yeah, it would be great if everyone could attend the topic 
> committe meetings but just because people can't afford to fork over the cash 
> to fly to St. Louis doesn't mean the committee doesn't have an obligation to 
> keep people informed.
> 
> and
> 
> To quote Mancuso "To be debating a treaties topic and not talk 
> > 
> > about SORT would be like debating an intervention topic during the Vietnam 
> > War, and not including Vietnam on the list of countries."
> 
> If it was so obvious then why wasn't it included on the list of treaties 
> posted by Mancuso on May 17. I agree that people shouldn't ignore the 
> discussion before the meetings and then go ballistic about what the topic 
> committee does when it is reasonably predictable. I just don't think adding 
> SORT was a predictable move and more importantly it is certainly a move that 
> could have been announced a day or two before the meeting so the community 
> would have had a chance to comment on it. That creates a more transparent 
> process and increases the number of people that can provide input.
> BTW, the arg that it's a done deal is wrong. Until the ballot is sent out 
> things can be changed and in fact there have been instances where even after 
> ballots have been sent out changes have been made.
> None of this has to be taken as "the topic committee sucks". It is perfectly 
> consistent to say that the topic committee did a great job, is more open to 
> input than ever, and that they could still do a better job.
> 
> Tim




From dbteam  Sun Jun  9 17:10:12 2002
From: dbteam (dbteam)
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 18:10:12 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] okay...
Message-ID: <3CF440EA@cliff.westga.edu>

i'm betting this question is tongue-in-cheek, given MK-Ultra's ability to dig 
the archives. i am sympathetic to the spirit of the post however. i take it 
that his  questions are rhetorical in nature - there are no discussions of 
either that have taken place.


my point here is to ask a question that is similar in spirit but definitely 
not 'rhetorical' (i really don't know the answer).


before i start a massive crusade to try and remove SORT from at least one of 
the resolutions, i must ask:

"Is it too late to alter what the Topic Committee has decided upon?" and my 
follow up is, "If not, what is the best way to proceed if we (and i use that 
term only after having seen multiple posts from others) want to increase 
choice on the ballot by removing SORT from its current status as 'inevitable 
treaty' in all three resolution choices?"

hester
>===== Original Message From "Michael Korcok" <mmk_savant at hotmail.com> =====
>so i just missed the public discussion about
>
>The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and 
Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty;
>
>and
>
>The Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on 
Strategic Offensive Reductions?
>
>just asking, did i miss the public discussion?  maybe while edebate was 
having spasms?
>would someone mind re-posting that public discussion?
>
>Michael Korcok




From ucodebate  Sun Jun  9 17:19:49 2002
From: ucodebate (ucodebate at att.net)
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 22:19:49 +0000
Subject: [eDebate] Change the ballot?
Message-ID: <20020609221950.HMBT13408.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@webmail.worldnet.att.net>

Hey Folks,

Kuswa, Hester, Mahoney, & Stone agree to some post-
meeting tinkering. Actually my proposed topic would read:

(4) Resolved: that the United States Federal Government 
should ratify or accede to, and implement, one or more 
of the following multilateral agreements: 

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; The Kyoto 
Protocol; The Rome Statute on the International Criminal 
Court; The Second Optional Protocol to the International 
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the 
Abolition of the Death Penalty; The Convention on the 
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against 
Women. 

This resolution would have a colon after resolved, no 
dangling "following", and would be about multilateral, 
pre-topic meeting disclosed treaties.

No Downside with single transferable vote--don't need 
spss to compute it.  Besides, put it on the ballot and 
Jarman will figure it out (he's plenty smart to sort out 
four choices on the ballot)

Thoughts?

Jason Stone
Director of Debate
100 N. University Ave.
Department of Communication
University of Central Oklahoma
Edmond, OK 73034
(405) 974-5584 (o)
> Yes everything that Tim says here plus a couple of 
> things.
> 
> Let me start by filling the bucket:
> 
> I WILL BOLDLY ASSERT "THAT THE TOPIC COMMITTEE DID THE 
> BEST JOB RESEARCHING THE POTENTIAL RESOLUTIONAL WORDINGS 
> OF ANY THAT I'VE SEEN SINCE THE MERGER.  UNTIL JUST 
> BEFORE LUNCH THE LAST DAY.
> 
> At that time according to the posts of Harris and 
> Schriver, and Mancuso additional topics were sought.  
> 
> The analysis by Mancuso referencing Vietnam is 
> interesting.
> 
> I think better analysis is a comparison of this topic to 
> the Indians topic.  What if the Indians topic had read?
> 
> Resolved:  That the USFG 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; or only gaming to only 
> the Commanche nation.
> 
> That is effectively what the topic committee did. They 
> took a topic that was supposed to be about MULTILATERAL 
> treaties and added a different kind of treaty.
> 
> The "multilateralness" of the treaties was a topic area 
> limiter the same way that throughout Indian Country was 
> a resolutional limiter.  All the treaties need to be 
> multilateral.  All the Indian policies had to deal with 
> all the tribes and couldn't be "bilateral".
> 
> I don't necessarily think that a debate about SORT and 
> nuke policy is a bad thing.  A lot of the lit that I 
> read recently is pretty good.  I think that it is an 
> additional treaty, but that all of the literature is 
> incredibly replicative of the CTBT 
> Advantage/impact/kritical literature.  Hence, other than 
> expanding a multilateral/unilateral discussion to also 
> include a bilateralism & Russian political process 
> discussion not much research burden expansion occurred. 
> 
> The expansion in research burdens is already covered by 
> a lot of the ctbt stuff.  And you were going to have to 
> research 5 treaties anyway.  So instead of another 
> multilateral treaty you get to research SORT.  Which 
> according to some of the websites I've seen and from 
> Mancuso and Helwich's posts appears to be pretty easy.  
> I found plenty of stuff last night; i'm not nearly as 
> upset as I think I was.  I don't think that the overall 
> impact is a big one.  I guess that is why I'm not as 
> disappointed about the INCREDIBLY NARROW (5-4) decision 
> to include SORT instead of CEDAW.  
> 
> I would have unflinchingly have voted for res one if it 
> included CEDAW instead of SORT.  I still like resolution 
> one.  I agree with Tijinder (Sp) and some others who 
> question if the inclusion of some of the rest of the 
> communities favorite treaties in the bigger resolutions 
> #2 & #3 may decrease some of the case debate, if we 
> debate those bigger resolutions.  
> 
> I have a real problem with the fact that the bilateral 
> treaty is on all 3 resolutions.  I feel that topic 
> committees in the past would have allowed that to be 
> something that we discussed on the list and voted for.  
> I am a little scared that the topic committee added this 
> treaty with ZERO community input.  I agree:  ya'll are 
> smart.  Ya'll are some of the best debate minds in the 
> nation.  Ya'll are great researchers.  I'm worried about 
> your ability as communicators.  Yes, you are there to 
> exercise your intellect to insure that the topic is 
> debatable.  However, something in one of the posts, I 
> believe it was Mancuso's or Martin Harris's ( I know 
> he?s not on the committee), about protecting the 
> community from the overly narrow "domestic cp"/"int.law 
> bad" args was a necessary evil or the perception that 
> increasing education breath, when the community already 
> said give us a depth topic really worries me.
> 
> Please don't forget that you are also at that meeting to 
> represent the best interests of your community as well.  
> I was extensively involved in student governance as a 
> secondary student and as an undergraduate.  I have 
> worked on several political campaigns.  You CAN NOT 
> represent the people if you don't engage them and ask 
> them about the policies and issues that affect them.  
> 
> I don't think that the inclusion of SORT ruins the 
> topic.  Luckily, ya'll are too smart to ruin the topic.
> 
> You also appear to be smart enough or too busy to 
> communicate with the community during the meeting as 
> well.  The community was not represented b/c the 
> community was not consulted or informed about SORT.
> 
> Thanks to everyone who helped construct these 
> resolutions.  I think that this will be a valuable 
> discussion area for our community.  I'm eager to learn 
> about this.  I just wish that we would have been 
> consulted.
> 
> I also would have loved to come to the meeting.  
> However, I teach summer school to make my 
> families "endz" meet.  I don't think that Martin Harris 
> or anyone else would begrude me feeding and housing my 
> family.  I shouldn't have to take 3 days off work and 
> come to St. Louis to have some input in the final 
> crafting.  Also, no one on the topic committee addressed 
> Phil Kerpen's idea that lots of resolutions don't lead 
> to vote splitting with the single transferable vote.  so 
> several different options would not lead to vote 
> splitting.   My big gripe is this.  I can't take the 
> time off to come.  I shouldn't get stuck with something 
> that was not disclosed before the meeting.  I should 
> have a chance to be electronically represented on this 
> listserv.  The SORT case area should have been discussed 
> here first.
> 
> Damn it.  I waded through every single piece of Stroube, 
> schiros, Sanchez, Hey let?s call them S3, litany of shit-
> talking to make sure that I dutifully was appropriately 
> directing our research effort and resources.  Only to a 
> get a suprise resolution included instead of ones that 
> WERE discussed.  I think that is unexplainable by the 
> committee.  WE DESERVE INPUT.  MANY OF US WERE DUTIFULLY 
> PROVIDING IT UNTIL THE COMMUNICATION FROM ST. LOUIS 
> STOPPED.
> 
> Perhaps someone on the committee or someone in the 
> community, perhaps the executive secretary, should be 
> constitutionally required to provide updates to the 
> community at large that can not attend the meeting.
> 
> I feel like disappointments about the topic wordings 
> appear to be unfortunately common.  I must admit that I 
> fall into that category from time to time.  I think that 
> an excellent job was done by the committee and the 
> community leading up to that lunch break.  Then the 
> topic committee varied from community expectations in a 
> serious way and did not allow the community an 
> opportunity to vote its way through the question 
> of "should we include a bilateral treaty in the core 
> list of treaties?"  I don't think that it would have 
> killed the committee to either communicate that 
> intention well  before the meeting, especially if 
> Mancuso?s Vietnam analysis is true, or allow for more 
> voting options, (e.g. allow the community to decide 
> about SORT in the core list).
> 
> The inclusion of SORT should be considered a blatant 
> misrepresentation of a lot of the 
> discussion/expectations that many in the community had 
> before the St. Louis meetings.  I think that in the 
> future the topic committee should be aware that major 
> changes in the complexion of the topic are always met 
> with skepticism and hostility in the community.  If 
> you?re on the committee and your thinking about doing 
> something radically different from all of your pre-
> meeting disclosed thoughts about the topic, then only 
> put that in a couple of the resolutions or in one of the 
> resolutions.
> 
> Also,  I?m not sure if it matters there are no colons in 
> the resolutions after resolved.  Every other resolution 
> ever has had one.  Hummmmm?  Also, Kuswa?s analysis 
> about the dangling following is right on.  What are we 
> to do?
> 
> The ballot has not been sent out.  I think that the 
> topic committee should once again do a post meeting 
> conference via backchannel and finish the great job that 
> they have started.  Those are a few small problems that 
> will not take much time to fix.  I?m not asking for them 
> to add the additional resoution:
> 
> (4)  Resolved that the United States Federal Government 
> should ratify or accede to, and implement, one or more 
> of the following:
> 
> The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; The Kyoto 
> Protocol; The Rome Statute on the International Criminal 
> Court; The Second Optional Protocol to the International 
> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the 
> Abolition of the Death Penalty; The Convention on the 
> Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
> 
> But while your hashing it out, if you feel like it 
> wouldn?t hurt to include it and see what the community 
> thought and let us vote on it.  I KNOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD 
> FEEL MORE REPRESENTED; AND LESS PRESCRIBED TO.
> 
> Thanks for reading,
> 
> Jason Stone
> Director of Debate
> 100 N. University Ave.
> Department of Communication
> University of Central Oklahoma
> Edmond, OK 73034
> (405) 974-5584 (o)
> > In a message dated 6/9/2002 1:28:10 PM Central Daylight Time, 
> > totalbs3000 at hotmail.com writes:
> > 
> > 
> > > Again, if you do not think 
> > > the committee did it right, then vote with your feet next year and COME TO 
> > > THE MEETING.
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > This is lame. Yeah, it would be great if everyone could attend the topic 
> > committe meetings but just because people can't afford to fork over the cash 
> > to fly to St. Louis doesn't mean the committee doesn't have an obligation to 
> > keep people informed.
> > 
> > and
> > 
> > To quote Mancuso "To be debating a treaties topic and not talk 
> > > 
> > > about SORT would be like debating an intervention topic during the Vietnam 
> > > War, and not including Vietnam on the list of countries."
> > 
> > If it was so obvious then why wasn't it included on the list of treaties 
> > posted by Mancuso on May 17. I agree that people shouldn't ignore the 
> > discussion before the meetings and then go ballistic about what the topic 
> > committee does when it is reasonably predictable. I just don't think adding 
> > SORT was a predictable move and more importantly it is certainly a move that 
> > could have been announced a day or two before the meeting so the community 
> > would have had a chance to comment on it. That creates a more transparent 
> > process and increases the number of people that can provide input.
> > BTW, the arg that it's a done deal is wrong. Until the ballot is sent out 
> > things can be changed and in fact there have been instances where even after 
> > ballots have been sent out changes have been made.
> > None of this has to be taken as "the topic committee sucks". It is perfectly 
> > consistent to say that the topic committee did a great job, is more open to 
> > input than ever, and that they could still do a better job.
> > 
> > Tim
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




From aogletree  Sun Jun  9 17:47:41 2002
From: aogletree (Aaron Ogletree)
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 22:47:41 +0000
Subject: [eDebate] Not Good Old Reagan!
Message-ID: <F93lXoDo01gcAA4Ei4v0001755e@hotmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020609/5917c4e0/attachment.htm 


From kkuswa  Sun Jun  9 18:08:02 2002
From: kkuswa (kevin kuswa)
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 19:08:02 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Change the ballot?
In-Reply-To: <20020609221950.HMBT13408.mtiwmhc22.worldnet.att.net@webmai
 l.worldnet.att.net>
Message-ID: <4.1.20020609190728.00ad3ef0@facstaff.richmond.edu>

why not?  we've had four choices before.  let the vote decide.  this
wording Jason has suggested is my favorite thus far.

kevin


At 10:19 PM 6/9/02 +0000, ucodebate at att.net wrote:
>Hey Folks,
>
>Kuswa, Hester, Mahoney, & Stone agree to some post-
>meeting tinkering. Actually my proposed topic would read:
>
>(4) Resolved: that the United States Federal Government 
>should ratify or accede to, and implement, one or more 
>of the following multilateral agreements: 
>
>The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; The Kyoto 
>Protocol; The Rome Statute on the International Criminal 
>Court; The Second Optional Protocol to the International 
>Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the 
>Abolition of the Death Penalty; The Convention on the 
>Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against 
>Women. 
>
>This resolution would have a colon after resolved, no 
>dangling "following", and would be about multilateral, 
>pre-topic meeting disclosed treaties.
>
>No Downside with single transferable vote--don't need 
>spss to compute it.  Besides, put it on the ballot and 
>Jarman will figure it out (he's plenty smart to sort out 
>four choices on the ballot)
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Jason Stone
>Director of Debate
>100 N. University Ave.
>Department of Communication
>University of Central Oklahoma
>Edmond, OK 73034
>(405) 974-5584 (o)
>> Yes everything that Tim says here plus a couple of 
>> things.
>> 
>> Let me start by filling the bucket:
>> 
>> I WILL BOLDLY ASSERT "THAT THE TOPIC COMMITTEE DID THE 
>> BEST JOB RESEARCHING THE POTENTIAL RESOLUTIONAL WORDINGS 
>> OF ANY THAT I'VE SEEN SINCE THE MERGER.  UNTIL JUST 
>> BEFORE LUNCH THE LAST DAY.
>> 
>> At that time according to the posts of Harris and 
>> Schriver, and Mancuso additional topics were sought.  
>> 
>> The analysis by Mancuso referencing Vietnam is 
>> interesting.
>> 
>> I think better analysis is a comparison of this topic to 
>> the Indians topic.  What if the Indians topic had read?
>> 
>> Resolved:  That the USFG 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; or only gaming to only 
>> the Commanche nation.
>> 
>> That is effectively what the topic committee did. They 
>> took a topic that was supposed to be about MULTILATERAL 
>> treaties and added a different kind of treaty.
>> 
>> The "multilateralness" of the treaties was a topic area 
>> limiter the same way that throughout Indian Country was 
>> a resolutional limiter.  All the treaties need to be 
>> multilateral.  All the Indian policies had to deal with 
>> all the tribes and couldn't be "bilateral".
>> 
>> I don't necessarily think that a debate about SORT and 
>> nuke policy is a bad thing.  A lot of the lit that I 
>> read recently is pretty good.  I think that it is an 
>> additional treaty, but that all of the literature is 
>> incredibly replicative of the CTBT 
>> Advantage/impact/kritical literature.  Hence, other than 
>> expanding a multilateral/unilateral discussion to also 
>> include a bilateralism & Russian political process 
>> discussion not much research burden expansion occurred. 
>> 
>> The expansion in research burdens is already covered by 
>> a lot of the ctbt stuff.  And you were going to have to 
>> research 5 treaties anyway.  So instead of another 
>> multilateral treaty you get to research SORT.  Which 
>> according to some of the websites I've seen and from 
>> Mancuso and Helwich's posts appears to be pretty easy.  
>> I found plenty of stuff last night; i'm not nearly as 
>> upset as I think I was.  I don't think that the overall 
>> impact is a big one.  I guess that is why I'm not as 
>> disappointed about the INCREDIBLY NARROW (5-4) decision 
>> to include SORT instead of CEDAW.  
>> 
>> I would have unflinchingly have voted for res one if it 
>> included CEDAW instead of SORT.  I still like resolution 
>> one.  I agree with Tijinder (Sp) and some others who 
>> question if the inclusion of some of the rest of the 
>> communities favorite treaties in the bigger resolutions 
>> #2 & #3 may decrease some of the case debate, if we 
>> debate those bigger resolutions.  
>> 
>> I have a real problem with the fact that the bilateral 
>> treaty is on all 3 resolutions.  I feel that topic 
>> committees in the past would have allowed that to be 
>> something that we discussed on the list and voted for.  
>> I am a little scared that the topic committee added this 
>> treaty with ZERO community input.  I agree:  ya'll are 
>> smart.  Ya'll are some of the best debate minds in the 
>> nation.  Ya'll are great researchers.  I'm worried about 
>> your ability as communicators.  Yes, you are there to 
>> exercise your intellect to insure that the topic is 
>> debatable.  However, something in one of the posts, I 
>> believe it was Mancuso's or Martin Harris's ( I know 
>> he?s not on the committee), about protecting the 
>> community from the overly narrow "domestic cp"/"int.law 
>> bad" args was a necessary evil or the perception that 
>> increasing education breath, when the community already 
>> said give us a depth topic really worries me.
>> 
>> Please don't forget that you are also at that meeting to 
>> represent the best interests of your community as well.  
>> I was extensively involved in student governance as a 
>> secondary student and as an undergraduate.  I have 
>> worked on several political campaigns.  You CAN NOT 
>> represent the people if you don't engage them and ask 
>> them about the policies and issues that affect them.  
>> 
>> I don't think that the inclusion of SORT ruins the 
>> topic.  Luckily, ya'll are too smart to ruin the topic.
>> 
>> You also appear to be smart enough or too busy to 
>> communicate with the community during the meeting as 
>> well.  The community was not represented b/c the 
>> community was not consulted or informed about SORT.
>> 
>> Thanks to everyone who helped construct these 
>> resolutions.  I think that this will be a valuable 
>> discussion area for our community.  I'm eager to learn 
>> about this.  I just wish that we would have been 
>> consulted.
>> 
>> I also would have loved to come to the meeting.  
>> However, I teach summer school to make my 
>> families "endz" meet.  I don't think that Martin Harris 
>> or anyone else would begrude me feeding and housing my 
>> family.  I shouldn't have to take 3 days off work and 
>> come to St. Louis to have some input in the final 
>> crafting.  Also, no one on the topic committee addressed 
>> Phil Kerpen's idea that lots of resolutions don't lead 
>> to vote splitting with the single transferable vote.  so 
>> several different options would not lead to vote 
>> splitting.   My big gripe is this.  I can't take the 
>> time off to come.  I shouldn't get stuck with something 
>> that was not disclosed before the meeting.  I should 
>> have a chance to be electronically represented on this 
>> listserv.  The SORT case area should have been discussed 
>> here first.
>> 
>> Damn it.  I waded through every single piece of Stroube, 
>> schiros, Sanchez, Hey let?s call them S3, litany of shit-
>> talking to make sure that I dutifully was appropriately 
>> directing our research effort and resources.  Only to a 
>> get a suprise resolution included instead of ones that 
>> WERE discussed.  I think that is unexplainable by the 
>> committee.  WE DESERVE INPUT.  MANY OF US WERE DUTIFULLY 
>> PROVIDING IT UNTIL THE COMMUNICATION FROM ST. LOUIS 
>> STOPPED.
>> 
>> Perhaps someone on the committee or someone in the 
>> community, perhaps the executive secretary, should be 
>> constitutionally required to provide updates to the 
>> community at large that can not attend the meeting.
>> 
>> I feel like disappointments about the topic wordings 
>> appear to be unfortunately common.  I must admit that I 
>> fall into that category from time to time.  I think that 
>> an excellent job was done by the committee and the 
>> community leading up to that lunch break.  Then the 
>> topic committee varied from community expectations in a 
>> serious way and did not allow the community an 
>> opportunity to vote its way through the question 
>> of "should we include a bilateral treaty in the core 
>> list of treaties?"  I don't think that it would have 
>> killed the committee to either communicate that 
>> intention well  before the meeting, especially if 
>> Mancuso?s Vietnam analysis is true, or allow for more 
>> voting options, (e.g. allow the community to decide 
>> about SORT in the core list).
>> 
>> The inclusion of SORT should be considered a blatant 
>> misrepresentation of a lot of the 
>> discussion/expectations that many in the community had 
>> before the St. Louis meetings.  I think that in the 
>> future the topic committee should be aware that major 
>> changes in the complexion of the topic are always met 
>> with skepticism and hostility in the community.  If 
>> you?re on the committee and your thinking about doing 
>> something radically different from all of your pre-
>> meeting disclosed thoughts about the topic, then only 
>> put that in a couple of the resolutions or in one of the 
>> resolutions.
>> 
>> Also,  I?m not sure if it matters there are no colons in 
>> the resolutions after resolved.  Every other resolution 
>> ever has had one.  Hummmmm?  Also, Kuswa?s analysis 
>> about the dangling following is right on.  What are we 
>> to do?
>> 
>> The ballot has not been sent out.  I think that the 
>> topic committee should once again do a post meeting 
>> conference via backchannel and finish the great job that 
>> they have started.  Those are a few small problems that 
>> will not take much time to fix.  I?m not asking for them 
>> to add the additional resoution:
>> 
>> (4)  Resolved that the United States Federal Government 
>> should ratify or accede to, and implement, one or more 
>> of the following:
>> 
>> The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; The Kyoto 
>> Protocol; The Rome Statute on the International Criminal 
>> Court; The Second Optional Protocol to the International 
>> Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the 
>> Abolition of the Death Penalty; The Convention on the 
>> Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
>> 
>> But while your hashing it out, if you feel like it 
>> wouldn?t hurt to include it and see what the community 
>> thought and let us vote on it.  I KNOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD 
>> FEEL MORE REPRESENTED; AND LESS PRESCRIBED TO.
>> 
>> Thanks for reading,
>> 
>> Jason Stone
>> Director of Debate
>> 100 N. University Ave.
>> Department of Communication
>> University of Central Oklahoma
>> Edmond, OK 73034
>> (405) 974-5584 (o)
>> > In a message dated 6/9/2002 1:28:10 PM Central Daylight Time, 
>> > totalbs3000 at hotmail.com writes:
>> > 
>> > 
>> > > Again, if you do not think 
>> > > the committee did it right, then vote with your feet next year and 
>COME TO 
>> > > THE MEETING.
>> > > 
>> > > 
>> > 
>> > This is lame. Yeah, it would be great if everyone could attend the topic 
>> > committe meetings but just because people can't afford to fork over the 
>cash 
>> > to fly to St. Louis doesn't mean the committee doesn't have an 
>obligation to 
>> > keep people informed.
>> > 
>> > and
>> > 
>> > To quote Mancuso "To be debating a treaties topic and not talk 
>> > > 
>> > > about SORT would be like debating an intervention topic during the 
>Vietnam 
>> > > War, and not including Vietnam on the list of countries."
>> > 
>> > If it was so obvious then why wasn't it included on the list of treaties 
>> > posted by Mancuso on May 17. I agree that people shouldn't ignore the 
>> > discussion before the meetings and then go ballistic about what the topic 
>> > committee does when it is reasonably predictable. I just don't think 
>adding 
>> > SORT was a predictable move and more importantly it is certainly a move 
>that 
>> > could have been announced a day or two before the meeting so the
community 
>> > would have had a chance to comment on it. That creates a more transparent 
>> > process and increases the number of people that can provide input.
>> > BTW, the arg that it's a done deal is wrong. Until the ballot is sent out 
>> > things can be changed and in fact there have been instances where even 
>after 
>> > ballots have been sent out changes have been made.
>> > None of this has to be taken as "the topic committee sucks". It is 
>perfectly 
>> > consistent to say that the topic committee did a great job, is more open 
>to 
>> > input than ever, and that they could still do a better job.
>> > 
>> > Tim
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> eDebate mailing list
>> eDebate at ndtceda.com
>> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
>> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
>http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




From will.baker  Sun Jun  9 18:58:11 2002
From: will.baker (William Baker)
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 19:58:11 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Supporting the Hester amendment
Message-ID: <1dd5431dd2c3.1dd2c31dd543@homemail.nyu.edu>

Congratulations to the topic committee on their fine and 
underappreciated work and hearty thanks for their openness.   It is a 
difficult job in a transparent forum, which simply compounds the 
initial difficulties of doing it.  

With that proviso, I would agree rather emphatically with Mike's 
analysis and would be happy to either delete SORT from #1 or add in 
CEDAW.  Two perspectives not raised previously that might shed some 
light. 

In discussions last week with folks at a few UN missions, it became 
apparent to me that SORT has a bunch of policy ramifications that the 
Bush administration shockingly may not have considered and may lead to 
backlash in negotiating forums quite outside of the intent of our 
treaties topics such as bilateral trade talks, Security Council 
actions, treaty review speed, requests for aid, what qualifies for 
advance communiques (the real consult counterplan) and a host of "how 
to" rather than "why" questions.  One NGO official pointed out to me 
that the overall and new coordinated efforts of the US intelligence 
services will require a re-examination of verfication methods and 
analysis such that even if the US participates in SORT, what that 
participation would look like will be substantially differnt than what 
people might expect.  Second, that lack of reaction reflects a lack of 
literature from non-US sources compared to the depth of literature from 
those sources for the other treaties selected and for the CRC or 
CEDAW.  One of the benefits of a solely multilateral topic is that it 
provides an opportunity to highlight out differently other nations 
perceive these policy considerations and issues than the US does.   It 
might surprise some to learn that the black/white divisions of military 
vs. social vs. economic policy have vanished in most forums and people 
discuss the socio-economic and developmental aspects of virtually every 
treaty because the interrelatedness of poverty and violence is now a 
centrall;y recognized theme.  

Some won't step beyond the basics of US foreign policy but the richness 
of the topic selected should reward those that do.  Americans can't 
live in a bubble anymore.  We learned that in a very real way last 
Fall.  This topic has a tremendous opportunity to place debaters at the 
forefront of the educational adventure to anaylse global policy.   
Let's not risk it by mixing burdens.



Peace & Justice,


Will Baker
Chief Executive Officer, IMPACT Coalition
Director of Debate, New York University
330 West 42nd Street
Suite 2420
New York, NY 10036
212-702-0944 (tel)
212-471-8664 (fax)




From hlw267f  Sun Jun  9 19:24:02 2002
From: hlw267f (hlw267f)
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 19:24:02 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] RE: The change / amend the ballot discussion
Message-ID: <3D03B379@caliber>

One thing that strikes me about the conversation about the topic is the 
?outcry? concerning putting a treaty on the ballot that wasn?t ?disclosed? in 
advance by Mancuso on a list posted May 17th.  There was virtually no edebate 
discussion about this list of treaties.  Given this lack of discussion, there 
is no way the topic committee could use ?community sentiment? for or against 
any treaty as a mechanism by which to decide what treaties should be placed on 
the ballot.  There were no arguments against any of the treaties, did all of 
you really expect that all of the treaties would be placed on the ballot?? 
Basically, what I am saying is that I question whether anyone would have said 
anything about the SORT treaty if it had appeared on this list, and my support 
for that argument is that no one discussed anything about any of the other 
treaties on the list.

Did I miss all of the arguments posted by Jason Stone, Kevin Kuswa, etc. in 
favor of CEDAW BEFORE the topic meeting.  Sounds to me like people are just 
upset that they didn?t get the treaty they wanted and this isn?t a reason to 
change the topic committee?s ballot.  Adding a fourth topic to the ballot that 
includes CEDAW, rather than Russia in the first resolution makes the topic 
heavily rights focused.  The topic committee made an INFORMED decision about 
which treaties they thought would bring diverse, balanced debate.  I was at 
the topic meeting and I can tell you that the SORT treaty was discussed 
extensively for two days of the three-day topic meeting, it was not some last 
minute frantic addition like some have asserted in edebate discussion.  No one 
has yet to advance any argument against debating the substance of this treaty 
that the members of the topic did not consider and yet they still decided that 
SORT was preferable to CEDAW.  Also, the SORT treaty was not signed until May 
24th, so its inclusion on a May 17th list probably would not have been 
appropriate, but that doesn?t make it any less valuable to debate.

Complaints on edebate to this point appear disingenuous?don?t pretend like you 
would have complained before, if that is truly not the case and you are just 
upset about the final result.  Discussions of amending resolutions and 
changing the ballot are not justified.  The representatives on the topic 
community (that the community voted for) agreed this was the best for debate, 
and my opinion is that their decision should stand.

Heather Walters
SMS





>===== Original Message From kevin kuswa <kkuswa at richmond.edu> =====
>why not?  we've had four choices before.  let the vote decide.  this
>wording Jason has suggested is my favorite thus far.
>
>kevin
>
>
>At 10:19 PM 6/9/02 +0000, ucodebate at att.net wrote:
>>Hey Folks,
>>
>>Kuswa, Hester, Mahoney, & Stone agree to some post-
>>meeting tinkering. Actually my proposed topic would read:
>>
>>(4) Resolved: that the United States Federal Government
>>should ratify or accede to, and implement, one or more
>>of the following multilateral agreements:
>>
>>The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; The Kyoto
>>Protocol; The Rome Statute on the International Criminal
>>Court; The Second Optional Protocol to the International
>>Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the
>>Abolition of the Death Penalty; The Convention on the
>>Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
>>Women.
>>
>>This resolution would have a colon after resolved, no
>>dangling "following", and would be about multilateral,
>>pre-topic meeting disclosed treaties.
>>
>>No Downside with single transferable vote--don't need
>>spss to compute it.  Besides, put it on the ballot and
>>Jarman will figure it out (he's plenty smart to sort out
>>four choices on the ballot)
>>
>>Thoughts?
>>
>>Jason Stone
>>Director of Debate
>>100 N. University Ave.
>>Department of Communication
>>University of Central Oklahoma
>>Edmond, OK 73034
>>(405) 974-5584 (o)




From wishfull  Sun Jun  9 20:06:48 2002
From: wishfull (Michael Roston )
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 21:06:48 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] throwing a hail mary to martin harris
Message-ID: <MJNALFEKFLPEMAAA@shared1-mail.whowhere.com>

>>>
Or, there are probably two seats coming
open soon, throw your hat out into the ring, campaign on you topic
philosophy and seek the vote of the people to represent them on the
committee, and get CEDA to pay for you to be there. Either way, stop
playing Monday morning quarterback, and voice opinions before the meeting.
There was virtually ZERO discussion on the topic prior to the meeting.
>>>

Um, yeah, Mahoney is right - argument=super-lame.  I voluntarily wrote two papers for the topic committee to consider (including one during which I was advocating an entirely unrelated topic!), and was the first person to propose the death penalty treaty which has now been fit into each and every ballot.  I also participated in just about every single discussion that did occur and worked my best effort, including numerous backchannel discussions, to incorporate a variety of perspectives into the topic committee's consideration of the issues at hand.  

Which leads to:

1.  I appreciate your willingness to participate in the topic committee process, and I think your previous topic paper-authoring and contributions to this year's discussion are to be commended.

2.  Sorry I live on the other side of the country with a full-time non-debate-related job and numerous other obligations which prevent me from hopping into my gas-guzzler and dancing down the road from Springfield to St. Louis.  I hope you're willing to recognize the variety of contributions to topic committee progress like Steve Mancuso does.

---
Michael Roston
-enemy of freedom

"At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."
                    -President Richard Nixon, May 18, 1971



Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com




From dbteam  Sun Jun  9 20:55:15 2002
From: dbteam (dbteam)
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 21:55:15 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] RE: The change / amend the ballot discussion
Message-ID: <3CF44875@cliff.westga.edu>

which of anything said below is an argument for SORT being in all three 
choices?

here are two reasons why it shouldn't be on all three that have been mentioned 
so far:

1)it's the only treaty that is bilateral. so it's inclusion effectively 
changes the scope of each topic BY ITSELF. for mancuso, this is a good thing. 
my take is that it's not necessary to argue that it's a bad thing - only that 
it is such a significant difference that it should be ONE (or maybe even two) 
choice(s), not in ALL resolutions.


2)it was not mentioned prior to St. Louis. i include this complaint b/c others 
have brought it up. as i stated in my original post, my respect (which is 
grounded in intellectual evaluation, and not merely "well, they're my 
colleagues, so...") for the folks on the committee and acknowledgement of the 
task they must deal with leads me to discount this reason. but it still seems 
to have more merit than anything i've heard to justify the community not being 
allowed to decide - via topic vote - whether SORT should be included.

ad homs about sincerity are weak and in no way explain why there shouldn't be 
at least one topic that is exclusively multilateral.

hester


>===== Original Message From hlw267f <hlw267f at smsu.edu> =====
>One thing that strikes me about the conversation about the topic is the
>?outcry? concerning putting a treaty on the ballot that wasn?t ?disclosed? in
>advance by Mancuso on a list posted May 17th.  There was virtually no edebate
>discussion about this list of treaties.  Given this lack of discussion, there
>is no way the topic committee could use ?community sentiment? for or against
>any treaty as a mechanism by which to decide what treaties should be placed 
on
>the ballot.  There were no arguments against any of the treaties, did all of
>you really expect that all of the treaties would be placed on the ballot??
>Basically, what I am saying is that I question whether anyone would have said
>anything about the SORT treaty if it had appeared on this list, and my 
support
>for that argument is that no one discussed anything about any of the other
>treaties on the list.
>
>Did I miss all of the arguments posted by Jason Stone, Kevin Kuswa, etc. in
>favor of CEDAW BEFORE the topic meeting.  Sounds to me like people are just
>upset that they didn?t get the treaty they wanted and this isn?t a reason to
>change the topic committee?s ballot.  Adding a fourth topic to the ballot 
that
>includes CEDAW, rather than Russia in the first resolution makes the topic
>heavily rights focused.  The topic committee made an INFORMED decision about
>which treaties they thought would bring diverse, balanced debate.  I was at
>the topic meeting and I can tell you that the SORT treaty was discussed
>extensively for two days of the three-day topic meeting, it was not some last
>minute frantic addition like some have asserted in edebate discussion.  No 
one
>has yet to advance any argument against debating the substance of this treaty
>that the members of the topic did not consider and yet they still decided 
that
>SORT was preferable to CEDAW.  Also, the SORT treaty was not signed until May
>24th, so its inclusion on a May 17th list probably would not have been
>appropriate, but that doesn?t make it any less valuable to debate.
>
>Complaints on edebate to this point appear disingenuous?don?t pretend like 
you
>would have complained before, if that is truly not the case and you are just
>upset about the final result.  Discussions of amending resolutions and
>changing the ballot are not justified.  The representatives on the topic
>community (that the community voted for) agreed this was the best for debate,
>and my opinion is that their decision should stand.
>
>Heather Walters
>SMS
>
>
>
>
>
>>===== Original Message From kevin kuswa <kkuswa at richmond.edu> =====
>>why not?  we've had four choices before.  let the vote decide.  this
>>wording Jason has suggested is my favorite thus far.
>>
>>kevin
>>
>>
>>At 10:19 PM 6/9/02 +0000, ucodebate at att.net wrote:
>>>Hey Folks,
>>>
>>>Kuswa, Hester, Mahoney, & Stone agree to some post-
>>>meeting tinkering. Actually my proposed topic would read:
>>>
>>>(4) Resolved: that the United States Federal Government
>>>should ratify or accede to, and implement, one or more
>>>of the following multilateral agreements:
>>>
>>>The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty; The Kyoto
>>>Protocol; The Rome Statute on the International Criminal
>>>Court; The Second Optional Protocol to the International
>>>Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the
>>>Abolition of the Death Penalty; The Convention on the
>>>Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
>>>Women.
>>>
>>>This resolution would have a colon after resolved, no
>>>dangling "following", and would be about multilateral,
>>>pre-topic meeting disclosed treaties.
>>>
>>>No Downside with single transferable vote--don't need
>>>spss to compute it.  Besides, put it on the ballot and
>>>Jarman will figure it out (he's plenty smart to sort out
>>>four choices on the ballot)
>>>
>>>Thoughts?
>>>
>>>Jason Stone
>>>Director of Debate
>>>100 N. University Ave.
>>>Department of Communication
>>>University of Central Oklahoma
>>>Edmond, OK 73034
>>>(405) 974-5584 (o)
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
>http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




From wishfull  Sun Jun  9 21:17:58 2002
From: wishfull (Michael Roston )
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 22:17:58 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] double your nickel, the moscow treaty will pass.
Message-ID: <MHAKGPCOHJDFMAAA@shared1-mail.whowhere.com>

first off, I think it's foolish to suggest, as Heather Walters does, that there could not have been any debate about the Moscow treaty before May 17th because it wasn't signed before May 24th.  The truth is that everyone's known this treaty has been coming since November, and the negotiation of its provisions was completed early in May.  The point of this treaty was to make strategic arms control take back seat to economics, Iran, NATO, and other big US-Russia issues at the St. Petersburg summit.  While the original topic paper from Gonzaga makes reference to a number of bilateral tax treaties and so on, it and the directives given to those of us who assisted the topic committee involved a collection of treaties negotiated within the broader, multilateral framework of the UN and various conferences and conventions it has spun off.  So yes, this is really quite a surprise.  Scott Harris's post makes it sound to me like it was a last minute idea.  If I had seen this treaty tossed in, I guarantee you that I would have made noise about it, much as I did about the whole "sign and/or ratify" issue.

now for my more constructive comments

1.  I'm not going to really wander any further down the debate into what ground this treaty as an affirmative does or does not offer.  I will say that if Korcok is proven right on how the Moscow Treaty is impelemented, I have only the experience that the high school debaters I coached this season proved to me.  We did not lose a single case debate all year long running the "permanently dismantle to 1,700-2,200" affirmative.  We had a high aff win percentage, and most of our affirmative losses resulted from being out-teched on things like kritiks and the consult NATO CP.  This is just a mild warning, and pretty insignificant because of my second comment.  I will doff my hat to Steve and choose to complain that the portions are too small rather than the food being of poor quality.

2.  Nothing is going to stop this treaty from passing before the Senate closes its doors for the election in November.  

First, the escape hatch doesn't solve what I've identified as a voting problem and that's this - a number of small programs (whatever those are) will be invested in the five treaty-resolution because of the workload it entails.  Now, however, if they'd like to debate more than four treaties this season, they're going to have to choose a larger resolution, increasing their workload.   The structuring of the ballot this way provides a disincentive to people choosing the resolution they really want.  It's kind of like when some clown gets tacked onto the Lieutenant-Governor post, dissuading people from choosing an otherwise alright Gubernatorial candidate, as has occasionally happened in the politics of some states in this country.

{here is where I must insert the qualifier that no portion of this message should be construed as the opinions of the organization)

Next, I'm glad Steve and other members of the topic committee have so much confidence in us folks in the nuclear arms control community - this may prove why Steve is such a great debate coach, he has more confidence in his debaters than they initially have in themselves :)  

The Moscow Treaty has produced a wide variety of grumbles and pissing and moaning, but not so much "we'll show it to them in the ratification process" kind of fury.  This is why folks like Daryl Kimball in the quotes in that article I earlier linked say "the treaty is sound, but a missed opportunity."  (http://www.clw.org/control/newsupdates/020606.html)

To translate that out of Beltway Babble, what they're saying is that the admin. has the high ground on this issue, because the polls show (see Gallup News Service, http://www.clw.org/control/newsupdates/020604.html#2) that there is overwhelmingly high opinion in favor of this treaty.  Making it a liability for Bush and the GOP is seen as a non-starter because the distinction is too fine for people who are too busy worrying out social security, medicare, and homeland security.  

It's great if someone's relative in a GOP Senator's office says the treaty ain't going to pass, but I'll prefer the analysis of my earlier armchair punditry, in which Joe Biden has declared there will be a few hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  34 Demcoratic Senators willing to block the treaty?  Man, I think I'll raise all my chips if it means I win *that* pot.  If Biden ain't planning on blocking the treaty, and I'm telling you he's not, it's going to pass.  He and the Senate Democratic leadership know that the populace is way more persuaded by "we're going to create a new relationship with Russia" than they are with the "real arms control" argument.

Steve says something about loose nukes.  I know a thing or two about this subject.  The FY03 Defense Appropriations Act is finished, other than any amendments on the floor or whatever gets produced in confeence.  Any raising of the CTR budget won't go forward until the FY04 cycle, and no one will touch any of those things until the election is over.  So, linking this to treaty passage will be a bit of a challenge.

So yeah, the treaty will be before the Senate while we are debating next year, for about four weeks in all likelihood.  The topic committee's speculation on this treaty is interesting, but seems to be a lot of shop-talking that is mirrored neither by journalists nor the arms control community.  I guess the topic committee could be demonstrating some unusual clairvoyance, but I'm skeptical.  I'd say about the only possibility of the treaty getting blocked comes if Putin decides to get sneaky and talk his people in the Duma into adding conditions to treaty ratification there, and there's very little indication that this will occur.

Moscow will pass the Senate in late or mid-October.  Bounce it from the resolution now, or at least from the five-treaty option so that people who want the smaller resolution can still have five treaties worth of options.

---
Michael Roston
-enemy of freedom

"At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."
                    -President Richard Nixon, May 18, 1971



Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com




From elliottdarren  Sun Jun  9 22:30:53 2002
From: elliottdarren (DARREN ELLIOTT)
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 22:30:53 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Not Good Old Reagan!
Message-ID: <F12095HfqR77bieLYCT0001e34e@hotmail.com>

You hear Eminem's new song?  You know that lyric about "let it go.  it's 
over!"

Chief




>From: "Aaron Ogletree" <aogletree at hotmail.com>
>To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: [eDebate] Not Good Old Reagan!
>Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 22:47:41 +0000
>




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Aaron Ogletree" <aogletree at hotmail.com>
Subject: [eDebate] Not Good Old Reagan!
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 22:47:41 +0000
Size: 8832
Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020609/8e7ddfd5/attachment.mht 


From niravsp  Sun Jun  9 22:48:46 2002
From: niravsp (Nirav Patel)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 03:48:46 +0000
Subject: [eDebate] RE: The change / amend the ballot discussion
Message-ID: <LAW2-F61K90WhCQNynw0001c848@hotmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020610/8a20b67b/attachment.htm 


From hlw267f  Sun Jun  9 23:35:53 2002
From: hlw267f (hlw267f)
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 23:35:53 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] RE:Change/amend ballot (ans patel)
Message-ID: <3D040180@caliber>

I would like to react to a couple of items mentioned by Nirav Patel:

Nirav says:

Your right the lack of discussion on the treatise previous to the 
topic-commitee meeting was piss poor, however, does that justify the inclusion 
of a topic area that was not discussed by individuals who had particpated in 
'the lacking' discussions on edebate? What about teams who voted for proposed 
areas of debate; where does the so-called 'democratic' process of voting for 
topic areas fall into play in relation to topic-areas that were voted for that 
were overtly multilatereal? I am concerned with the implications that this may 
have for future pre-St. Louis resolution area voting. I realize that SORT is a 
treaty but it does not follow any of the paths of the pre-resolution topic 
area-voting, which again were treaties with mulitlateral enforcement.


I respond:

A couple of things, first that the treaty area voted for was not as explicitly 
multilateral as you appear to suggest (the topic paper included BILATERAL 
options).  I agree with some members of the topic community who I believe have 
made persuasive arguments that our experience on the treaties topic would be 
incomplete without discussing both bilateral and multilateral treaties. 
The democratic process was at work in St. Louis.  Elected representatives did 
their best to keep the community involved in alot of the work they were doing 
in St. Louis.  Similarly, in the general US democratic systems, our elected 
senators and representatives keep the public generally informed of issues 
being discussed in Congress, but do not necessarily keep the public informed 
about every detail of every bill being considered.  The representatives did 
their best to represent diverse interests in the topic process and I think 
they achieved that goal.  The topic committee goes out of their way to include 
community input.

Nirav also says:

 I am sure i am in the same boat as many of my patrons in the debate community 
when i say that CEDAW was a treaty that was discussed, maybe not conclusively, 
but discussed atleast in our squad as a possible treaty area. I can assure you 
that the CEDAW discussions occured prior to the committee voting, maybe 
edebate is just not the 'right' forum for topic propsals and community 
discussion. With the amout of crap that seems to circulate in my spam mail 
junk box I am more or less urged by my ego to delete 99% of the stuff in my 
inbox. Could it be that we need refine our communicative skills as a debate 
community to allow for greater inclusion of discussions? Maybe..

I say:

This could be true.  Edebate is just the best forum we have available to do 
this as of now, but I am not opposed to finding ways to give the community 
more input in the process before the resolutions are created.  By the way, not 
like CEDAW is not in two topics.



Finally, Nirav says:

As for your argument that the topic-committee wants a balanced resolution that 
isnt too 'rights' focused I think that this is accomplished with the inclusion 
of CTBT and Kyoto treatise.


I respond:

I disagree with this.  CTBT and Kyoto's inclusion does not necessarily make a 
topic balanced--they are only two treaties.  The other two treaties in the 
base are the ICC and the death penalty, which are rights focused.  The 
addition of CEDAW to the list(and deletion of SORT) makes the topic have 3 
rights treaties, 1 environment treaty, and 1 arms control treaty.  The 
resolution is MORE balanced by including another arms control or environmental 
treaty, but becomes less balanced if CEDAW is included.  Those are my 
thoughts....

Heather Walters





From Pacedebate  Sun Jun  9 23:37:49 2002
From: Pacedebate (Pacedebate at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 00:37:49 EDT
Subject: [eDebate] How topic choices were made from a viewer (length warning)
Message-ID: <9d.2918c4ba.2a35871d@aol.com>

In a message dated 6/9/2002 6:03:42 PM Central Daylight Time, Spmancuso 
writes:


> Well, for one thing, it didn't exist.  It wasn't signed until May 24.
> Honestly, I hadn't even considered it until the day before the meetings 
> started when Will Repko suggested it to me as a bilateral addition, and the 
> further suggested the advantages of bilateral inclusion.


Which is why I said it should have either appeared on the list and/or should 
have been mentioned once it was put under consideration. In fact, this proves 
why I object not to SORT's inclusion but to the way in which it was added - a 
last minute decision without giving the community a chance to provide input.

> 
> I merely added it to the list of treaties we talked about at the meeting.  
> There were others that we considered that were not on the list I posted.  I 
> never intended the list I posted to be exclusive, merely as a list to stop 
> people from suggesting treaties that we already were considering.  I don't 
> think the Basel Convention was on that list, maybe it was.

I don't think anyone expected that the list you posted would be exclusive 
and/or that the topic committee might not scratch some of them. At least I 
didn't. Almost everything the topic committee did seemed to me to be not just 
reasonable but carefully considered and done with an effort to allow 
community input. In fact, with the exception of adding SORT resolution one is 
reaonably close to a resolution posted on April 20. Basel doesn't appear on 
all three resolutions so it still allows for community input. There is time 
to discuss it and if people don't like it they can vote for resolution number 
one. That's not an option for opponents of SORT.

> 
> I was very impressed with the SORT as we discussed it Thursday morning, I 
> was one of the people who researched it in the afternoon break, we 
> discussed it further on Thursday evening, researched it further overnight 
> and discussed it a couple of hours more on Friday.  We discussed every 
> single concern expressed on the list, at length, and a few that Korcok and 
> Roston haven't figured out yet.

My objection isn't to SORT per se it is to the lack of opportunity for 
community input on it. The biggest sources of criticism taken by the topic 
committee have usually been a result of decisions like this.

> 
> Much discussion and research about the topic toward the end occured in 
> spaces not copied to the list serve.  

Why not?

Edebate does not equal college debate opinion.  Just because something is not 

> posted on Edebate doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

this applies equally to the claims that there wasn't much treaty discussion 
from non topic committee members on edebate. People have been cutting cards 
on some of these treaties and I'm certain that many squads have had 
discussions of potential resolutions. 

> 
> In April when I posted 16 possible resolutions under the four areas there 
> was not a SINGLE comment about any of them for weeks.  Not ONE.  When I 
> posted the list of treaties on May 17 there was virtually NO discussion of 
> any of them.  To say that the Russia treaty was unvetted because it wasn't 
> posted and discussed like the other ones is a joke.

See above - not every discussion people have on their squads gets posted to 
edebate.
Your April 16 post was followed by a post on April 20 which laid out pretty 
specific plans for the way things were going to shake down. And what you 
posted on April 16 was remarkably similar to resolutions posted by Losnegard 
and discussed by Clarke, et. al. 


> 
> If the committee had relied on the list serve for what we understood about 
> the various treaties we'd have been completely in the dark.  Go back and 
> look at the utter absense of input from the community on the list serve 
> after the list of treaties was provided.

Which is why I don't have a problem with you including anything previously 
posted. People drop the ball after that they don't have a reasonable 
complaint. But to be honest, as I posted way back on April 15, the treaties 
discussion was very advanced before it was even selected as the winning topic 
area. The topic committee took a pretty obvious course in resolutional 
wording and treaty selection. When treaties won I still thought I would be 
coming back to college debate and so did do some additional research on what 
was posted. In particular I researched the implement vs execute distinction 
but didn't find anything that stood out to favor either term. I mention this 
only to indicate that I suspect people researched some of this stuff but 
didn't see anything that they felt would add to the discussion and thought 
the topic committee was on the right course or they were keeping what they 
found to themselves for strategic reasons.

I know the topic committee put in a lot of work on SORT and I can understand 
why they felt it was a good inclusion. I just don't think they have a good 
answer to the notion that since they knew this was a significant addition to 
the topic they should have either: 1) Posted something to edebate as soon as 
they thought it was a possibility or 2) Not included it on all resolutions. 
Either of these options would have allowed for community input. Since I no 
longer have a vested interest in this topic, merely an interest in the 
process, I'm probably going to drop out of this discussion. I appreciate 
Steve's willingness to engage in this discussion even though his work should 
have been done once the topic ballot was posted.

Tim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020610/2d47b67c/attachment.html 


From totalbs3000  Mon Jun 10 00:54:57 2002
From: totalbs3000 (tom payne)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 00:54:57 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] vote splitting, don't believe the hype
Message-ID: <F245M6BmjWkvVpy7Xcw00016a18@hotmail.com>

   Took me about twenty minutes to come up with this ONE simple example of 
how vote splitting could occur, although arguably proves why the whole 
process is stupid since it kills compromise.  Given time, I will bet cash I 
could come up with dozens of others (although maybe not since I did only get 
a B in discrete mathematics).  Attachment is an excel doc that demonstrates 
two different ballot counts, and the resulting winners and losers.  You will 
notice that the choosen topic changes from small to medium depending on 
inclusion/exclusion of Russia as a fourth topic.
    The problem is similar to the CLASSIC sports dilemna.  Florida beat 
Miami, Miami beat Nebraska, Nebraska beat Florida. EACH has a claim to be 
better then whoever is choosen number 2 to play the undefeated University of 
Martin Harris.  You CANNOT just remove a topic choice and then move on.  
Some topics are late starters.  Slow coming out the gate, but really turn on 
the number 2 choice charm.

Anyway, way too late, and maybe this just needs to be a journal paper.  I 
chastise myself for not paying attention to what seems to be a bad topic 
process change when it occured.

Martin Harris

p.s.  Props to Michael Roston, Andrew Leong (sp?), Alison Woidan, Michael 
Eber, A MSU debater named Suzanne, and anyone else Will cares to give props 
to, for help on pre-meeting prep.  My understanding is MANY MSU folks 
provided valuable reports and insights into ground and wording issues.  Also 
props to all those Mancuso will give shout outs to on Monday.  I know much 
non-committee member work went into prepping the committee for a job well 
done.  I will also isolate the student rep for writing the original paper, 
AND serving on the committee.  As a previous author of two papers, and 
hopefully one for next year, I know how hard it is to focus on the next 
season, almost before the current one is done.



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: votesplit.29350DEFANGED-xls
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 14848 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020610/b53eb769/attachment.obj 


From jms787s  Mon Jun 10 01:49:53 2002
From: jms787s (jms787s)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 01:49:53 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] CEDAW vs SORT
Message-ID: <3D041054@caliber>

I have been a casual observer to the discussion on the list of treaties, 
specifically the inclusion/exclusion of CEDAW and SORT.  I have several 
comments

I feel the following point should be responded to.

A vote should occur that amends the possible resolutions.  The vote should 
attempt to remove SORT and insert CEDAW.
------The a way I see it there are four options: leave the resolutions as they 
are, replace sort  with CEDAW in the first resolution, include a fourth 
resolution that includes SORT and not CEDAW, and finally have a vote prior to 
the final resolution vote that determines whether SORT or CEDAW will be 
included in the first resolution.

Here is why the resolutions should be left as they are
Having four resolutions vote on poses the following problem. If the community 
wants a limited topic in terms of treaties then having four possible 
resolutions to vote on would ultimately mean that votes would be split between 
the two choices that have five treaty options.  Ultimately increasing the 
likelihood that a seven treaty or nine treaty wording gets selected.

Replacing SORT with CEDAW is also problematic.  For those who want to debate 
SORT or an arms reduction treaty and a limited topic there are no options left 
if SORT replaces CEDAW.  Additionally, the actions of the topic commitee are 
in essence null and void setting a bad standard for future topic selection.  
The committee made a decision, albeit by a slim margin, that SORT was better 
for the topic than CEDAW.  As elected officials of the community there job is 
to make such decisions.  No one is saying they did not research the decision 
or debate out the merits of their actions.  In fact, far from it, from what I 
can tell, this discussion dominated the meeting and people who have invested a 
lot of time and effort into crafting a resolution that benefits the community 
made a decision.  For those, who have not invested as much time or effort to 
criticize there actions seems somewhat comical.  This is not to say that those 
criticizing have not invested time or effort but that those who made the 
decision invested more. Further, five out of nine, a majority agreed that they 
made the correct decision. Finally, I have read the arguments for and against 
a rights dominated resolution.  I specifically want to respond to the 
discussion that Kyoto and CTBT allow for enough non-rights treaties.  Saying 
that two is enough can also be applied to having two rights based treaties.  
The real issue is that having a treaty that focuses on arms reduction provides 
a unique, additional area that can be explored as does having one bilateral 
treaty.  Further the timeliness of SORT provides unique insight into the 
issues of Senate ratification that probably won't be discussed with other 
treaties.  I have learned a lot simply reading Roston's post about whether 
Biden will hold up ratification or not and whether Bush or the Republicans 
will push it for purposes of mid-term elections.

I also believe that having a seperate vote would be counterproductive several 
reasons.  CEDAW would probably win not because it is better to debate but 
because those that have researched it for the past month or so want it 
included in the list of five.  Additionally, since those same people have not 
researched SORT the likelihood of them knowing the specific merits of the 
treaty seem to be limited. Additionally, it is infinitely regressive.  Why 
does CEDAW get to be included on this ballot and not other treaties that were 
discussed or for that matter could be discussed?  If your answer to the 
question is that the topic committee narrowly supported SORT over CEDAW and 
thus the decision should be left to the community than you support the topic 
committee's ability to limit the treaties down to five or six and thus you 
support there inclusion of CEDAW and SORT but not all of the other twenty plus 
treaties that could of been included.  You might answer the above question by 
saying that the community never got an oppurtunity to comment on SORT prior to 
the topic meeting however the community did get an opportunity to comment on 
CEDAW and little if no discussion occurred that could have swayed the topic 
committee's decision. I understand that you may have had finals etc however, 
if that is true you didn't have time to research CEDAW and thus do not know if 
it truly a better option than SORT.  However, the members of the topic 
committee did have such time and the made their decision accordingly.
Finally, I believe this discussion is like two ships passing in the night.  If 
you want CEDAW vote for a different resolution.  If those that support CEDAW 
and not SORT are correct that ratification will occur in the fall then the 
topic would still be limited and you might of learned something from your 
research of SORT that you otherwise would not have.  However, not including 
SORT does more harm than good as explained above.  I applaud the efforts and 
the integrity of the topic committee in including a treaty that was timely and 
relevant although controversial.  I have also enjoyed reading posts about the 
value or lack thereof of CEDAW.  I just wish these discussion would of 
occurred sooner.  If that would of happened you probably would of received a 
more favorable outcome.

Justin Stanley




From jbhdb8  Mon Jun 10 02:26:05 2002
From: jbhdb8 (jbhdb8 at earthlink.net)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 00:26:05 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] The Soccer Committee Meeting
Message-ID: <Springmail.0994.1023693965.0.49170100@webmail.pas.earthlink.net>

Look I am as into this re-vote movement as anyone but wasnt it cool to see Brian McBride winning the battles in the air against the Golden Generation last game and the Duck making some uncanny stops in goal against Korea this morning.

Go USA Soccer Go Northwestern World Cup partcipants.

Josh




From kkuswa  Mon Jun 10 02:49:18 2002
From: kkuswa (kevin kuswa)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 03:49:18 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] The Soccer Committee Meeting
In-Reply-To: <Springmail.0994.1023693965.0.49170100@webmail.pas.earthlin
 k.net>
Message-ID: <4.1.20020610034749.00a93550@facstaff.richmond.edu>

is that the same brian mcbride who works at the Thai restaurant in austin
and owns McBride's bun shop?
I mean gun shop?

he's everywhere.  heck, i think there's even a Brian McBride who plays for
Stars of the Lid.

go bry!!

kev


At 12:26 AM 6/10/02 -0700, jbhdb8 at earthlink.net wrote:
>Look I am as into this re-vote movement as anyone but wasnt it cool to see 
>Brian McBride winning the battles in the air against the Golden Generation 
>last game and the Duck making some uncanny stops in goal against Korea this 
>morning.
>
>Go USA Soccer Go Northwestern World Cup partcipants.
>
>Josh
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
>http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




From let_the_american_empire_burn  Mon Jun 10 03:22:56 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 03:22:56 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Calender: Zizek speaking at University of South Carolina, 13 February 2003
Message-ID: <F16203bk2u884lrIPE8000120f3@hotmail.com>

i also encourage debate participants to send papers based on original 
research into mental health services, as the spirit so moves them ...

_____________________________

Helen Terre Blanche (Conference Alerts)
alerts at ConferenceAlerts.com

University of South Carolina's Fifth Annual Comparative Literature
Conference: The Desire of the Analysts
13 February 2003, Columbia, South Carolina, United States

Keynote Speaker: Slavoj Zizek (Ljubjana)

Plenary Speakers:
Julia Kristeva (Paris VII)
Toril Moi (Duke)
Kaja Silverman (Berkeley)

Why do we continue to desire psychoanalysis?  What is
the nature of that desire?  What can psychoanalysis
teach us about the social arrangements of our
increasingly globalized world, and especially, about the
psychic origins of our most pressing social problems
(racism, sexism, homophobia, nationalistic violence,
terrorism, genocide)?  Do psychoanalytic theories have
anything to say about the highly dispersed identities of
new information technologies?

Presentations should be broadly interdisciplinary. The
conference will end with a roundtable in which we try
collectively to pull together the threads of our discussion -
and to assess where our desires have led us.  We plan to
publish selected papers from the conference in a
collection of essays with a major university press.

Please send abstracts of 20-minute papers by 30
September 2002 to: Paul Allen Miller, Chair, Comparative
Literature Program, Humanities Building, Columbia, SC
29208.

Sponsored by the University of South Carolina College of
Liberal Arts, Program in Comparative Literature,
Department of English and associated departments and
programs.

E-mail enquiries: pamiller at sc.edu


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From amtauber  Mon Jun 10 07:52:57 2002
From: amtauber (Alan Tauber)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 08:52:57 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Balanced Resolutions and Vote Splitting
Message-ID: <20020610125257.E6EB73D37@xmxpita.excite.com>

 I just want to congratulate the topic committee and thank them for all their hard work.  This looks to be one of the best set of topics I've seen in my career.  Thank you one and all.

However, I just feel the need to chime in with two comments.

First, on the balance issue.  Yes, you're absolutely right.  The inclusion of CEDAW instead of SORT gives us a 60-40 split between rights/non-rights.  I say:  So what?  Put in the fourth option suggested by Jason Stone, then let the community decide.  If we want to debate a so-called "unbalanced" topic, isn't that our right?  That's democracy in action.  If the majority of the community wants three rights-based treeaties, great.  If you don't, don't vote for it.

This brings up the second issue, vote splitting - NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.  The people who want a small topic can rank the one with CEDAW first, and the one with SORT second.  If one of them gets the fewest votes, it drops out, and the votes go to the #2 choice.  Unless there is a groundswell for the 7 or 9 choice topics they wouldn't win.  And if they do win, then it's because people want to debate 7 or 9 topics.

If you include the fourth option, I bet we say goodbye to the 9 treaty topic in round one.  The 7 treaty topic in round two and then CEDAW and SORT duke it out for first place.  Either way, the majority gets what it wants.  OR the 7 topic treaty wins and we get both SORT AND CEDAW.  Either way, no vote splitting.

But that's just my understanding/opinion.  I could be wrong.

Alan Tauber




------------------------------------------------
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020610/d0feb16e/attachment.html 


From j-paul2  Mon Jun 10 07:47:05 2002
From: j-paul2 (j-paul2 at northwestern.edu)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 07:47:05 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Size Does Matter
Message-ID: <200206101247.HAA18547@webemail.it.northwestern.edu>

First, let me congratulate the community for picking the right topic and the 
topic committee for their good work.   As the title of my post may have 
alluded, I think that the topic #3 (the one with the most treaties) should win 
out.   I don?t mean to interrupt the community coup about the SORT, but I think 
that we might be in danger of selecting a topic that is not big enough to 
sustain a year of diverse, interesting debates.  I think that a topic with only 
4 treaties will get unbelievably stale by the end of the year.  Don?t get me 
wrong, I think that the topic committee probably picked a good starting 4/5, 
but you cant expect your starters to play the whole game day in and day out.  I 
thought about not posting this because I thought there is no way you could 
convince someone who wants a limited topic to support a big topic.   But let?s 
not fool ourselves.  The difference between 5 and 9 treaties really is not that 
much.  And really, all of you limited topic proponents (and I am also one of 
them?I supported the recognition topic and I think it only got about 2 first 
place votes) cant really complain about having to debate 9 cases.  A 
combination of a topic that had great literature (sanctions), brutal beatdowns 
by Wes Lotz, and smooth speeches (and brutal beatdowns) by Alex Berger, has 
somehow convinced a lot in the community that the ?most limiting? is always 
superior.  I think topics should be limited too, but I am failing to see why a 
resolution that lists 9 potential plans is not limited.  Think back to 
preparing for the NDT the last two years.  In both the Africa and Indians 
topic, counting only first rounds, teams ran at least 25 different cases over 
the course of each year.  Given that you can?t only do work against sixteen 
teams, the number of affs is actually a lot larger.   I did not have the time 
or willingness to try and count this, but a conservative estimate is that the 
last two years required teams to be ready to debate 40-plus cases.  I know we 
were not ready for 25 affs--let alone 40 but I am pretty sure that teams could 
make the adjustment down to 9.  Since Tejinder is the only one to come out for 
the small version (although I sense that more support it given the uproar about 
CEDAW not being included on the ?short list?), I will address this question to 
him.   Do you really think that if the Native Americans topic included only 9 
topical cases that you would not be reasonably prepared to debate them?  Sure, 
you might not have an A+ case hit for each one at UNI, but you would have a 
winnable set of arguments for each treaty.  Now think about what your files 
will look like come the NDT.  I am going to talk about the starting 5 briefly 
to set up why I think we should go for 9 

-Kyoto-This is obviously a large amount of research.  But it is also not that 
difficult to research.  Everyone already knows the arguments; it is just a 
matter of getting cards.  I also think that the fact that this is a familiar 
issue adds a little credibility to my education/staleness argument.  We ran a 
climate case all year, every returning debater that debated in high school with 
the exception of the incoming freshman debated a topic where this was a case 
and climate debates were the central focus.  I really wanted immigration to win 
last year, but there was uproar over the fact that it was a high school topic 
despite the fact that only the incoming seniors who were in it for 4 years in 
high school had debated. 

-CTBT-Another case that we all have some familiarity with.  It is also a lot of 
research, but everyone knows the case arguments and I don?t think we should 
bank on these two cases  (which will comprise half the topic once the SORT is 
ratified) to get our fix. 

-Death Penalty-I don?t know much about this particular treaty, but I do know 
that only a very select few teams will be able to say that they won on ?death 
penalty deters crime? or ?death penalty=justice.?  If you do, you should take 
one of the following actions 1) Thank me because I am the only person I know 
that would consider voting for these arguments (and the way debates play out, 
even I would be a tough sell)  2) Realize that it was only because you were a 
lot, and I mean a lot, bigger, faster, and meaner than your opponents.  Then 
proceed to tell me about your amazing accomplishment and I will proceed to rant 
about how debate really does aid in the search for the truth.  The point is 
that debates about this treaty will be about one of 4 things 1) Bush DA. 2) 
Domestic CP. 3) Kritik. 4). ASPEC. 

-ICC-Unlike the other treaties, I have done some recreational reading on this 
one and I will say that it is an intriguing debate.  That being said it is not 
nearly as big of a research assignment as the first two treaties and its 
inclusion would not justify excluding others for the fear that the topic would 
be ?really big.? 

-SORT-It will be ratified.  Even if it isn?t, this will probably deter people 
from running it initially as well. 

I fear that some potentially interesting treaties will be left out if we don?t 
go 9 treaties. 
-Lots of people (myself included) seem to really want to debate CEDAW 
-Hazardous Waste is a timely issue that did not really get fleshed out last 
year 
-Biological Diversity is another issue that we have only been able to debate in 
passing. 
-The Rights of the Child is another one that provides for diverse ground on 
both sides and tackles issues that the community has not addressed in my day 

I will address some reasons why people might still prefer a small topic. 

1.  Sanctions Topic Dude.  Yes, the sanctions topic only had five countries and 
only 4 of those were popular.  I will not deny that I loved the sanctions 
topic, but limiting it to 5 countries was not the reason.  I will disagree with 
Tejinder and say that the topic would have been fine with 9 because the neg 
would have still known what was coming.  I will go against popular wisdom and 
say that the sanctions topic did get a little boring by the end of the year.  
In the 5 aff debates I had at the NDT the neg strategies consisted of Gendered 
IR, Conditional Removal and Appeasement, the Bush DA two times, and 
Normativity.  Yes the debates got progressively better and people kept getting 
better cards, but was it worth it to hear the same stuff all year round. 

2.  What About the Little Guy.  1)  Some things you can?t stop.  Small schools 
are inevitably at a disadvantage.  Shaq will always have an advantage over 
everyone (until the Ming Dynasty of course).  This is probably not satisfying, 
but makes more sense in light of 2) The fact that they also have to go aff.  I 
will give an example.  If the 5 topic ballot wins, I would be willing to bet 
lots of money that at Northwestern Raja and Jim (the best researchers I have 
ever seen) will do the neg against every treaty and probably be finished about 
a month before UNI.  Such a limited topic allows the best researchers on a team 
to cover basically everything.  I personally would not like to have a topic 
that easily allows Dan Shalmon, Olney/Blank, Raja/Jim, the list goes on, to get 
to spend just about all of the debate seasons doing research against my aff.  
If that does not persuade you, think of it like this.  While people from 
so-called small schools are working on getting in depth hits together on all of 
the cases, what do you think people from large schools will be doing?  I would 
rather try to spread the large school out amongst the variety of specific 
treaties and minimize the amount of time they spend on generic arguments that 
apply to every treaty on the list.  3) I am confident that a team of any size 
can produce winnable strategies against 9 cases.  If you thought you had case 
hits last year for 9 cases that were workable, then I don?t think you should be 
frightened by a topic with 9 treaties.  I am sure that large teams would try to 
spread the wealth so smaller teams might have the advantage over some teams 
because they are more familiar with their evidence. 

3) Implement makes it broad enough.  People said the same thing about 
constructive engagement and no one really toyed with that enough to 
significantly expand flexibility.  I think the treaties topic will be similar 
and neg strategies will not really change that much based on the implementation 
mechanism unless they choose to have that debate because the neg can always CP 
out of whatever new implementation mechanism the aff uses. 

Its late and looking back I am sure my post is filled with many contradictions 
and illogical statements, but I will still maintain that bigger is better.  I 
also think that people should vote based on the treaties they want and not the 
size of the topic.  If you want to debate CEDAW don?t be deterred because it is 
on a topic that you may think is too big.  Ditto for Rights of the Child and 
Biological Diversity.  Thanks for reading.  JP 




From bratt  Mon Jun 10 10:14:20 2002
From: bratt (Bratt, Ronald L.)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:14:20 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] The New Washington Urban Debate League Manager
Message-ID: <6FE0B5A51164D411934400508BDFDDB107EF0914@exchsrvb.cua.edu>

We are pleased to announce that Sarah Snider, former coach of Rochester,
and University of Vermont debater, will be the new Program Manager for
the Washington Urban Debate League.  In this capacity, Sarah will be in
charge of training the mentors/coaches of the new Urban Debate League.
She will be running the coaches workshops and the UDL tournaments.  

Eleven D.C. schools are officially aboard.  They attended a one day
workshop last Saturday.  

For all those interested in helping out the Washington Urban Debate
League, her phone number is 202 319-6398 and her email address is
ssnider at zoo.uvm.edu (soon to change to snider at cua.edu).

Sarah will also be helping out our program part time.  We are excited to
have her aboard.  

Ronald Bratt
Director of Debate
The Catholic of America
202 319-5447




From ermo  Mon Jun 10 10:33:13 2002
From: ermo (Eric Morris)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:33:13 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Not Good Old Reagan!
References: <F12095HfqR77bieLYCT0001e34e@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <007601c21094$238de060$b309ed81@cc.ukans.edu>

I like Darren, but I disagree. The abuses described Aaron's post
are useful reminders when the US security apparatus has announced
within the last month that they want to return to domestic surveillance,
because they call into question the claim that such surveillance would
remain limited and reasonable. Reagan's involvement, if accurately
described in this article, shows the mainstream support for oppressive
uses of surveillance.
Also, if it is over, why is the GOP celebrating Reagan every chance
they get? Perhaps it is because they feel having a popular modern
Republican become an icon is a great way to solidify their electoral
position. Certainly the iconization of FDR and JFK has helped the
Democratic party, while the perceived failures of the Carter
Administration have continued to hurt it. The attempts to define
and redefine the past has a direct impact on who we are today,
and what we do. Much political rhetoric relies on historical claims
such as these more than futuristic predictions of the type that
debate encourages.
Finally, the SF Chronicle is a higher credibility source than
Eminem, imho. Despite the spate of celeb appearances in
front of Congress, when was the last time they asked him
to comment on fisheries management, nuclear policy, or
the patient's bill of rights.

Ermo
KU

----- Original Message ----- 
From: DARREN ELLIOTT <elliottdarren at hotmail.com>
To: <aogletree at hotmail.com>; <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Not Good Old Reagan!


You hear Eminem's new song?  You know that lyric about "let it go.  it's 
over!"

Chief




>From: "Aaron Ogletree" <aogletree at hotmail.com>
>To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: [eDebate] Not Good Old Reagan!
>Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 22:47:41 +0000
>




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com







From whitmore_wb  Mon Jun 10 11:16:11 2002
From: whitmore_wb (whitmore_wb at ACADMN.MERCER.EDU)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 12:16:11 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [eDebate] CEDAW vs SORT
In-Reply-To: <3D041054@caliber>
Message-ID: <Pine.PMDF.3.95.1020610120211.38639A-100000@ACADMN.MERCER.EDU>

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, jms787s wrote:

> I have been a casual observer to the discussion on the list of treaties, 
> specifically the inclusion/exclusion of CEDAW and SORT.  I have several 
> comments
> 
> I feel the following point should be responded to.
> 
> A vote should occur that amends the possible resolutions.  The vote should 
> attempt to remove SORT and insert CEDAW.

If we are going to amend the resolutions (which I don't think we will),
then I think we should amend it to remove SORT from resolutions two and
three. This will make the resolutions have 5, 6, or 8 treaties. This
proposal won't cause the "unbalanced human rights focus" that the topic
commitee feared. It also will decrease the number of treaties in
resolutions two and three. This will calm the fears of those who felt
pressured into resolution one, because of the size of the other
resolutions. As disappointed as I am about it, I don't think the third
resolution will get many votes even if SORT is removed. However, removing
SORT will make resolution two a legitimate contender with resolution one.
Just a thought. Probably pointless, but still a thought. 

Whit-
Mercer Debate




From mmk_savant  Mon Jun 10 11:04:21 2002
From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 12:04:21 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] ans Harris
Message-ID: <OE38SNky86QCwKUWYNh00011b7a@hotmail.com>

this is some data massage.  Martin WORKED and i mean he WORKED that data into shape.
hey Heather, talk to us about SINCERITY some more, okay?

(and no, i am not discussing the cosmetic error of having voter H give 2 ranks of 3 instead of a 3 and 4)

1.  not true vote-splitting

a) notice voter E.  Harris makes a slick little data fudge here.

in a "true" vote split, one needs to divide the original votes between the new candidates.  Martin seems to initially understand that at least: 
the original ballot has 7 number 1 votes for Small (russ)
the new ballot has 7 number 1 votes split between Small (russ) and Small (none)

but to be a true split vote, the number 1s assigned to Small (russ) must have number 2s assigned to Small (none) and the number 1s assigned to Small (none) must have number 2s assigned to Small (russ).  that is the only way to capture the idea that the original pool wants Small over Medium and Large - if you split Small into 2 sub-categories, then that constituency STILL prefers either of the Small to the Medium or the Large.  it is simply a SCAM to "split" the original constituency for Small so that the number 1s are distributed among the new Smalls but to GIVE THE ORIGINAL 1s AWAY by assigning a 2 to some other candidate.

it is clear that Martin understands the above argument: voters C,D,F,G,H, and I which are 6 of the original 1s for Small distribute their 1s between Small(russ) and Small(none) AND also give their 2s to the OTHER Small.  

But, inexplicably, voter E gives their 2 to Medium and only gives a 3 to Small(none). so what, you might ask?  
well, that is how Martin is able to keep Medium alive through round 2.  correct this fudge and look at what happens. the initial count of number 1s stays the same:
S(r):  3
S(n): 4
M :   6
L :    7
the big loser is still Small (with Russia), we remove it and find out why Martin fudged the data.  in Martins' example voter E now gives Medium a NEW 1 and gives Small(none) a new 2 and the Martin;s example in round 2 looks like this:
S(n): 6
M :   7
L :    7
Martin then proceeds to toss out Small(none) to make his vote-splitting point.  the SCAM is that if voter E had behaved as a true vote-splitter, their 2 would have gone to Small(none) instead of Medium and... you guessed it... the round 2 count would have been:
S(n): 7
M:    6
L:     7
and NOW the big loser is Medium, leaving Small(none) and Large to duke it out.

now, this would have been a ridiculous subterfuge on Martin's part all by itself.  he didn't stop there, though.  check out the next little bit of trickery:

b)  please look at voter M.  Martin plays his scam again.

to recap, we've caught Harris' slick little fudge with voter E and taken his example to round 2 to come up with:
S(n): 7
M:    6
L:     7
in this corrected vote, we eliminate Medium because it is the new big loser.  the round 3 count now will look like this:
S(n): 10
L:     10
with Large having 7 original number 1s to S(n) only having 4 original number 1s.

but voter M displays the same odd "vote-splitting" behavior as voter E, just a bit more subtly.  
in the original vote, M gave Medium 1, Small 2, and Large 3 so one would expect that once Small is split into 2 categories that M would "split" his 2 to give a 2 to one of Small(russ) or Small(none) and a 3 to the OTHER one.  but that is NOT what M does:  their ballot does give the 2 to Small(russ) but INEXPLICABLY gives the 3 to Large and sticks Small(none) with the 4.  WHY?

well because that makes the numbers work for Martin's point, that's why.  let's not let him do that and make M enact a true vote-split by giving 1 to Medium, 2 to Small(russ), 3 to Small(none), and 4 to Large.  does that make a difference?

well of course it does.  round 3 NOW looks like this:
S(n): 11
L:       9

and Small(none) wins. 

2. a distributional view

this is another way to see that the manipulation was conscious.

on the original ballot, the distribution of votes is this:

S:   7   4    9
M:  6   14   0
L:   7    2   11

on the Small-split-into-Small(russ)-and-Small(none) ballot the distribution is

S(r) :   3    8    2    7
S(n):   4    2   10   4
M   :   6    8    6    0
L    :   7    2    1    10

to see if this is correct, we collapse the 2 Small(russ) and Small(none) candidates into the original Small candidate giving us:

S:       7   10   12   11
M:      6     8     6    0
L:       7     2     1   10

is this how a true vote-split would distribute?  well, this is what the vote-split SHOULD look like:

S :     7    11   13    9
M:     6      7     7    0
L :     7      2     0    11

and immediately we would notice several DISCREPANCIES in the distribution.

in the NEW ballot, the original Small candidate has been ROBBED of a 2 rank and a 3 rank and has been STUCK with 2 extra 4 ranks. 
(Small SHOULD have 11 number 2s but only has 10, SHOULD have 13 number 3s but only has 12 and SHOULD have 9 number 4s but has 11).

Medium has been given a GIFT of an extra 2 and 1 fewer number 3. (SHOULD have 7 number 2s but has 8 and SHOULD have 7 number 3s but has only 6)

Large has been given a GIFT of an extra 3 and 1 fewer number 4.  (SHOULD have 0 number 3s but has 1 and SHOULD have 11 number 4s but has only 10).

ALL of the above discrepancies are accounted for by the INEXPLICABLE behaviors of voters E and M.

3) now, a final comment.

voters E and M are not vote-splitting.  they are expressing DIFFERENT preferences.  in particular, voter E has decided that they like Small(russ) MOST but that they like Medium MORE than Small(none).  the NEW ballot with MORE options REGISTERS that discriminatory preference while the ORIGINAL ballot does not.  similarly, voter M prefers Medium most then Small(russ) BUT likes Large more than Small(none) and AGAIN the expanded ballot captures that discernment while the original does not.

i need Phil's original "cannot split votes" post if possible.  it went by-by before i read it.  
i would be stunned if Kerpen was correct about this, but Martin's nonsense sure doesn't present a counter-example.

thanks for reading,
Michael Korcok
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020610/62df2347/attachment.htm 


From michelinmassey  Mon Jun 10 11:31:43 2002
From: michelinmassey (Michelin C. Massey)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 09:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] jack refuses to answer my questions
In-Reply-To: <F143ROXdif9PS7RPMek00002e64@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20020610163143.3516.qmail@web13006.mail.yahoo.com>

jack,

i don't know anything about psychoanalysis.  i make
not attempts to analyze you.  i am trying to ask
questions so that i may have a better understanding of
your position.  you fail to reply.

i ask you about your motive with re: to UT and the
only reply i can get is that this is some sort of
private joke?  huh?  perhaps i'm not as smart as you,
but i guess i just don't get it.  a joke?

who is the "we" to whom you refer?  are there two of
you?  are there two jack stroubes?

michelin massey.

--- Schizo Liberation Front
<schizoliberation at hotmail.com> wrote:
> massey,
> 
> we don't like the feigned neutrality of
> psychoanalysis.  we won't ad-hom you 
> but you've got it all backwards.
> 
> 1) pain is too heavy and grave.  you miss all of the
> jokes that keep our 
> friends laughing.  ain't the sad militants that the
> psychoanalysts would 
> like to triangulate us into.  missing out on the
> ways we play with policy 
> discourse.  often we are making light of the revenge
> that was taken upon us 
> when we got fired.
> 
> 2) you underplay the results of our work on edabait.
> this gives you the air 
> of the establishment.  what are your thoughts on the
> Debate Information 
> Group and our theoretical role in its formation? 
> how do you think piracy 
> will transform UT dabait and others' relation to the
> medium?  how bout free 
> access?
> 
> slf
> 
> slf
> 
> >From: "Michelin C. Massey"
> <michelinmassey at yahoo.com>
> >To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> >Subject: [eDebate] questions for jack
> >Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2002 09:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >dear jack,
> >
> >i have attempted to read your posts the best i can.
> >they are often hard to read because i get your
> >pronouns mixed up; i do not know the "we" to which
> >your refer.  i think your most recent posting in
> >response to kelly sums up your position quite well,
> so
> >i would like to ask some questions which will help
> me
> >(and others) better understand your message (if
> people
> >still have that desire).
> >
> >1. what outcome do you hope to accomplish with your
> >criticism of the UTNIF and the UT program in
> general?
> >i don't mean to sound so utilitarian, but what's
> the
> >purpose if it is not for personal revenge.  is your
> >motive to criticize for the sake of criticism?  is
> it
> >your hope that UT will engage you in a discussion
> over
> >its institutional practices in a public forum?
> >
> >if it's the latter, i don't think that anyone from
> the
> >current UT power structure would be interested in
> >doing so.  no one would be interested in having a
> >discussion with someone who has publicly insulted
> >others who have attempted engagement or who airs
> dirty
> >laundry for all in the community to see.  if you
> and i
> >were friends and i told you something very
> >incriminating about me... suddenly we were to have
> a
> >discussion that became heated and you aired that
> >revelation to everyone around, why would i (or
> anyone
> >else) ever want to be put in that situation?
> >
> >2. where do you want to go from here?  if your
> desire
> >is to organize movements or to disrupt
> disciplinarian
> >institutional practices through some other means,
> how
> >does your current method of posting to this
> >listservice dozens of times daily help you in that
> >process?  it's been a long time since you've
> started
> >and some interesting ideas have come to the
> forefront.
> >  the problem, though, is that there's been a
> shrinkage
> >in the discussions in this forum.  we had some good
> >topic talk, but that was soon drowned out by your
> and
> >kevin's continued grievances with various
> disciplinary
> >practices.  what does it mean?
> >
> >i have a lot of other questions and i ask these
> >sincerely.  i understand how it feels to be treated
> >unfairly and lash out angrily when others criticize
> my
> >pain.  but i also believe truly that it is really
> >important to learn lessons from that pain and to
> move
> >on from there.  if you feel like you were treated
> >unfairly, this is not the forum.  you will receive
> no
> >redress from UT or anyone else by calling people
> names
> >or issuing complex criticisms against institutions.
> >UTNIF will still have hundreds of kids attend their
> >camps in policy, LD, and individual events.  UTNIF
> >will, again, make thousands of dollars this
> upcoming
> >june and july.  the UT debate program will still
> >recruit talented debaters and get teams into elims
> at
> >highly competitive tournaments.  you will receive
> no
> >engagement in a critical discussion about practices
> >because they fear something you may say about them.
> >
> >this discussion is immaterial to 99.9% of the
> people
> >on this list.  maybe 2-3% are reading because they
> are
> >curious about potential contradictions between
> selling
> >ideas critical of discipline and control, while
> >deploying those precise methods to solidify power.
> >all i'm saying is that you may not be reaching your
> >audience.  i hope these questions and this post
> will
> >get you to reconsider your methods...
> >
> >best,
> >
> >michelin massey.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com




From privethedge  Mon Jun 10 11:48:23 2002
From: privethedge (Duane Hyland)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 09:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] The New Washington Urban Debate League Manager
In-Reply-To: <6FE0B5A51164D411934400508BDFDDB107EF0914@exchsrvb.cua.edu>
Message-ID: <20020610164823.87048.qmail@web10007.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi, Thanks for posting this. The UDL couldn't have picked a more outstanding canidate. I, and the WACFL, look forward to working with the UDL to make sure that all students in the DC area have oppurtunities to compete in Policy Debate. Duane

"Very bored in Barad-Dur. Nothing to do but play Scrabble with Orcs. Is very annoying as Orcs only know Black Speech of Mordor. You try spelling Azg Nazg Gimbatul for a triple word score. Yeah, I didn't think so."  Secret Diary of the 5th Wring Wraith - LOTR
"Have agreed to carry Ring to Mordor. In hindsight, probably a bad move." - Frodo's Diary - LOTR



 


 



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020610/9d2385b0/attachment.html 


From mmk_savant  Mon Jun 10 12:16:08 2002
From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:16:08 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] before Martin comes out blasting
Message-ID: <OE16ARf3sllNY30kkZI00011b75@hotmail.com>

Martin will have a decent continuation.
his example demonstrates how a peel-off can happen.
the next part of the discussion will probably be whether "peel-off" is legitimate or not and what that represents.

my argument will be that voters will of course peel off from the initial candidates when we add candidates, but that represents voter discernment rather than some sort of "glitch".

hey, i didn't call him the devil or nothing...

Michael Korcok

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020610/8ae67c92/attachment.htm 


From wishfull  Mon Jun 10 13:01:22 2002
From: wishfull (Michael Roston )
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:01:22 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] the silliness of the CEDAW vs. SORT debate
Message-ID: <OJMCBLBCDBHIMAAA@shared1-mail.whowhere.com>

Perhaps there is an interest in discussing the educational and ground benefits of debating the SORT over CEDAW, but don't forget that beyond Kentucky, there's no possibility that you'll be able to run this affirmative.  Kinda moots out all of these arguments about why it would be better to consider the Moscow Treaty.

(BTW, the Duma announced that it would hold hearings on the Moscow Treaty on June 14.  the balls are rolling).

I suppose some folks might be persuaded by the "Northwestern is going to kick your ass anyway" logic, but I'm not.  I think there's an interest in a five-treaty resolution, and that has been changed into a four treaty topic now.  Not to godilocks it too much, but this has two implications:

1)  Perhaps it will be more likely that members of the community will choose the five-treaty option because it only has four viable options for the whole season.  If this occurs, do those of you who prefer diversity and larger topic prefer to end up with four or five treaties to debate about all year?

2)  Maybe some of you are going to be persuaded now to vote for the 7-resolution option because four seems more stale than six.  Think about all that extra-work throughout the year.

Ballots have been changed before.  Can be changed again.  Contact your regional topic committee representative and tell them you want SORT off the five treaty option.



---
Michael Roston
-enemy of freedom

"At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."
                    -President Richard Nixon, May 18, 1971



Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com




From elliottdarren  Mon Jun 10 13:37:46 2002
From: elliottdarren (DARREN ELLIOTT)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 13:37:46 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Not Good Old Reagan!
Message-ID: <F199WDU5zxLol1S7TWi00005e2f@hotmail.com>

I like Eric, and I agree with him.  Guess I'm just a sucker for sound 
reasoning behind the political commentary and Eric provides that.

However I would like to see Eminem testify on Nuclear policy.  Or maybe even 
FCC regulations! ;)

Chief

>From: "Eric Morris" <ermo at ukans.edu>
>To: "DARREN ELLIOTT" <elliottdarren at hotmail.com>, <aogletree at hotmail.com>,  
>       <edebate at ndtceda.com>
>Subject: Re: [eDebate] Not Good Old Reagan!
>Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:33:13 -0500
>
>I like Darren, but I disagree. The abuses described Aaron's post
>are useful reminders when the US security apparatus has announced
>within the last month that they want to return to domestic surveillance,
>because they call into question the claim that such surveillance would
>remain limited and reasonable. Reagan's involvement, if accurately
>described in this article, shows the mainstream support for oppressive
>uses of surveillance.
>Also, if it is over, why is the GOP celebrating Reagan every chance
>they get? Perhaps it is because they feel having a popular modern
>Republican become an icon is a great way to solidify their electoral
>position. Certainly the iconization of FDR and JFK has helped the
>Democratic party, while the perceived failures of the Carter
>Administration have continued to hurt it. The attempts to define
>and redefine the past has a direct impact on who we are today,
>and what we do. Much political rhetoric relies on historical claims
>such as these more than futuristic predictions of the type that
>debate encourages.
>Finally, the SF Chronicle is a higher credibility source than
>Eminem, imho. Despite the spate of celeb appearances in
>front of Congress, when was the last time they asked him
>to comment on fisheries management, nuclear policy, or
>the patient's bill of rights.
>
>Ermo
>KU
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: DARREN ELLIOTT <elliottdarren at hotmail.com>
>To: <aogletree at hotmail.com>; <edebate at ndtceda.com>
>Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 10:30 PM
>Subject: Re: [eDebate] Not Good Old Reagan!
>
>
>You hear Eminem's new song?  You know that lyric about "let it go.  it's
>over!"
>
>Chief
>
>
>
>
> >From: "Aaron Ogletree" <aogletree at hotmail.com>
> >To: edebate at ndtceda.com
> >Subject: [eDebate] Not Good Old Reagan!
> >Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2002 22:47:41 +0000
> >
>
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>
>
>
>




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com




From Mikedavis13  Mon Jun 10 14:16:38 2002
From: Mikedavis13 (Mikedavis13 at aol.com)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:16:38 EDT
Subject: [eDebate] the silliness of the CEDAW vs. SORT debate
Message-ID: <16c.ed7646c.2a365516@aol.com>

In a message dated 6/10/02 11:05:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time, 
wishfull at eudoramail.com writes:


> Ballots have been changed before.  Can be changed again.  Contact your 
> regional topic committee representative and tell them you want SORT off the 
> five treaty option.

I'm just curious as to when this has happened before and what provisions 
exist to change that ballot?

Mike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020610/5d59f1d5/attachment.html 


From asnider  Mon Jun 10 14:26:22 2002
From: asnider (Alfred C. Snider)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:26:22 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Webcast of USA Speech & Debate Finals
Message-ID: <a05101000b92aac749c75@[132.198.123.37]>

LIVE FROM THE NATIONAL FORENSIC LEAGUE FINALS
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA, USA
June 21, 2002

GO TO: http://www.uvm.edu/debate_theater/

BROUGHT TO YOU BY DEBATE CENTRAL, THE NATIONAL FORENSIC LEAGUE, AND 
THE WORLD DEBATE ORGANIZATION

SCHEDULE FOR JUNE 21, 2002 -- ALL TIMES EASTERN USA
9:30 AM - International Extemporaneous Speaking Finals
11 AM - Lincoln-Douglas Debate Finals
12 NOON - Policy Debate Finals
2 PM - US Extemporaneous Speaking Finals
3:30 PM - Barbara Jordan Debate Finals
5 PM - Original Oratory Finals
6:45 PM - NFL National Tournament Awards

If you are having difficulty viewing this broadcast using a web 
browser, try this:
1.	Open QuickTime Player (version 4 or 5!)
2.	Choose Open URL from the File menu
3.	enter this URL: rtsp://quicktime.uvm.edu:1554/debate/debate_theater

YOU MUST HAVE QUICKTIME 4.0 OR HIGHER INSTALLED. IF YOU NEED IT, GO 
TO QUICKTIME.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
---------------------------
Alfred C. Snider, AKA Tuna
Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
475 Main, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA
World Debate Institute; World Debate Organization
802-238-8345 mobile; 802-656-0097 office; 802-656-4275 fax
http://debate.uvm.edu/; http://debate.uvm.edu.tuna.html; 
http://debate.uvm.edu/ldu.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020610/72e7ca95/attachment.htm 


From wishfull  Mon Jun 10 16:10:04 2002
From: wishfull (Michael Roston )
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:10:04 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] ans Davis
Message-ID: <JNJIKOOEPFBJMAAA@shared1-mail.whowhere.com>

I was afraid someone was going to call on me for an example of ballot modification.  I'm not just imagining this, right?  It did happen, no?  Civil Rights topic?  Sanctions topic?  Am I just imagining that this happened?  On one of these topics there was a flaw in one of the resolutions that ended up on the ballot that the topic committee unanimously agreed needed to be changed so that people would be able to vote the way they wanted to.

  Perhaps someone who was paying more attention to topic committee activities in those days might be able to make up for my shakey memory.

---
Michael Roston
-enemy of freedom

"At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."
                    -President Richard Nixon, May 18, 1971



Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com




From ucodebate  Mon Jun 10 16:55:21 2002
From: ucodebate (ucodebate at att.net)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:55:21 +0000
Subject: [eDebate] Change the ballot!
Message-ID: <20020610215521.YDLF19182.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@webmail.worldnet.att.net>

Dear ?Community?,

Let me once again congratulate and thank the topic 
committee for all their hard work.  I think they nailed 
the action verbs exactly.  I also know that there have 
been a lot of posts and a lot of issues to keep track 
of/answer.  However, I don?t feel that any of the below 
arguments have been addressed by any of the committee 
members posts up to this point.  I will preview:  1) all 
the topics ?got em some ? grammatical issues, 2) the 
inclusion of SORT undermines any inclusivity in the 
final crafting of the resolutions  3) that ?Community? 
precedent has been set for amending topics in the past. 
Also addressed in my brief post are a couple of other 
important issues:  4) the presumption shift in this 
discussion, 5) day-before-the meeting SORT geneology 6) 
representation/the list as a ?Community? 7) merger 
growing pains, and 8) intellectual humility.  Gosh, I 
know-- that?s a lot-thanks for reading if you make it to 
the end.

1) Grammar:  no answer to every topic since 1946 has had 
a colon after resolved.  I?m not asserting that please 
check below and see for yourself:

http://www.wfu.edu/organizations/NDT/HistoricalLists/topi
cs.html

a) No answer to Kuswa?s (I know, an ironic grammar arg 
from Kuswa-          
     come on!  If a K-hack like Kuswa contends that 
the ?following? is    
     dangling then for pete?s sake answer that.  

2) Inclusivity:  Everyone can?t come to the meeting.  
Most don?t even monitor what happens there b/c of 
vacation or other commitments.  But SOME members of 
the ?Community? do.  Including a treaty that was not 
previously disclosed by ANY member of the committee or 
the ?Community? should be a cause of concern for both 
the committee and those in the ?Community?.  Doing so 
silences the voices of those not actually at the 
meeting.  SORT decreased the possibility for 
the ?Community? will to be represented.  The committee 
would have been surprised about the level of response 
that they would have gotten if they had communicated 
with us.  No mention of SORT despite the fact that it 
dominated a majority of the committee?s time?  Gosh, 
I?ve never been to a topic committee meeting, however, I 
know that I usually got substantially more posts about 
the days work than I got this year.  1 post is not 
consultation.  1 post is not transperancy in the world 
of digital communication.

3) Amendment Precedent exists:  I believe I recall one 
of the topics was changed after a similar ?Community? 
uproar on the Africa ballot.  I might be wrong and 
encourage others with more institutional knowledge to 
contribute to that discussion.  Tuna, Kerpen, Russ 
Church, Josh Hoe, Greg Simerly, and some others could 
correctly answer that.

That concludes the issues that I would really like the 
committee, or Mancuso, to answer.  I have four more 
points that I will elaborate more fully upon:

4) Presumption Shift Alert:  One May 17th Mancuso 
said, ?Here is the list of treaties the Topic Committee 
is currently investigating.  We are looking at two 
groups of treaties, those that need only to be ratified, 
and those that need to be signed and ratified.  
Some ?treaties? may not be sufficiently formal to be 
ready for signature.  If you would like us to consider 
an additional one, please send me some internet 
cites/sites containing affirmative and negative 
arguments.  I?m especially interested in treaties in the 
collective defense, environment and trade agreement 
areas.?

Let me break that statement down for Helwich, Walters, 
Mancuso, Repko, Martin Harris, and Mike Davis.  If you 
want ADDITIONAL treaties, then you have an affirmative 
obligation to provide cites and a justification.  I was 
exceedingly pleased with the list of treaties that were 
presented to the ?Community? at that time.  Not only was 
I not interested in adding any treaties to the list I 
thought that there might be too many treaties on this 
short list.  I was a little intrigued when Leong and 
Dutcher started kicking it around about the Convention 
on the rights of the child.  I did not respond b/c I 
didn?t want to add to the list.  I did not repsond when 
others tried to add to the list b/c I thought the 
treaties they were adding were legitimate multilateral 
treaties.  That folks is how presumption works.  If you 
don?t want a change in the list, then you do nothing. If 
any of ya?ll need help with presumption?holla. 

Please don?t interpret Mancuso?s post as a call to arms 
to advocate for a specific treaty.  He is making it 
clear to the ?Community? that he and others are actively 
researching these treaties.  That no advocacy needs to 
occur.  However, let?s look at what was discussed.  One 
post on CRC, a couple of posts about the CEDAW, a joke 
from Kenny D about LOS and a couple of posts about the 
ICC.  That was it.  So if you want to go by discussion 
that did happen.  CEDAW was way ahead in terms of the 
limited discussion had on the list.  I like most others 
felt that all the treaties were multilateral and that 
the list was tight and that the topic committee was 
incredibly capable of determining which ones fell into 
the most appropriate action verbs.  YOU CAN BET A HELL 
OF A LOT MORE THAN A NICKLE I WOULD HAVE RAISED HELL 
ABOUT ONE OR TWO OR THREE BILATERAL TREATIES BEING IN 
THAT LIST.  Your argument that we didn?t discuss it is a 
presumption shift and should be ignored. 

Mancuso recently posted, ? In fact, our discussions on 
every treaty were far more extensive
I challenge you to point me to an average of even ONE 
post on the treaties I listed on May 17.   The list 
serve was virtually silent on  the topic wording for 
weeks.?

Mancuso continues to shift presumption to justify his 
actions.  This is not responsive.

5) Sketchy Etiology:  
a)  Razor thin margin:  I wasn?t really upset about this 
until I heard that the decision b/t sticking with the 
pre-disclosed, multilateral list proposed on May 17th 
and inserting the bilateral surprise SORT treaty was a 
razor thin 5-4 majority.  That is not to be interpreted 
as the ?will of the people?.  Topic committees in the 
past would have realized that the ?Community? would 
probably be pretty split on this as well and would have 
broken the SORT treaty up into one, or at most, two of 
the resolutions.
b) Day before genesis:  The SORT treaty became an every 
round inevitable implication of all these resolutions 
when Repko approached Mancuso in the hotel hall??? the 
day before the meetings started and asked him about it.  
Why couldn?t one of them have asked for some ?Community? 
input at that time?  It is obvious to me that if your 
going to dramatically change the predictable negative 
ground on the resolution, even in just one of the 
treaties and increase the research burdens to include 
mulitlateralism and more arms control and bilateral 
threat reductions of two nuclear superpowers, adding the 
Russian political process to a topic without notice to 
the ?Community? of any kind, you might be making a 
mistake.  At least communicate with us at the meeting.  
The day before wouldn?t have been too late if there had 
been some discussion on the list about it.

6) Representation/List as ?Community? Model:  There may 
not have been a ?real? or ?significant? (Ala Helwich, 
Walters, and Harris) discussion about which treaties to 
include in the resolution.  I know that I didn?t post 
anything b/c I took Mancuso at his word.  See 
presumption shift above.  I thought that the topic 
committee had a handle on the multilateral treaties that 
they listed.  I would have been concerned about a new 
mulitlateral treaty not on the list-but at least it 
doesn?t significantly change negative ground.  A 
bilateral treaty does.  

Mancuso recently posted, ?Edebate does not equal college 
debate opinion.  A few people with a 
viewpoint on Edebate does not come anywhere near a 
consensus (thank goodness). 

2 arguments:  First, and a 5-4 vote of the topic 
committee is consensus?  You overestimate your moral 
highground and your ?mandate of the Community?

This list is our ?Community?.  Dysfunctional as it can 
be at times.  Don?t add to that by ignoring me!!!  This 
is our wateringhole.  Where did you post the fricken 
resolutions for consideration in the first place?  This 
is Where we come to talk to each other- where we elect 
our leaders- where we make our decisions and how we all 
keep in touch with our fellow members.  Steve, you say 
that a few people posting don?t make a ?Community?.  
Maybe there is some shred of truth to that.  However, a 
few people posting has been the only thing that has made 
this a ?Community? over the past several years.  Don?t 
mistake this forum as irrelevant in the face of your 
research/argumentative prowess.  That is not the sign of 
leadership, but of incredulity and arrogance.

7) Growing Pains:  I think that this disagreement is a 
product of merger growing pains.  NDTesque ?truth 
seekers? say, ?our leaders are smart, competent, ethical 
people who will act in the best interest of 
the ?Community?.  Hence, the topic committee doesn?t 
have to defend its decision because they are our 
the ?Community? ?trustees? with the resolutional 
wordings. NDTesque ?truth seekers? vote based on the 
evidence read and the better interpretation presented by 
the evidence.  Versus.  
CEDAesque ?inclusivity/flowcharters? who say, ?We want 
everyone to be included in the discussion.  
The ?Community? consensus is important.  Let?s let 
everyone have a say-so.  We?ll even create different 
divisions and tournaments if necessary.  We like to vote 
on the arguments made by the debaters, and not on an 
interpretation of the evidence style of judging?  These 
two competing thought process still dominate much of the 
disagreement in our ?Community?. Sad we haven?t learned 
more from each others.  These divisions will be our 
downfall.

8) Criticalthinking.com discusses the intellectual 
virtues:

http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/intraits.html

Among these virtues are: Intellectual Humility, 
Intellectual Courage, Intellectual Empathy, Intellectual 
Integrity, Intellectual Perseverance, Faith In Reason, 
Fairmindedness

I will not bore you with an extended summary of these 
here.  However, I think we could all benefit from some 
intellectual humility on the part of the topic 
committee.  We think ya?ll did an awesome job.  Some of 
us don?t like the inclusion of SORT.  Ya?ll admit that 
you didn?t tell anyone anything about it until the topic 
ballot was announced.  In a process that attempted to be 
open (e.g. Mancuso?s May 17 post & Losnegard?s topic 
committee meeting post) why all the deafening silence 
about SORT and adding a bilateral topic to the res?  
Isn?t very consistent is it?  Please show some empathy 
and see our side of things.  Please have the integrity 
to continue to appropriately represent the ?Community? 
and yourself.  Please have the courage to assess this 
situation and try to seek some remedy to solve these 
problems.  I?m not so sure that the vote would still be 
5-4.  Maybe it would be.  I would like you to discuss it 
and report back to us.  

You are all very smart, well-respected, brilliant, 
valuable people.  We greatly appreciate the extra-effort 
that you have all made to make sure that you did the 
best job possible or maybe even ever.  That doesn?t 
eliminate the fact that you shifted burdens and failed 
to seek ?Community? input about a substantial alteration 
to this year?s potential resolutions.  I don?t think 
that these actions negate the positive track record that 
you have thus far managed to produce.  However, I know 
that in circumspect the history of your great work will 
be tainted by your inability to show some humility and 
include the ?Community?.

Thanks for reading if you made it this far.  Please 
speak out if you want the committee to meet again and 
address issues 1-3 in this post.

I pasted the virtues below if you don?t want to click it 
open.

Intellectual Humility: Having a consciousness of the 
limits of one's knowledge, including a sensitivity to 
circumstances in which one's native egocentrism is 
likely to function self-deceptively; sensitivity to 
bias, prejudice and limitations of one's viewpoint. 
Intellectual humility depends on recognizing that one 
should not claim more than one actually knows. It does 
not imply spinelessness or submissiveness. It implies 
the lack of intellectual pretentiousness, boastfulness, 
or conceit, combined with insight into the logical 
foundations, or lack of such foundations, of one's 
beliefs. 
Intellectual Courage: Having a consciousness of the need 
to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs or viewpoints 
toward which we have strong negative emotions and to 
which we have not given a serious hearing. This courage 
is connected with the recognition that ideas considered 
dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified 
(in whole or in part) and that conclusions and beliefs 
inculated in us are sometimes false or misleading. To 
determine for ourselves which is which, we must not 
passively and uncritically " accept" what we have " 
learned." Intellectual courage comes into play here, 
because inevitably we will come to see some truth in 
some ideas considered dangerous and absurd, and 
distortion or falsity in some ideas strongly held in our 
social group. We need courage to be true to our own 
thinking in such circumstances. The penalties for non-
conformity can be severe. 
Intellectual Empathy: Having a consciousness of the need 
to imaginatively put oneself in the place of others in 
order to genuinely understand them, which requires the 
consciousness of our egocentric tendency to identify 
truth with our immediate perceptions of long-standing 
thought or belief. This trait correlates with the 
ability to reconstruct accurately the viewpoints and 
reasoning of others and to reason from premises, 
assumptions, and ideas other than our own. This trait 
also correlates with the willingness to remember 
occasions when we were wrong in the past despite an 
intense conviction that we were right, and with the 
ability to imagine our being similarly deceived in a 
case-at-hand. 
Intellectual Integrity: Recognition of the need to be 
true to one's own thinking; to be consistent in the 
intellectual standards one applies; to hold one's self 
to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to 
which one holds one's antagonists; to practice what one 
advocates for others; and to honestly admit 
discrepancies and inconsistencies in one's own thought 
and action. 
Intellectual Perseverance: Having a consciousness of the 
need to use intellectual insights and truths in spite of 
difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations; firm 
adherence to rational principles despite the irrational 
opposition of others; a sense of the need to struggle 
with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended 
period of time to achieve deeper understanding or 
insight. 
Faith In Reason: Confidence that, in the long run, one's 
own higher interests and those of humankind at large 
will be best served by giving the freest play to reason, 
by encouraging people to come to their own conclusions 
by developing their own rational faculties; faith that, 
with proper encouragement and cultivation, people can 
learn to think for themselves, to form rational 
viewpoints, draw reasonable conclusions, think 
coherently and logically, persuade each other by reason 
and become reasonable persons, despite the deep-seated 
obstacles in the native character of the human mind and 
in society as we know it. 
Fairmindedness: Having a consciousness of the need to 
treat all viewpoints alike, without reference to one's 
own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or 
vested interests of one's friends, ?Community? or 
nation; implies adherence to intellectual standards 
without reference to one's own advantage or the 
advantage of one's group. 

Go in peace, speaking brilliantly,

Jason Stone

--
Director of Debate
100 N. University Ave.
Department of Communication
University of Central Oklahoma
Edmond, OK 73034
(405) 974-5584 (o)




From jasonjarvis  Mon Jun 10 17:09:22 2002
From: jasonjarvis (jasonjarvis at asu.edu)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:09:22 -0700 (MST)
Subject: [eDebate] CIDD/Tour of Japan?
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0206101504400.11157-100000@general2.asu.edu>

I need to get in touch with the folks responsible for organizing the US tour
of Japan.

If anyone knows who this would be (or if you are one of these people) I would
sincerely appreciate a backchannel.

As of next year I will be coaching debate in South Korea and our team would
like to attend some of the tournaments that are held in English in Japan. We
are also interested in hosting the US team in Seoul when it comes to the
region.

Thanks,

Jason Jarvis
Kyung Hee University




From jbhdb8  Mon Jun 10 17:14:45 2002
From: jbhdb8 (jbhdb8 at earthlink.net)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:14:45 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] ans Davis
Message-ID: <Springmail.0994.1023747285.0.35851400@webmail.pas.earthlink.net>

Yes, when there have been grammer errors that were oversights there have been changes (once during my tenure on the committee)...However, there is a difference between fixing a grammer or term of art problem is not precedent for scrapping or changing the ballot itself....In the past, former committees have been very reluctant to change wordings ad hoc.

An interesting side note,  I can never remember a time where some group of people did not DEMAND the topic committee change its ballot...Let me remind everyone of something:

The whole purpose of electing the topic committee is to allow a smaller group to make the hard decisions that would be impossible to be made in a world in which every group of the disgrungtled could change the topic.  Everyone is never happy but that is the nature of the biz.

Josh

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:10:04 -0400 Michael Roston  <wishfull at eudoramail.com> wrote:


I was afraid someone was going to call on me for an example of ballot modification.  I'm not just imagining this, right?  It did happen, no?  Civil Rights topic?  Sanctions topic?  Am I just imagining that this happened?  On one of these topics there was a flaw in one of the resolutions that ended up on the ballot that the topic committee unanimously agreed needed to be changed so that people would be able to vote the way they wanted to.

  Perhaps someone who was paying more attention to topic committee activities in those days might be able to make up for my shakey memory.

---
Michael Roston
-enemy of freedom

"At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."
                    -President Richard Nixon, May 18, 1971



Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com

_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at ndtceda.com
To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




From cpwiii  Mon Jun 10 17:30:32 2002
From: cpwiii (charles woodbury)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:30:32 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] the topic(s) are great
Message-ID: <OE66GnbyqKnPQ4a9rsY00011c46@hotmail.com>

I've read everything on edebate about the topic, and have come to 2 conclusions:

1.  The committee did great (props to Steve Mancuso).

2.  All these (LONG_WINDED) losers should get a life.

Love to all.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/20020610/f17dc9ec/attachment.html 


From DPfister  Mon Jun 10 18:14:01 2002
From: DPfister (Damien Pfister)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 19:14:01 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] the silliness of the CEDAW vs. SORT debate
Message-ID: <200206101914.AA4236771592@fsmail.pace.edu>

>> Ballots have been changed before.  Can be changed again.  Contact your 
>> regional topic committee representative and tell them you want SORT off the 
>> five treaty option.
>
>I'm just curious as to when this has happened before and what provisions 
>exist to change that ballot?

I am pretty sure that the ballot was changed a couple of weeks after the topic committee met for the sanctions topic.  I believe that it was a kind of basic grammatical thing that Hester or someone who thinks about that stuff a lot had pointed out.  I vaguely remember being contacted by Glenda and asked to vote on this a couple of weeks after the topic meeting.  Perhaps someone else who was at that meeting can be more specific about what the change was.  So, there is a precedent for changing the resolutional choices.

Not that I am for that, necessarily, but...

Damien
btw, props to whoever wrote the Foucault vs. Zizek article on LPW.  had me laughing out loud!
 

_______________________________________________________________________
Sent via Pace University's WebMail system at fsmail.pace.edu


 
                   




From jbhdb8  Mon Jun 10 18:28:40 2002
From: jbhdb8 (jbhdb8 at earthlink.net)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 16:28:40 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] ans Davis
Message-ID: <Springmail.0994.1023751720.0.67548300@webmail.pas.earthlink.net>

Yes, it has happened but it is always minor grammatical problems not substantive changes.  Josh

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 17:10:04 -0400 Michael Roston  <wishfull at eudoramail.com> wrote:


I was afraid someone was going to call on me for an example of ballot modification.  I'm not just imagining this, right?  It did happen, no?  Civil Rights topic?  Sanctions topic?  Am I just imagining that this happened?  On one of these topics there was a flaw in one of the resolutions that ended up on the ballot that the topic committee unanimously agreed needed to be changed so that people would be able to vote the way they wanted to.

  Perhaps someone who was paying more attention to topic committee activities in those days might be able to make up for my shakey memory.

---
Michael Roston
-enemy of freedom

"At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."
                    -President Richard Nixon, May 18, 1971



Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com

_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at ndtceda.com
To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




From randyluskey  Mon Jun 10 20:00:56 2002
From: randyluskey (Randy Luskey)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 01:00:56 +0000
Subject: [eDebate] Gordon Stables. . . You out there
Message-ID: <F1588dVJceAtkwzw4MN0001affe@hotmail.com>

Gordon. . . backchannel me. . . desperately seeking advice from the Fantasy 
Baseball Wizard.

Luskey

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From wishfull  Mon Jun 10 21:04:29 2002
From: wishfull (Michael Roston )
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:04:29 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] ans Woodbury/Hoe
Message-ID: <EGJHPNADAHBKMAAA@shared1-mail.whowhere.com>

1.  Ballot changes that have been advocated in the past have been entirely legitimate.  While there is always some pissing and moaning about "oh I wish this topic had won," the only real ballot modification campaign I remember was in the spring of 2000 when the committee in the process of topic selection (not resolution selection) unilaterally excluded two well written topic papers from community consideration and instead preferred to include a topic for which there was an incomplete topic 'essay' with no bibliography.  That was a legitimate complaint, the topic committee overstepped its boundaries, and that ballot should have been changed.  

(Oh yeah, and I gave Josh Hoe some shit once for putting forward a criticism of a resolution paper I once wrote that indicated that the first few paragraphs explaining the purpose of the paper had been skipped.  Was I wrong?)

The tone of these two messages, and others that came before, is nothing short of rude, disrespectfal, and and indication of lack of respect for fellow community members.  If you disagree with the idea that the topic ballot should be changed, don't advocate its change, and explain why inclusion of SORT for 3-4 weeks of the season will be a good thing.  

People should not sit on thrones and pretend that they have some superior understanding of how this process works.  Topic committees have a lot of work to do, and mistakes do get made, sometimes on the wind of 5-4 votes.  Nothing in the Constitution indicates that the topic committee's say presents finality on what the content of the ballot will be.  

In any institution with democratic values, something I hope and beliieve the debate community aspires to, decisions have to be made about what is and is not included on a ballot for general voting.  When something is excluded, a challenge and a review of the procedure that was undertaken is necessary to retain that democratic spirit.  If the topic committee seeks input before its work is completed, there is no reason it should be immune from input once it has recessed.

2.  The inclusion of SORT is the equivalent of a grammatical error.  That the treaty will be off the resolution by the middle of October will adversely affect voting patterns in unpredictable ways that may result in adverse topic selection outcomes that will make people unhappy with the results.  I've already explained two voting scenarios that can have deleterious effects on varying camps within the debate community.  Replacing SORT is the best solution to that problem.


---
Michael Roston
-enemy of freedom

"At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."
                    -President Richard Nixon, May 18, 1971



Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com




From ucodebate  Mon Jun 10 21:13:07 2002
From: ucodebate (ucodebate at att.net)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 02:13:07 +0000
Subject: [eDebate] the topics are deeply flawed
Message-ID: <20020611021307.FVFD19182.mtiwmhc21.worldnet.att.net@webmail.worldnet.att.net>

Charles,

simpleton suck up.  The topics violate the format of 
over 56 years of topic making. How's that for word 
economy.

Jason Stone-
Director of Debate
100 N. University Ave.
Department of Communication
University of Central Oklahoma
Edmond, OK 73034
(405) 974-5584 (o)
> I've read everything on edebate about the topic, and have come to 2 conclusions:
> 
> 1.  The committee did great (props to Steve Mancuso).
> 
> 2.  All these (LONG_WINDED) losers should get a life.
> 
> Love to all.Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : 
> http://explorer.msn.com
> 




From let_the_american_empire_burn  Mon Jun 10 21:29:15 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 21:29:15 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] response to Michelin (on behalf of SLF)
Message-ID: <F63hotjCjWEF0HG0anl000182ec@hotmail.com>

Michelin:

Without knowing anything about psychoanalysis, folks can still repeat 
assumptions due to its successful cultural reproduction in western societies 
in the last century. For instance, most americans would probably agree that 
a household with a father figure and a mother figure is the best to raise a 
child in, right? These assumptions about the bourgeois family are what still 
enable most people to oppose policies which permit lesbian, gay & transexual 
families from adopting children. Now, where did they learn this crap? One 
Mr. Freud, and his Oedipul triangulation theory: daddy-mommy-me. (See 
'Anti-Oedipus', and read the last part first: might help ya see where 
they're going.)

As for your questions for Jack, the Schizo Liberation Front refers to 
themself in third person plural. Perhaps this parodies the way the god of 
the judeo-christian bible refers to themselves ('we are saddened by your 
eating the forbidden fruit, get the fuck away from us!'), or perhaps it 
parodies how courts-of-law still refer to themselves. Ultimately, i think it 
satirizes representative discourse - the way official-sounding folks derive 
authority from speaking for others. i think its funny; and if you no likey, 
Michelin Massey, then go tie the heavy rock of 'correct grammar' to your leg 
and throw it in a deep lake. :) i tawk how i tawk, savy?

As for 'outcomes' and 'messages' blahblahblah, that process is constantly 
unfolding in SLF's every next post. Jack's anger is understandible, but it 
doesn't mean he's out for 'personal revenge' - if that's what he wanted, he 
probably could sue for wrongful termination. What he's after is to provoke 
debaters to think differently about this activity, to not eat the shit 
they're fed by 'kritik' coaches who couldn't give a good goddamn about 
genuine 'democratic empowerment'. As that Zizek quotation i mentioned 
earlier said, ridicule is a tactic for 'kynical subversion' - it deflates 
the rhetoric of puffed-shirts and attacks their institutional authority (not 
them personally). The authors Jack quotes make a lot of handbook publishers 
and squads and institutes an awful lot of money, and yet no one seems to 
take these authors seriously - good work is reduced to cannon fodder 
'cards'.

And despite numerous detours (some of which even crossed my ethical lines), 
i think SLF has been successful - Kuswa, Emerson, Hoe, Evans, and 'kritik' 
coaches generally have not been able to defend against SLF without 
'double-turning' themselves by reducing the importance of Foucault, Delueze 
& Guattari, Habermas, Zizek, etc, and what their works say about the 
activity of forensics. If this were a debate round, its fairly obvious who 
would get the ballot; there's simply been too many 'drops' as ya'll say.

But why has Stroube won, Michelin? because even you "DON'T THINK THAT ANYONE 
FROM THE CURRENT UT POWER STRUCTURE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN A DISCUSSION OVER 
ITS INSTITUTIONAL PRACTICES IN A PUBLIC FORUM" - that's a fucking quote. So 
cutting Foucault as 'evidence' (no matter that Foucault spent a life-time 
criticizing legal assumptions like this), that UT has under control. BUT 
ACTUALLY READING FOUCAULT, listening to what he says about how we've all 
been disciplined, hearing him when he talks about administrative bureaucracy 
and societal normalization and everyday panopticisms, and applying what he 
worked his heart out to give us, a way of confronting the pedagogy of 
disciplinary skools - that UT has no control of and no desire for, because 
it doesn't win rounds. Even Michelin can see the hypocrisy, and even 
Michelin can see what UT really considers important: "the UT debate program 
will still recruit talented debaters and get teams into elims at highly 
competitive tournaments."

Another thing, Michelin: Utilitarianism is dumb. Real change does not occur 
when critics try to pre-calculate how many people will be affected and how 
many positive outcomes will develop, because that calculative mindset is not 
the state of mind that fosters honest criticism. In 'What is 
Enlightenment?', Foucault's succint defense of his life's work, he says 
critique is an ethos - an ethical attitude. Its not about reaching a 'target 
audience,' its about writing for that 2 or 3% who may find what one thinks 
interesting. And what's wrong with 'criticism for criticism's sake'? You can 
spend all your time worrying about whether you can change the world, or you 
can immediately let the world know that it won't change you - i prefer the 
latter, even if it means 'airing out dirty laundry for all the community to 
see'.

If 'movements organize,' Michelin, it will be the out-growth of the 
activists in this forum questioning anew what it means to debate. You ask 
too much of Jack and too little of those in institutional roles - he's doing 
his part well. (You also mentioned my little project, and I'm still waiting 
on word back from UT's office which deals with request for public documents. 
(There was some strange e-mail set-backs.) But i think disclosure is 
immanent, considering Texas Public Information Law.)

Sorry for any repetition. In short, its time to start asking new and 
difficult questions ... and *precisely because* most folks would rather not.

No, says UT? More pot-smoking? More tournament-winning? More selling-out of 
critique? .... ticktickticktickticktick    :kev

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From tejinder  Mon Jun 10 21:56:42 2002
From: tejinder (Tejinder Singh)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 19:56:42 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Re: Size Does Matter
Message-ID: <3D2EF364@bearmail.berkeley.edu>

So JP asked me whether I would have been unprepared had there only been 9 
cases on the Indians topic...

In exactly zero of our negative debates at UNI did we have a good argument to 
put on anybody's case. By the NDT, we had some args on the case, but we were 
mostly still kinda nervous there. My point isn't necessarily that it's 
impossible to prep 9 cases by the end of the year. In fact, I think that JP's 
probably right that by the NDT, we could theoretically be ready to roll on all 
9 if that topic gets picked. My point is a little different. The 9 treaties 
that we'd be dealing with on this topic are so diverse in nature that I think 
that at the start of the year, research time would be better spent on the 
genero-kritik or some sketchy process CP than it would on trying to get 
prepped for all the cases. Even if by the NDT, everybody is ready to debate 
the case, there is no squad that I know of who wants to lose at UNI, which 
means that if you can't be ready for UNI by sacking up and debating the case, 
then it might be smart to adopt a different tactic. So what I'm saying, I 
guess, is that we shouldn't try to place teams in a position where they're 
likely to make that decision. And the reason I think that the start of the 
year is important is that if you win at the start of the year with the weak 
strats, it's unlikely that you'll radically change research focus at some 
point later in the year, except maybe right before the NDT, when there's a 
break after Northwestern/the Heart. We all know how the year catches up to us. 
Eventually december rolls around and you have to deal with finals and you 
can't really cut as many cards as you wanted to, or the tournaments are coming 
too quick and you're too busy intelligence gathering and getting cites for 
other people's generic strats, etc etc. I just think that entering the case 
debate research market once the year starts is a daunting task, and so 
investing the time in the summer is really important.

I think that JP makes a pretty good argument when he says that by the end of 
the year, the sanctions topic got a little boring. I'm sorta with him on this 
one. In fact, I thought that topic sucked. But I probably thought it sucked 
because I couldn't win an aff round on it to save my life. Everybody else 
seemed to really like it...In any case, I think there are mechanisms that will 
probably prevent staleness in the topic, like varied mechanisms for 
implementation, and the fact that negative strategies have potential to vary 
intensely, from the domestic CP to the "ratify but don't implement" CP to 
whatever else...I think negs will be able to steer the debates to a degree and 
keep it real on important facets of the case. Furthermore, I don't think that 
9 treaties really solves this. The way I see it, one or the other one of us is 
right...either, as JP says, 9 cases are ok and you can be ready to roll on 
them in relatively short order, in which case they'll be only slightly less 
stale than 5 cases...or, I'm right, and they're impossible to prepare 
adequately for over the summer, which means fewer squads want case specific 
strategies, which in turn means that it doesn't matter which aff you run, 
because the neg strat will be the same schwag anyway. Furthermore, I'm not 
sure if staleness was enough of a warrant for anybody to change affs on the 
sanctions topic. For example, if we had added four more countries to that 
topic in February or March, I doubt that JP would have said, "Dude, you know, 
I'm so bored debating North Korea, I think I'll, you know, switch over to 
Libya now, you know." I mean, some might have, for the element of surprise and 
for the sake of having a new aff at the NDT or something, but that's only 
because the hypothetical scenario that I proposed is kinda stupid. If the 
names of all those countries were known at the start of the season, that 
element of surprise would be gone, and I don't think staleness would've caused 
people to change affs. A decline in strategic value or the evolution of neg 
strategies might prompt such a shift, but that's different from boredom. And 
honestly, if neg strategies are getting better, then affs shouldn't get to 
switch to cases where strats are worse...they should figure out if their aff 
is really a good idea by debating it.

I'm sure JP or somebody will answer me soon, but I still stand resolved in 
favor of a smaller topic for next year.

Tejinder





From jbhdb8  Mon Jun 10 22:50:48 2002
From: jbhdb8 (jbhdb8 at earthlink.net)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 20:50:48 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] ans Woodbury/Hoe
Message-ID: <Springmail.0994.1023767448.0.18238700@webmail.pas.earthlink.net>

How exactly was I disrespecting you - was it by disagreeing?  Are you honestly going to claim that you know what is going to happen to the US-Russia treaty?

Josh

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 22:04:29 -0400 Michael Roston  <wishfull at eudoramail.com> wrote:


1.  Ballot changes that have been advocated in the past have been entirely legitimate.  While there is always some pissing and moaning about "oh I wish this topic had won," the only real ballot modification campaign I remember was in the spring of 2000 when the committee in the process of topic selection (not resolution selection) unilaterally excluded two well written topic papers from community consideration and instead preferred to include a topic for which there was an incomplete topic 'essay' with no bibliography.  That was a legitimate complaint, the topic committee overstepped its boundaries, and that ballot should have been changed.  

(Oh yeah, and I gave Josh Hoe some shit once for putting forward a criticism of a resolution paper I once wrote that indicated that the first few paragraphs explaining the purpose of the paper had been skipped.  Was I wrong?)

The tone of these two messages, and others that came before, is nothing short of rude, disrespectfal, and and indication of lack of respect for fellow community members.  If you disagree with the idea that the topic ballot should be changed, don't advocate its change, and explain why inclusion of SORT for 3-4 weeks of the season will be a good thing.  

People should not sit on thrones and pretend that they have some superior understanding of how this process works.  Topic committees have a lot of work to do, and mistakes do get made, sometimes on the wind of 5-4 votes.  Nothing in the Constitution indicates that the topic committee's say presents finality on what the content of the ballot will be.  

In any institution with democratic values, something I hope and beliieve the debate community aspires to, decisions have to be made about what is and is not included on a ballot for general voting.  When something is excluded, a challenge and a review of the procedure that was undertaken is necessary to retain that democratic spirit.  If the topic committee seeks input before its work is completed, there is no reason it should be immune from input once it has recessed.

2.  The inclusion of SORT is the equivalent of a grammatical error.  That the treaty will be off the resolution by the middle of October will adversely affect voting patterns in unpredictable ways that may result in adverse topic selection outcomes that will make people unhappy with the results.  I've already explained two voting scenarios that can have deleterious effects on varying camps within the debate community.  Replacing SORT is the best solution to that problem.


---
Michael Roston
-enemy of freedom

"At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."
                    -President Richard Nixon, May 18, 1971



Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com

_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at ndtceda.com
To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




From cpwiii  Tue Jun 11 00:31:24 2002
From: cpwiii (charles woodbury)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 00:31:24 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] have a nice year
Message-ID: <OE586Xv18nHpygfOMMz00012049@hotmail.com>

Congrats to ALL!   

I am not sure about the topic, but after 30 years of judging, I'm sure that the EXTENDED debate about the topic will be SILLY.

As a final thought I think the limited topic is best.  NO ARGUMENTS.  Just my best guess.

I hope this will be published---freedom of speech and alll that that implies.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/20020611/02ad4b06/attachment.htm 


From elliotts  Mon Jun 10 11:43:57 2002
From: elliotts (Scott Elliott)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 11:43:57 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Interesting Article on a new WMD
Message-ID: <sd049123.082@bswllp.com>

Monkeypox could be used as bioweapon 

                By Steve Mitchell
                UPI Medical Correspondent
                From the Science & Technology Desk
                Published 6/9/2002 4:45 AM
                View printer-friendly version

                The Russians worked with monkeypox virus, a close cousin to smallpox, in their bioweapons program and it
                is possible terrorists could use it in a biological attack against the United States, scientists and former
                United Nations weapons inspectors told United Press International.

                Although some biological weapons experts are concerned with the possibility of terrorists using another
                smallpox-related virus called camelpox, which Iraq has admitted to researching, Mark Buller, a biologist at
                Saint Louis University who conducts research on smallpox vaccines, said he is more concerned about
                monkeypox.

                Buller's concern stems from the fact that monkeypox, unlike camelpox, causes mortality in humans and
                the incidence of human infection is on the rise in central and western Africa. 

                In addition, the Russian biowarfare experts are known to have worked with the virus in the Soviet Union's
                biological weapons program.

                The Soviets decided they did not want to work with smallpox by the late 1980's "and there was significant
                discussion of the possible use of monkeypox as a biological weapon instead of smallpox," Ken Alibek, who
                was former deputy chief of the Soviet biological weapons program and now resides in the U.S., told UPI.

                Monkeypox, which causes symptoms similar to smallpox, can be fatal, but only in the minority of cases,
                said James LeDuc, director of the division of viral and rickettsial diseases at the Centers for Disease Control
                and Prevention in Atlanta. He said he is "not aware of any cases outside" Africa. 

                The World Health Organization attributes the increase in monkeypox cases in Africa to the fact that
                smallpox vaccines, which can protect against monkeypox, are no longer administered.

                LeDuc said it is uncertain whether the disease is on the increase, but he noted there appears to have been
                an outbreak of the disease in Africa about 6 months ago.

                The "real fear is that (monkeypox) might be engineered as a bioweapon," said Jonathan Tucker, a former
                weapons inspector for the United Nations Special Commission who is now with the think tank Monterey
                Institute in Washington.

                Monkeypox is not as contagious as smallpox, but whether it could be or has been modified to be more
                virulent is unknown. The Soviets were not concerned with contagiousness, Alibek said, because they
                planned to produce "tons and tons" of the virus -- enough to infect "hundred of thousands of people or even
                more."

                Tucker noted the smallpox vaccine will protect against both monkeypox and camelpox, but Americans do
                not have access to this vaccine. The CDC, which holds a stockpile of the smallpox vaccine, is currently
                reconsidering its vaccination strategy and whether to vaccinate everyone or wait until there is an outbreak
                and try to vaccinate only those exposed.

                There are concerns that Russia's smallpox may have been leaked to terrorists, and whether something
                similar happened with monkeypox is uncertain. Another former U.N. weapons inspector, who requested
                anonymity, told UPI "There's no confirmation that (monkeypox) leaked out, but the potential exists." 

                Alibek said he had no idea whether monkeypox had ever been leaked out of the Soviet program. But he
                noted that from the 1970s until the 1990s, "it was not a problem to get any of the orthopox viruses
                (smallpox, camelpox and monkeypox)," and many countries had access to them if they wanted them.

                Iraq is one of the rogue states that may have obtained access to monkeypox. "We've never ever gotten to
                the bottom of their involvement with camelpox, whether they were really trying to weaponize it or it was a
                fa?ade for working with smallpox or monkeypox," said the former U.N. inspector, who was a member of the
                team that went into Iraq.

                There is a lot of suspicion that Iraq had access to smallpox, but "there's no such indirect evidence for
                monkeypox," the inspector said. Asked if monkeypox was less of a concern than smallpox, the inspector
                replied, "I wouldn't say it's of less concern ... The fact that we haven't come across evidence from the United
                Nations doesn't mean it's not there."

                No U.N. weapons inspectors have been in Iraq since 1998, so unless the government acknowledges
                working with a particular biological agent it is difficult to know for certain whether they ever worked with it.
                No one has any idea what types of agents they have worked with in the past three years, the inspector
                said.

                Iraq is "likely to work with any nasty that comes along" and the government has shown an interest "in all
                the orthopox viruses," so "it's a strong possibility that they were" working with monkeypox, the inspector
                said.

                The good news is that monkeypox does not appear to be transmissible from person to person and the
                smallpox vaccine protects against it. Asked whether monkeypox could be modified so that the vaccine is
                not effective against it, the former weapons inspector said, "I would say that verges on the impossible."

                Alibek noted, "There was no such work in getting it resistant to vaccine. I cannot say anything for sure
                about what they are doing now." Alibek said he left the program more than 10 years ago.

                "Making it elusive to the vaccine would be a challenge," CDC's LeDuc said. "The position that we've always
                held is that it would be very difficult to overcome the vaccine by genetic engineering."

                However, Alibek added, "Existent vaccines are not 100 percent effective" against smallpox. They only offer
                approximately 70 percent protection. "Against monkeypox, the protection could be even lower," he said.
                "So even if everybody is vaccinated against smallpox, it doesn't mean everybody is protected."

                Copyright ? 2002 United Press International




From elliotts  Mon Jun 10 15:03:31 2002
From: elliotts (Scott Elliott)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 15:03:31 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Topic Selection Process--a point on History
Message-ID: <sd04bfd6.047@bswllp.com>

I recall that on the Space topic, during the summer camps, it dawned on people that the Earth was in "space" and therefore LANDSATS and  ocean mapping were topical. The high schools changed their topic to explore..." beyond the earth's mesosphere"  or words to that effect.

My point: Perhaps the topic should be open to modification even after it has been voted on. Perhaps the topic committe should be allowed to revisit (by e-mail or teleconference) the topic after the debate camp/institutes have begun more in-depth research--and have ferreted out potential problems.

When it comes to debate topics, debatability is far more important than some   strange need to have democracy in the voting process. Let the representatives on the topic committee choose the best topic after they have seen the results of a first draft via institutes. 

Otherwise, the debate community will be saddled with topics that continue to pretty much suck. PICS, Bush and K's  WOOO HOOO!

Scott Elliott





From serena_turley  Tue Jun 11 01:58:37 2002
From: serena_turley (Serena Turley)
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2002 23:58:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Chris Cooper Please
Message-ID: <20020611065837.77690.qmail@web12808.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi Coop.

Please backchannel me.  Kind of time sensitive.

Thanks!
Serena
AZ State



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com




From let_the_american_empire_burn  Tue Jun 11 06:59:30 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 06:59:30 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Re:Does Size Matter (Analyzing A Telling Instance of Mono-Competitive Discourse)
Message-ID: <F69CBRELiemHEBX9Bh50001881a@hotmail.com>

Let's take this opportunity to analyze what fundamental assumptions are 
underneath the 'topic-talk' of one Tejinder Singh, from Berkeley U. What 
we're looking for is what discursive power-knowledge relations are at work 
as regards debate's underlying practices of argumentation. Now imagine, if 
you will, that the year is 2075; you're a historian researching a book about 
academic forensics at the turn of the century. What does this post say about 
this community's way of thinking about truth and social reality at this 
particular time&space? Here we go:

"In exactly zero of our negative debates ... did we have a good argument to 
put on anybody's case [a affirmative side's policy proposal]. By the NDT 
[the final, major tournament on a given resolutional topic], we had some 
args on the case, but we were mostly still kinda nervous there."

Notice the distinction between an affirmative side and a negative side, 
indepedent entities composed of continually-constructed histories, 
determined solely by how many contest-rounds a side has won or lost for a 
particular team or region. If a strategic advantage of one side over another 
occurs, then the resolutional topic is immediately seen as faulty. Like 
entering a battlefield unprepared, this provokes 'nervous'-ness - a 
measurable, rank-able level of anxiety.

"In fact, I think that JP's [a fellow coach] probably right that by the NDT, 
we could theoretically be ready to roll on all 9 [cases] if that topic [the 
Indian Country treaty resolution] gets picked."

'Ready to roll' means prepared to win against other teams with case-specific 
argumentation - also a military analogy for military readiness. The function 
of argumentative theory in academic forensics is near-identical to function 
tactical theory in military force-deployments. (Cross-reference Von 
Clausewitz's distinction between tactics and strategy in 'On War.') Here 
truth is strategy - and value is defined by whether a position can be 
successfully defended.

"The 9 treaties that we'd be dealing with on this topic are so diverse in 
nature that I think that at the start of the year, research time would be 
better spent on the genero-kritik or some sketchy process CP than it would 
on trying to get prepped for all the cases."

To the logic of the negative side, even on a resolutional topic limited to a 
mere 9 cases, preparation for debating a case on an affirmative's terms (ie. 
a 'case debate') is not as strategically advantageous as preparation for a 
"genero-kritik" or a "sketchy CP" (ie. totalizing arguments where a 'link' 
or a 'net benefit' may be inserted later to construct a catastrophic 'impact 
scenario' or other bombastic disadvantage). Notice also that 'research time' 
should only be spent researching strategically valuable arguments, or 
'winning positions.' 'Research time' is also seen as 'zero-sum'; and since 
time spent researching an interesting or fun or ethical or specific or 
'long-shot' argument directly 'trades-off' with strategic ones, coaches are 
sure to instruct their debaters to use their time to maximum 
strategic-value. (Cross-reference, the concept of 'maximum efficiency' in 
Foucault's geneaology of modern disciplinary power. 'Discipline & Punish', 
part III.)

"Even if by the NDT, everybody is ready to debate the case, there is no 
squad that I know of who wants to lose at UNI [search me?], which means that 
if you can't be ready for UNI by sacking up and debating the case,
then it might be smart to adopt a different tactic. So what I'm saying, I 
guess, is that we shouldn't try to place teams in a position where they're 
likely to make that decision. And the reason I think that the start of the 
year is important is that if you win at the start of the year with the weak 
strats, it's unlikely that you'll radically change research focus at some 
point later in the year, except maybe right before the NDT, when there's a 
break after Northwestern/the Heart."

Interesting comparison to the logic of the military build-up of Cold War I 
(1945-1989). If a super-power is no longer willing to match  conventional 
force for conventional force (due to ensuing losses), then a super-power 
will manufcture greater armaments. This causes counter-balancing 
super-powers to do likewise, thereby re-defining what forces are defined as 
'conventional' for other powerful nation-states to own. A focus on not 
putting any player in a position where they'll have to use catastrophic 
weapons predominates. Trying to avoiding these mistakes (while 
simultaenously making horrible mistakes possible) did not eliminate their 
potentiality or actuality (eg: Cuban Missle Crisis, Kashmir Nuclear 
Conflict, and boring, inept debate-rounds). Hence cultural change in new 
directions becomes decidely 'unlikely'. 'Weak strategies' which still 
provide 'wins' to dominant players are rarely radically altered.

"We all know how the year catches up to us. Eventually december rolls around 
and you have to deal with finals and you can't really cut as many cards as 
you wanted to, or the tournaments are coming too quick and you're too busy 
intelligence gathering and getting cites for
other people's generic strats, etc etc."

Intelligence gathering 'trades-off' with original research; weekly 
tournaments put tremendous pressure on squads as well as narrow 
time-constraints; the amount of 'cards' a team cuts is significantly 
determinative of whether they'll win or not. (Someone told me college debate 
was different than high skool debate?)

"I just think that entering the case debate research market once the year 
starts is a daunting task, and so investing the time in the summer is really 
important." - (Time as 'investment'; research as 'market'.)

"[9 cases are] impossible to prepare adequately for over the summer, which 
means fewer squads want case specific strategies, which in turn means that 
it doesn't matter which aff you run, because the neg strat will be the same 
schwag anyway." - (By this logic, does the topic ever matter either?)

TS assumes an ideal point will be reached when teams have a continual 
incentive to research new arguments, thus preventing 'staleness' and 
'boredom'. I ask: How did anyone ever become convinced that staleness and 
boredom were at all preventable *by* a mono-competitive structure? And why 
correlate their opposite, that is, excitment in the new, with an ideal point 
*within* a mono-competitve structure? My hunch: this idealism masks, 
produces, and keeps in-check investments of competitive desire in this 
agon-market (an idealism this post tries to rupture).

"Furthermore, I'm not sure if staleness was enough of a warrant for anybody 
to change affs on the sanctions topic. For example, if we had added four 
more countries to that topic in February or March, I doubt that JP would 
have said, "Dude, you know, I'm so bored debating North Korea, I think I'll, 
you know, switch over to Libya now, you know." I mean, some might have, for 
the element of surprise ..."

Newness is reduced to 'the element of surprise' and entire countries are 
reduced to boring or exciting arenas of strategic argument. Scary.

"I don't think staleness would've caused people to change affs. A decline in 
strategic value or the evolution of neg strategies might prompt such a 
shift, but that's different from boredom."

So a satisfying distribution of 'wins' ensures that a boring topic of 
discussion can continue indefinitely.
Conclusion: 'Fairness,' 'skill,' 'education,' 'democratic empowerment,' even 
'clash' (or any other of debate's ideals, including 'activism' and 
'performativity') do not play any significant role in this forum's 
functioning, except when they increase 'strategic value.' (Cross-reference 
Alfred Snider's 'Unifying Gaming Paradigm.') The very ways this community 
chooses its topic, the very ways this community spends its time, reveal a 
mono-competitive paradigm.

TS: "I still stand resolved in favor of a smaller topic for next year."

C'mon now, does size really matter?    :kev


Two Ater-thoughts: Debunking idealism does not mean reverting back to the 
realism displayed so well by TS. Perhaps folks can posit a constructivist 
(de-)position(ing), a new understanding of what debate is and a new 
re-working of what debate can be. Perhaps not.
- Everyone works like Snider thinks, everybody knows Gordon Mitchell is 
right but no one agrees, and no one (yet) understand Jack Stroube.


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com




From privethedge  Tue Jun 11 07:18:55 2002
From: privethedge (Duane Hyland)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 05:18:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Stefan?
Message-ID: <20020611121855.71419.qmail@web10005.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi, If you're not to busy, can you b/c me? Thanks, Duane

"Very bored in Barad-Dur. Nothing to do but play Scrabble with Orcs. Is very annoying as Orcs only know Black Speech of Mordor. You try spelling Azg Nazg Gimbatul for a triple word score. Yeah, I didn't think so."  Secret Diary of the 5th Wring Wraith - LOTR
"Have agreed to carry Ring to Mordor. In hindsight, probably a bad move." - Frodo's Diary - LOTR



 


 



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020611/492a058f/attachment.html 


From totalbs3000  Tue Jun 11 09:56:39 2002
From: totalbs3000 (tom payne)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:56:39 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Vote splitting, korcok, and tomatoes
Message-ID: <F230YoZ9GAC4Cl0WbAK00018813@hotmail.com>

Alright, don't really have time for this.  Researchable topic areas are out, 
and I got case cards to cut.  Can't wait to get to the crackpot central 
library in SMS' Defense and Strategic Studies Department.  I guess we will 
see how tight the reduce to 1500 warhead cards are after cutting the "you'll 
get my nukes when you pry them from my cold dead hands" books.  And this 
account is a dummy account that was supposed to exist for 5 minutes to post 
a message to the list now that it is moderated, and requires subscribing.  
For those that have backsmacked me on it, it ain't really read.
   Anyway, Korcok is 75 percent right.  Most of which, is inconsequential to 
my point.  Kerpen made a claim that vote splitting is ONE HUNDERED PERCENT 
BOGUS.  This is just patently false.  He has strung solvency too tight.  It 
is like them there Whole REz deebaits Korcok used to love so much.  One 
counterwarrant, makes for game set match.  So we will post the MORE simple 
vote split harm scenario, and strictly follow Korcok's definitions of vote 
splitting, I think it is toe-may-toe toe-mah-toe, but point taken.  Here is 
the simple one

small gets 8
medium gets 6
large gets 12

for first place, the rest is irrelevent, Mike can divide as he chooses.

In this case, medium gets tossed, and large and small duke it out.

Now split small RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE.  Say we follow Mikes rules and it 
goes 1-2 1-2 1-2 1-2 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-1, it doesn't really  matter.  Why?  
CAuse now each got 4, both tie for last, and both get pitched.  Now medium 
dukes it out with large.  Read Jarman's 4-20 post describing the system.  
This system hedges against vote-splitting, and  does test for some more 
specific conditions, like are you pro-small in all instances, or only when 
blah.  It can also INCREASE damage from vote splitting, and is NOT a 
panacea. Despite Kerpen's claim, you CANNOT simply throw choice after choice 
on the ballot, and let transference rectify it all out.

I will repeat from before.  When making sets of resolutions you have to
multiply the number of variables within each group by each group.  THIS IS 
INSANELY large.  If you have three verb choices, and 6 treaties, and 4 
groups, and 2 ways to do reservations, then you have like 144 ballot 
possibilities.
Yes the add CEDAW is only one topic, but Dallas' reservations complaint 
would be another, then you have to combine each of the permutations of 
reservations, and With CEDAW and with SORT, and blah blah blah.  To repeat 
Hoe, that is why we have a topic committee.  To make the hard decisions.  To 
be honest, I was anti-SORT.  I follow the when in doubt leave it out 
philosophy, and did not like the unpredictability of the lit or the 
ratification issue.  I like small and narrow topics, and think SORT is too 
uncontrollable and unpredictable.  I would have put in Basel or CBD instead, 
but when compared to CEDAW, I think the side slant to rights is CRUSHING.  
It is the reason the E school ranked
one high and the other low, it shows the point Mike makes, but was meant to, 
call it what you want, it CHANGES the ballot.  Small is prefered within 
boundaries (ie not STUPID small).

But that is just an aside, the real point is the technial, the TKO, the 
chump buster.  The claim that STV, or whatever this is called, solves vote 
splitting 100 percent, is 100 and 50 percent untenable.  It is a 
non-contest, University of Martin HArris (looking to affliate with a 
University near you) stays undefeated.  At least Mike didn;t call me a tard. 
  Maybe that is reserved for the endgame :).  The rest will have to be for 
the inevitable conference paper.
Still have to refresh my combinatorics, and discrete math rules, also brush 
up on the stats.  Hell maybe Korcok will take me up on some co-number 
cooking and together we can play with all the numbers and agree to defend 
different positions.  Maybe fun for a CAD issue on tournament procedures or 
something.

PEace
Martin



_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com




From matt_gerber27  Tue Jun 11 11:03:59 2002
From: matt_gerber27 (Matt Gerber)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:03:59 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] UDL article in USN&WR
Message-ID: <F107halxyPyF1BcI3Em0000182b@hotmail.com>

I just thought I would let people know, there is a two-page article about 
the growth of urban debate leagues in the June 17 issue of U.S. News & World 
Report.

Matt- KU

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com




From rajdebate  Tue Jun 11 11:05:51 2002
From: rajdebate (Raja Gaddipati)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:05:51 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Re:Does Size Matter (Analyzing A Telling Instance of Mono-Competitive Discourse)
Message-ID: <DPOOCPHFABLOOAAA@mailcity.com>

Mr. Sanchez, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this listserve is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. 

Raja Gaddipati 
[edebate post borrowed with modifications from Billy Madison]



On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 06:59:30  
 Kevin Sanchez wrote:
>Let's take this opportunity to analyze what fundamental assumptions are 
>underneath the 'topic-talk' of one Tejinder Singh, from Berkeley U. What 
>we're looking for is what discursive power-knowledge relations are at work 
>as regards debate's underlying practices of argumentation. Now imagine, if 
>you will, that the year is 2075; you're a historian researching a book about 
>academic forensics at the turn of the century. What does this post say about 
>this community's way of thinking about truth and social reality at this 
>particular time&space? Here we go:
>
>"In exactly zero of our negative debates ... did we have a good argument to 
>put on anybody's case [a affirmative side's policy proposal]. By the NDT 
>[the final, major tournament on a given resolutional topic], we had some 
>args on the case, but we were mostly still kinda nervous there."
>
>Notice the distinction between an affirmative side and a negative side, 
>indepedent entities composed of continually-constructed histories, 
>determined solely by how many contest-rounds a side has won or lost for a 
>particular team or region. If a strategic advantage of one side over another 
>occurs, then the resolutional topic is immediately seen as faulty. Like 
>entering a battlefield unprepared, this provokes 'nervous'-ness - a 
>measurable, rank-able level of anxiety.
>
>"In fact, I think that JP's [a fellow coach] probably right that by the NDT, 
>we could theoretically be ready to roll on all 9 [cases] if that topic [the 
>Indian Country treaty resolution] gets picked."
>
>'Ready to roll' means prepared to win against other teams with case-specific 
>argumentation - also a military analogy for military readiness. The function 
>of argumentative theory in academic forensics is near-identical to function 
>tactical theory in military force-deployments. (Cross-reference Von 
>Clausewitz's distinction between tactics and strategy in 'On War.') Here 
>truth is strategy - and value is defined by whether a position can be 
>successfully defended.
>
>"The 9 treaties that we'd be dealing with on this topic are so diverse in 
>nature that I think that at the start of the year, research time would be 
>better spent on the genero-kritik or some sketchy process CP than it would 
>on trying to get prepped for all the cases."
>
>To the logic of the negative side, even on a resolutional topic limited to a 
>mere 9 cases, preparation for debating a case on an affirmative's terms (ie. 
>a 'case debate') is not as strategically advantageous as preparation for a 
>"genero-kritik" or a "sketchy CP" (ie. totalizing arguments where a 'link' 
>or a 'net benefit' may be inserted later to construct a catastrophic 'impact 
>scenario' or other bombastic disadvantage). Notice also that 'research time' 
>should only be spent researching strategically valuable arguments, or 
>'winning positions.' 'Research time' is also seen as 'zero-sum'; and since 
>time spent researching an interesting or fun or ethical or specific or 
>'long-shot' argument directly 'trades-off' with strategic ones, coaches are 
>sure to instruct their debaters to use their time to maximum 
>strategic-value. (Cross-reference, the concept of 'maximum efficiency' in 
>Foucault's geneaology of modern disciplinary power. 'Discipline & Punish', 
>part III.)
>
>"Even if by the NDT, everybody is ready to debate the case, there is no 
>squad that I know of who wants to lose at UNI [search me?], which means that 
>if you can't be ready for UNI by sacking up and debating the case,
>then it might be smart to adopt a different tactic. So what I'm saying, I 
>guess, is that we shouldn't try to place teams in a position where they're 
>likely to make that decision. And the reason I think that the start of the 
>year is important is that if you win at the start of the year with the weak 
>strats, it's unlikely that you'll radically change research focus at some 
>point later in the year, except maybe right before the NDT, when there's a 
>break after Northwestern/the Heart."
>
>Interesting comparison to the logic of the military build-up of Cold War I 
>(1945-1989). If a super-power is no longer willing to match  conventional 
>force for conventional force (due to ensuing losses), then a super-power 
>will manufcture greater armaments. This causes counter-balancing 
>super-powers to do likewise, thereby re-defining what forces are defined as 
>'conventional' for other powerful nation-states to own. A focus on not 
>putting any player in a position where they'll have to use catastrophic 
>weapons predominates. Trying to avoiding these mistakes (while 
>simultaenously making horrible mistakes possible) did not eliminate their 
>potentiality or actuality (eg: Cuban Missle Crisis, Kashmir Nuclear 
>Conflict, and boring, inept debate-rounds). Hence cultural change in new 
>directions becomes decidely 'unlikely'. 'Weak strategies' which still 
>provide 'wins' to dominant players are rarely radically altered.
>
>"We all know how the year catches up to us. Eventually december rolls around 
>and you have to deal with finals and you can't really cut as many cards as 
>you wanted to, or the tournaments are coming too quick and you're too busy 
>intelligence gathering and getting cites for
>other people's generic strats, etc etc."
>
>Intelligence gathering 'trades-off' with original research; weekly 
>tournaments put tremendous pressure on squads as well as narrow 
>time-constraints; the amount of 'cards' a team cuts is significantly 
>determinative of whether they'll win or not. (Someone told me college debate 
>was different than high skool debate?)
>
>"I just think that entering the case debate research market once the year 
>starts is a daunting task, and so investing the time in the summer is really 
>important." - (Time as 'investment'; research as 'market'.)
>
>"[9 cases are] impossible to prepare adequately for over the summer, which 
>means fewer squads want case specific strategies, which in turn means that 
>it doesn't matter which aff you run, because the neg strat will be the same 
>schwag anyway." - (By this logic, does the topic ever matter either?)
>
>TS assumes an ideal point will be reached when teams have a continual 
>incentive to research new arguments, thus preventing 'staleness' and 
>'boredom'. I ask: How did anyone ever become convinced that staleness and 
>boredom were at all preventable *by* a mono-competitive structure? And why 
>correlate their opposite, that is, excitment in the new, with an ideal point 
>*within* a mono-competitve structure? My hunch: this idealism masks, 
>produces, and keeps in-check investments of competitive desire in this 
>agon-market (an idealism this post tries to rupture).
>
>"Furthermore, I'm not sure if staleness was enough of a warrant for anybody 
>to change affs on the sanctions topic. For example, if we had added four 
>more countries to that topic in February or March, I doubt that JP would 
>have said, "Dude, you know, I'm so bored debating North Korea, I think I'll, 
>you know, switch over to Libya now, you know." I mean, some might have, for 
>the element of surprise ..."
>
>Newness is reduced to 'the element of surprise' and entire countries are 
>reduced to boring or exciting arenas of strategic argument. Scary.
>
>"I don't think staleness would've caused people to change affs. A decline in 
>strategic value or the evolution of neg strategies might prompt such a 
>shift, but that's different from boredom."
>
>So a satisfying distribution of 'wins' ensures that a boring topic of 
>discussion can continue indefinitely.
>Conclusion: 'Fairness,' 'skill,' 'education,' 'democratic empowerment,' even 
>'clash' (or any other of debate's ideals, including 'activism' and 
>'performativity') do not play any significant role in this forum's 
>functioning, except when they increase 'strategic value.' (Cross-reference 
>Alfred Snider's 'Unifying Gaming Paradigm.') The very ways this community 
>chooses its topic, the very ways this community spends its time, reveal a 
>mono-competitive paradigm.
>
>TS: "I still stand resolved in favor of a smaller topic for next year."
>
>C'mon now, does size really matter?    :kev
>
>
>Two Ater-thoughts: Debunking idealism does not mean reverting back to the 
>realism displayed so well by TS. Perhaps folks can posit a constructivist 
>(de-)position(ing), a new understanding of what debate is and a new 
>re-working of what debate can be. Perhaps not.
>- Everyone works like Snider thinks, everybody knows Gordon Mitchell is 
>right but no one agrees, and no one (yet) understand Jack Stroube.
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
>http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>


_______________________________________________________
WIN a first class trip to Hawaii.  Live like the King of Rock and Roll
on the big Island. Enter Now!
http://r.lycos.com/r/sagel_mail/http://www.elvis.lycos.com/sweepstakes




From bodonnel  Tue Jun 11 11:35:03 2002
From: bodonnel (O'Donnell, Brett M.)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:35:03 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Ken Strange Please
Message-ID: <A04FC5DD8F15D51196EE00B0D02089950724E41C@iris.liberty.edu>

Sorry to take up space, but I need Ken to backchannel me.

Thanks




From privethedge  Tue Jun 11 11:49:57 2002
From: privethedge (Duane Hyland)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 09:49:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] UDL article in USN&WR
In-Reply-To: <F107halxyPyF1BcI3Em0000182b@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <20020611164957.24742.qmail@web10007.mail.yahoo.com>

Hi, An interesting article, good to see debate getting the attention it deserves - but I'm stuck wondering of all the schools I've coached at,  which one was the "ritziest." It's a shame that people have to engage in class warfare even in something as simple as an article on debate. I was hoping that the article would address the long term future of the UDL's, what happens when the grants run out? Do the programs stay around, or do they fold? I'm hoping that they stay and grow, and get alternate means of funding , debate's to  vital an activity to let things just fold up and go away!!:) Duane

"Very bored in Barad-Dur. Nothing to do but play Scrabble with Orcs. Is very annoying as Orcs only know Black Speech of Mordor. You try spelling Azg Nazg Gimbatul for a triple word score. Yeah, I didn't think so."  Secret Diary of the 5th Wring Wraith - LOTR
"Have agreed to carry Ring to Mordor. In hindsight, probably a bad move." - Frodo's Diary - LOTR



 


 



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020611/a81c3a5e/attachment.htm 


From bobjordan  Tue Jun 11 12:05:40 2002
From: bobjordan (Bob Jordan)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:05:40 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] UDL article in USN&WR
In-Reply-To: <F107halxyPyF1BcI3Em0000182b@hotmail.com>
References: <F107halxyPyF1BcI3Em0000182b@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <a05100307b92bde0373d2@[146.7.112.123]>

The URL for the story is:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/020617/education/17debate.htm

Bob Jordan

At 11:03 AM -0500 6/11/02, Matt Gerber wrote:
>I just thought I would let people know, there is a two-page article 
>about the growth of urban debate leagues in the June 17 issue of 
>U.S. News & World Report.
>
>Matt- KU
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
>http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




From randyluskey  Tue Jun 11 13:18:18 2002
From: randyluskey (Randy Luskey)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:18:18 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Another famous debater in the news
Message-ID: <DAV67RgjWKXOzPPa12y00011929@hotmail.com>

Look who's making the headlines these days. . . 

That case involved Darrell Burch, who was seen bruised and bloodied wandering on a Florida highway, and was brought by a concerned citizen to a community mental health service. 85 He was hallucinating, confused, and disoriented at the hospital; he thought he was entering heaven. 86 He signed a form for voluntary admission and another authorizing treatment. 87 After three days of treatment with psychotropic medication, he was transferred to Florida State Hospital  [*34]  where he signed more voluntary admission and treatment forms. 88 As a voluntary patient, he was free to leave at any time. 89 He remained there for about five months. 90 Upon discharge, he complained that he had been improperly admitted to both facilities and had thus been confined and treated against his will. 91 He claimed that because he had not been competent to sign any legal documents, he had a constitutional right to a judicial commitment before being admitted and treated, and because there was no such hearing, he had been deprived of his liberty without due process of law. 92 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020611/d6c58a1a/attachment.html 


From tejinder  Tue Jun 11 13:28:19 2002
From: tejinder (Tejinder Singh)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:28:19 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Re: Re:Does Size Matter (Analyzing A Telling Instance of Mono-Competitive Discourse)
References: <F69CBRELiemHEBX9Bh50001881a@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <001c01c21175$c3201260$56052080@Berkeley.EDU>

Ummm,

I'll kinda echo Raja and say that I don't have a damn clue what you're
talking about. Yes, my comments presuppose a competitive framework for
debate. I wasn't pretending that they didn't. Yes, I've also heard your
critique of competitive debate. I just don't really care about it. I don't
really want to engage you in a discussion about the merits of your argument,
because I think it's bracketed by a larger question that you don't talk
about often: in this country, things cost money. No university is going to
pay for a non-competitive debate program, because they have no way of
assessing the returns on their investment. Go ahead, start a non-competitive
debate tournament...or I guess it wouldn't be called a tournament, since
that's inherently competitive...I dunno, have a debate orgy or whatever...I
don't think many people will put it in their budgets. And I'll go one step
further to say that most people who read the drivel you post to this list
have their hands tied by administrations and alums who want to see
competitive successes, which means that even if they wanted to go to your
debate orgy, the choice remains out of their hands. You might say something
stupid now like, "These people should be more courageous and try to change
the system and allocate the funds for the debate orgy even if it means their
jobs." I have two answers to this claim, and I think they're actually pretty
good. 1) Everybody has already heard you, and thus far you have failed to
persuade them. Even if you clock people on the line-by-line in this debate,
you have not persuaded a single person...I know this is true, because if you
had persuaded anybody, then they would be doing the shit that you say is
good. There is no judge in the back of this room, and your failure to win
over your opponents is as much a testament to your unpersuasive tactics as
it is to the inherently combative nature of competitive debate. 2) You have
also not started the debate orgy yet, which means that these people who
ought to be courageous have no outlet for their courage. Until you commit
something to your cause in terms of material resources and sincere effort, I
don't think anybody else should be compelled to stick their necks out for
your revolutionary idea.

Now you might say something even dumber like, "Let's ban capitalism." Go
right ahead. If the commies couldn't pull it off, I somehow doubt that
you'll be very successful, and I'd honestly prefer to sit back, be amused,
and watch you fail than to throw my turban into the ring and fail with you.

I'll also take a brief moment to comment on the general absurdity of your
analogy between debate and military buildup and other evil exercises of
power. Do you think this is clever or something? Not all action designed to
achieve a goal is an act of war. Not all competition is war.Yes, you're
right that some parallels could possibly be drawn from warlike tactics to
preparation and execution in debate rounds. So what? Those analogies can be
drawn to damn near anything. You could say that getting dressed in the
morning to go out and get lunch is the moral equivalent of girding for
battle with a demonized sandwich if you wanted to. Do you really think you
proved anything by saying all this crap? Wow, I can't believe I even got
involved in this discussion...this is so stupid...

Tejinder



----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Sanchez" <let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com>
To: <tejinder at uclink.berkeley.edu>; <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 4:59 AM
Subject: Re:Does Size Matter (Analyzing A Telling Instance of
Mono-Competitive Discourse)


> Let's take this opportunity to analyze what fundamental assumptions are
> underneath the 'topic-talk' of one Tejinder Singh, from Berkeley U. What
> we're looking for is what discursive power-knowledge relations are at work
> as regards debate's underlying practices of argumentation. Now imagine, if
> you will, that the year is 2075; you're a historian researching a book
about
> academic forensics at the turn of the century. What does this post say
about
> this community's way of thinking about truth and social reality at this
> particular time&space? Here we go:
>
> "In exactly zero of our negative debates ... did we have a good argument
to
> put on anybody's case [a affirmative side's policy proposal]. By the NDT
> [the final, major tournament on a given resolutional topic], we had some
> args on the case, but we were mostly still kinda nervous there."
>
> Notice the distinction between an affirmative side and a negative side,
> indepedent entities composed of continually-constructed histories,
> determined solely by how many contest-rounds a side has won or lost for a
> particular team or region. If a strategic advantage of one side over
another
> occurs, then the resolutional topic is immediately seen as faulty. Like
> entering a battlefield unprepared, this provokes 'nervous'-ness - a
> measurable, rank-able level of anxiety.
>
> "In fact, I think that JP's [a fellow coach] probably right that by the
NDT,
> we could theoretically be ready to roll on all 9 [cases] if that topic
[the
> Indian Country treaty resolution] gets picked."
>
> 'Ready to roll' means prepared to win against other teams with
case-specific
> argumentation - also a military analogy for military readiness. The
function
> of argumentative theory in academic forensics is near-identical to
function
> tactical theory in military force-deployments. (Cross-reference Von
> Clausewitz's distinction between tactics and strategy in 'On War.') Here
> truth is strategy - and value is defined by whether a position can be
> successfully defended.
>
> "The 9 treaties that we'd be dealing with on this topic are so diverse in
> nature that I think that at the start of the year, research time would be
> better spent on the genero-kritik or some sketchy process CP than it would
> on trying to get prepped for all the cases."
>
> To the logic of the negative side, even on a resolutional topic limited to
a
> mere 9 cases, preparation for debating a case on an affirmative's terms
(ie.
> a 'case debate') is not as strategically advantageous as preparation for a
> "genero-kritik" or a "sketchy CP" (ie. totalizing arguments where a 'link'
> or a 'net benefit' may be inserted later to construct a catastrophic
'impact
> scenario' or other bombastic disadvantage). Notice also that 'research
time'
> should only be spent researching strategically valuable arguments, or
> 'winning positions.' 'Research time' is also seen as 'zero-sum'; and since
> time spent researching an interesting or fun or ethical or specific or
> 'long-shot' argument directly 'trades-off' with strategic ones, coaches
are
> sure to instruct their debaters to use their time to maximum
> strategic-value. (Cross-reference, the concept of 'maximum efficiency' in
> Foucault's geneaology of modern disciplinary power. 'Discipline & Punish',
> part III.)
>
> "Even if by the NDT, everybody is ready to debate the case, there is no
> squad that I know of who wants to lose at UNI [search me?], which means
that
> if you can't be ready for UNI by sacking up and debating the case,
> then it might be smart to adopt a different tactic. So what I'm saying, I
> guess, is that we shouldn't try to place teams in a position where they're
> likely to make that decision. And the reason I think that the start of the
> year is important is that if you win at the start of the year with the
weak
> strats, it's unlikely that you'll radically change research focus at some
> point later in the year, except maybe right before the NDT, when there's a
> break after Northwestern/the Heart."
>
> Interesting comparison to the logic of the military build-up of Cold War I
> (1945-1989). If a super-power is no longer willing to match  conventional
> force for conventional force (due to ensuing losses), then a super-power
> will manufcture greater armaments. This causes counter-balancing
> super-powers to do likewise, thereby re-defining what forces are defined
as
> 'conventional' for other powerful nation-states to own. A focus on not
> putting any player in a position where they'll have to use catastrophic
> weapons predominates. Trying to avoiding these mistakes (while
> simultaenously making horrible mistakes possible) did not eliminate their
> potentiality or actuality (eg: Cuban Missle Crisis, Kashmir Nuclear
> Conflict, and boring, inept debate-rounds). Hence cultural change in new
> directions becomes decidely 'unlikely'. 'Weak strategies' which still
> provide 'wins' to dominant players are rarely radically altered.
>
> "We all know how the year catches up to us. Eventually december rolls
around
> and you have to deal with finals and you can't really cut as many cards as
> you wanted to, or the tournaments are coming too quick and you're too busy
> intelligence gathering and getting cites for
> other people's generic strats, etc etc."
>
> Intelligence gathering 'trades-off' with original research; weekly
> tournaments put tremendous pressure on squads as well as narrow
> time-constraints; the amount of 'cards' a team cuts is significantly
> determinative of whether they'll win or not. (Someone told me college
debate
> was different than high skool debate?)
>
> "I just think that entering the case debate research market once the year
> starts is a daunting task, and so investing the time in the summer is
really
> important." - (Time as 'investment'; research as 'market'.)
>
> "[9 cases are] impossible to prepare adequately for over the summer, which
> means fewer squads want case specific strategies, which in turn means that
> it doesn't matter which aff you run, because the neg strat will be the
same
> schwag anyway." - (By this logic, does the topic ever matter either?)
>
> TS assumes an ideal point will be reached when teams have a continual
> incentive to research new arguments, thus preventing 'staleness' and
> 'boredom'. I ask: How did anyone ever become convinced that staleness and
> boredom were at all preventable *by* a mono-competitive structure? And why
> correlate their opposite, that is, excitment in the new, with an ideal
point
> *within* a mono-competitve structure? My hunch: this idealism masks,
> produces, and keeps in-check investments of competitive desire in this
> agon-market (an idealism this post tries to rupture).
>
> "Furthermore, I'm not sure if staleness was enough of a warrant for
anybody
> to change affs on the sanctions topic. For example, if we had added four
> more countries to that topic in February or March, I doubt that JP would
> have said, "Dude, you know, I'm so bored debating North Korea, I think
I'll,
> you know, switch over to Libya now, you know." I mean, some might have,
for
> the element of surprise ..."
>
> Newness is reduced to 'the element of surprise' and entire countries are
> reduced to boring or exciting arenas of strategic argument. Scary.
>
> "I don't think staleness would've caused people to change affs. A decline
in
> strategic value or the evolution of neg strategies might prompt such a
> shift, but that's different from boredom."
>
> So a satisfying distribution of 'wins' ensures that a boring topic of
> discussion can continue indefinitely.
> Conclusion: 'Fairness,' 'skill,' 'education,' 'democratic empowerment,'
even
> 'clash' (or any other of debate's ideals, including 'activism' and
> 'performativity') do not play any significant role in this forum's
> functioning, except when they increase 'strategic value.' (Cross-reference
> Alfred Snider's 'Unifying Gaming Paradigm.') The very ways this community
> chooses its topic, the very ways this community spends its time, reveal a
> mono-competitive paradigm.
>
> TS: "I still stand resolved in favor of a smaller topic for next year."
>
> C'mon now, does size really matter?    :kev
>
>
> Two Ater-thoughts: Debunking idealism does not mean reverting back to the
> realism displayed so well by TS. Perhaps folks can posit a constructivist
> (de-)position(ing), a new understanding of what debate is and a new
> re-working of what debate can be. Perhaps not.
> - Everyone works like Snider thinks, everybody knows Gordon Mitchell is
> right but no one agrees, and no one (yet) understand Jack Stroube.
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
>




From west  Tue Jun 11 13:57:54 2002
From: west (Terry West)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:57:54 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] Change the ballot!
Message-ID: <sd05f3e3.061@gwise.suu.edu>

I'm on e-debate and we've paid our CEDA dues, and I haven't seen a topic
ballot yet.  Did I miss it posted under some weird attachment that I
deleted?  

Terry
SUU

>>> <ucodebate at att.net> 06/10/02 15:57 PM >>>
Dear ?Community?,

Let me once again congratulate and thank the topic 
committee for all their hard work.  I think they nailed 
the action verbs exactly.  I also know that there have 
been a lot of posts and a lot of issues to keep track 
of/answer.  However, I don?t feel that any of the below 
arguments have been addressed by any of the committee 
members posts up to this point.  I will preview:  1) all 
the topics ?got em some ? grammatical issues, 2) the 
inclusion of SORT undermines any inclusivity in the 
final crafting of the resolutions  3) that ?Community? 
precedent has been set for amending topics in the past. 
Also addressed in my brief post are a couple of other 
important issues:  4) the presumption shift in this 
discussion, 5) day-before-the meeting SORT geneology 6) 
representation/the list as a ?Community? 7) merger 
growing pains, and 8) intellectual humility.  Gosh, I 
know-- that?s a lot-thanks for reading if you make it to 
the end.

1) Grammar:  no answer to every topic since 1946 has had 
a colon after resolved.  I?m not asserting that please 
check below and see for yourself:

http://www.wfu.edu/organizations/NDT/HistoricalLists/topi
cs.html

a) No answer to Kuswa?s (I know, an ironic grammar arg 
from Kuswa-          
     come on!  If a K-hack like Kuswa contends that 
the ?following? is    
     dangling then for pete?s sake answer that.  

2) Inclusivity:  Everyone can?t come to the meeting.  
Most don?t even monitor what happens there b/c of 
vacation or other commitments.  But SOME members of 
the ?Community? do.  Including a treaty that was not 
previously disclosed by ANY member of the committee or 
the ?Community? should be a cause of concern for both 
the committee and those in the ?Community?.  Doing so 
silences the voices of those not actually at the 
meeting.  SORT decreased the possibility for 
the ?Community? will to be represented.  The committee 
would have been surprised about the level of response 
that they would have gotten if they had communicated 
with us.  No mention of SORT despite the fact that it 
dominated a majority of the committee?s time?  Gosh, 
I?ve never been to a topic committee meeting, however, I 
know that I usually got substantially more posts about 
the days work than I got this year.  1 post is not 
consultation.  1 post is not transperancy in the world 
of digital communication.

3) Amendment Precedent exists:  I believe I recall one 
of the topics was changed after a similar ?Community? 
uproar on the Africa ballot.  I might be wrong and 
encourage others with more institutional knowledge to 
contribute to that discussion.  Tuna, Kerpen, Russ 
Church, Josh Hoe, Greg Simerly, and some others could 
correctly answer that.

That concludes the issues that I would really like the 
committee, or Mancuso, to answer.  I have four more 
points that I will elaborate more fully upon:

4) Presumption Shift Alert:  One May 17th Mancuso 
said, ?Here is the list of treaties the Topic Committee 
is currently investigating.  We are looking at two 
groups of treaties, those that need only to be ratified, 
and those that need to be signed and ratified.  
Some ?treaties? may not be sufficiently formal to be 
ready for signature.  If you would like us to consider 
an additional one, please send me some internet 
cites/sites containing affirmative and negative 
arguments.  I?m especially interested in treaties in the 
collective defense, environment and trade agreement 
areas.?

Let me break that statement down for Helwich, Walters, 
Mancuso, Repko, Martin Harris, and Mike Davis.  If you 
want ADDITIONAL treaties, then you have an affirmative 
obligation to provide cites and a justification.  I was 
exceedingly pleased with the list of treaties that were 
presented to the ?Community? at that time.  Not only was 
I not interested in adding any treaties to the list I 
thought that there might be too many treaties on this 
short list.  I was a little intrigued when Leong and 
Dutcher started kicking it around about the Convention 
on the rights of the child.  I did not respond b/c I 
didn?t want to add to the list.  I did not repsond when 
others tried to add to the list b/c I thought the 
treaties they were adding were legitimate multilateral 
treaties.  That folks is how presumption works.  If you 
don?t want a change in the list, then you do nothing. If 
any of ya?ll need help with presumption?holla. 

Please don?t interpret Mancuso?s post as a call to arms 
to advocate for a specific treaty.  He is making it 
clear to the ?Community? that he and others are actively 
researching these treaties.  That no advocacy needs to 
occur.  However, let?s look at what was discussed.  One 
post on CRC, a couple of posts about the CEDAW, a joke 
from Kenny D about LOS and a couple of posts about the 
ICC.  That was it.  So if you want to go by discussion 
that did happen.  CEDAW was way ahead in terms of the 
limited discussion had on the list.  I like most others 
felt that all the treaties were multilateral and that 
the list was tight and that the topic committee was 
incredibly capable of determining which ones fell into 
the most appropriate action verbs.  YOU CAN BET A HELL 
OF A LOT MORE THAN A NICKLE I WOULD HAVE RAISED HELL 
ABOUT ONE OR TWO OR THREE BILATERAL TREATIES BEING IN 
THAT LIST.  Your argument that we didn?t discuss it is a 
presumption shift and should be ignored. 

Mancuso recently posted, ? In fact, our discussions on 
every treaty were far more extensive
I challenge you to point me to an average of even ONE 
post on the treaties I listed on May 17.   The list 
serve was virtually silent on  the topic wording for 
weeks.?

Mancuso continues to shift presumption to justify his 
actions.  This is not responsive.

5) Sketchy Etiology:  
a)  Razor thin margin:  I wasn?t really upset about this 
until I heard that the decision b/t sticking with the 
pre-disclosed, multilateral list proposed on May 17th 
and inserting the bilateral surprise SORT treaty was a 
razor thin 5-4 majority.  That is not to be interpreted 
as the ?will of the people?.  Topic committees in the 
past would have realized that the ?Community? would 
probably be pretty split on this as well and would have 
broken the SORT treaty up into one, or at most, two of 
the resolutions.
b) Day before genesis:  The SORT treaty became an every 
round inevitable implication of all these resolutions 
when Repko approached Mancuso in the hotel hall??? the 
day before the meetings started and asked him about it.  
Why couldn?t one of them have asked for some ?Community? 
input at that time?  It is obvious to me that if your 
going to dramatically change the predictable negative 
ground on the resolution, even in just one of the 
treaties and increase the research burdens to include 
mulitlateralism and more arms control and bilateral 
threat reductions of two nuclear superpowers, adding the 
Russian political process to a topic without notice to 
the ?Community? of any kind, you might be making a 
mistake.  At least communicate with us at the meeting.  
The day before wouldn?t have been too late if there had 
been some discussion on the list about it.

6) Representation/List as ?Community? Model:  There may 
not have been a ?real? or ?significant? (Ala Helwich, 
Walters, and Harris) discussion about which treaties to 
include in the resolution.  I know that I didn?t post 
anything b/c I took Mancuso at his word.  See 
presumption shift above.  I thought that the topic 
committee had a handle on the multilateral treaties that 
they listed.  I would have been concerned about a new 
mulitlateral treaty not on the list-but at least it 
doesn?t significantly change negative ground.  A 
bilateral treaty does.  

Mancuso recently posted, ?Edebate does not equal college 
debate opinion.  A few people with a 
viewpoint on Edebate does not come anywhere near a 
consensus (thank goodness). 

2 arguments:  First, and a 5-4 vote of the topic 
committee is consensus?  You overestimate your moral 
highground and your ?mandate of the Community?

This list is our ?Community?.  Dysfunctional as it can 
be at times.  Don?t add to that by ignoring me!!!  This 
is our wateringhole.  Where did you post the fricken 
resolutions for consideration in the first place?  This 
is Where we come to talk to each other- where we elect 
our leaders- where we make our decisions and how we all 
keep in touch with our fellow members.  Steve, you say 
that a few people posting don?t make a ?Community?.  
Maybe there is some shred of truth to that.  However, a 
few people posting has been the only thing that has made 
this a ?Community? over the past several years.  Don?t 
mistake this forum as irrelevant in the face of your 
research/argumentative prowess.  That is not the sign of 
leadership, but of incredulity and arrogance.

7) Growing Pains:  I think that this disagreement is a 
product of merger growing pains.  NDTesque ?truth 
seekers? say, ?our leaders are smart, competent, ethical 
people who will act in the best interest of 
the ?Community?.  Hence, the topic committee doesn?t 
have to defend its decision because they are our 
the ?Community? ?trustees? with the resolutional 
wordings. NDTesque ?truth seekers? vote based on the 
evidence read and the better interpretation presented by 
the evidence.  Versus.  
CEDAesque ?inclusivity/flowcharters? who say, ?We want 
everyone to be included in the discussion.  
The ?Community? consensus is important.  Let?s let 
everyone have a say-so.  We?ll even create different 
divisions and tournaments if necessary.  We like to vote 
on the arguments made by the debaters, and not on an 
interpretation of the evidence style of judging?  These 
two competing thought process still dominate much of the 
disagreement in our ?Community?. Sad we haven?t learned 
more from each others.  These divisions will be our 
downfall.

8) Criticalthinking.com discusses the intellectual 
virtues:

http://www.criticalthinking.org/University/intraits.html

Among these virtues are: Intellectual Humility, 
Intellectual Courage, Intellectual Empathy, Intellectual 
Integrity, Intellectual Perseverance, Faith In Reason, 
Fairmindedness

I will not bore you with an extended summary of these 
here.  However, I think we could all benefit from some 
intellectual humility on the part of the topic 
committee.  We think ya?ll did an awesome job.  Some of 
us don?t like the inclusion of SORT.  Ya?ll admit that 
you didn?t tell anyone anything about it until the topic 
ballot was announced.  In a process that attempted to be 
open (e.g. Mancuso?s May 17 post & Losnegard?s topic 
committee meeting post) why all the deafening silence 
about SORT and adding a bilateral topic to the res?  
Isn?t very consistent is it?  Please show some empathy 
and see our side of things.  Please have the integrity 
to continue to appropriately represent the ?Community? 
and yourself.  Please have the courage to assess this 
situation and try to seek some remedy to solve these 
problems.  I?m not so sure that the vote would still be 
5-4.  Maybe it would be.  I would like you to discuss it 
and report back to us.  

You are all very smart, well-respected, brilliant, 
valuable people.  We greatly appreciate the extra-effort 
that you have all made to make sure that you did the 
best job possible or maybe even ever.  That doesn?t 
eliminate the fact that you shifted burdens and failed 
to seek ?Community? input about a substantial alteration 
to this year?s potential resolutions.  I don?t think 
that these actions negate the positive track record that 
you have thus far managed to produce.  However, I know 
that in circumspect the history of your great work will 
be tainted by your inability to show some humility and 
include the ?Community?.

Thanks for reading if you made it this far.  Please 
speak out if you want the committee to meet again and 
address issues 1-3 in this post.

I pasted the virtues below if you don?t want to click it 
open.

Intellectual Humility: Having a consciousness of the 
limits of one's knowledge, including a sensitivity to 
circumstances in which one's native egocentrism is 
likely to function self-deceptively; sensitivity to 
bias, prejudice and limitations of one's viewpoint. 
Intellectual humility depends on recognizing that one 
should not claim more than one actually knows. It does 
not imply spinelessness or submissiveness. It implies 
the lack of intellectual pretentiousness, boastfulness, 
or conceit, combined with insight into the logical 
foundations, or lack of such foundations, of one's 
beliefs. 
Intellectual Courage: Having a consciousness of the need 
to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs or viewpoints 
toward which we have strong negative emotions and to 
which we have not given a serious hearing. This courage 
is connected with the recognition that ideas considered 
dangerous or absurd are sometimes rationally justified 
(in whole or in part) and that conclusions and beliefs 
inculated in us are sometimes false or misleading. To 
determine for ourselves which is which, we must not 
passively and uncritically " accept" what we have " 
learned." Intellectual courage comes into play here, 
because inevitably we will come to see some truth in 
some ideas considered dangerous and absurd, and 
distortion or falsity in some ideas strongly held in our 
social group. We need courage to be true to our own 
thinking in such circumstances. The penalties for non-
conformity can be severe. 
Intellectual Empathy: Having a consciousness of the need 
to imaginatively put oneself in the place of others in 
order to genuinely understand them, which requires the 
consciousness of our egocentric tendency to identify 
truth with our immediate perceptions of long-standing 
thought or belief. This trait correlates with the 
ability to reconstruct accurately the viewpoints and 
reasoning of others and to reason from premises, 
assumptions, and ideas other than our own. This trait 
also correlates with the willingness to remember 
occasions when we were wrong in the past despite an 
intense conviction that we were right, and with the 
ability to imagine our being similarly deceived in a 
case-at-hand. 
Intellectual Integrity: Recognition of the need to be 
true to one's own thinking; to be consistent in the 
intellectual standards one applies; to hold one's self 
to the same rigorous standards of evidence and proof to 
which one holds one's antagonists; to practice what one 
advocates for others; and to honestly admit 
discrepancies and inconsistencies in one's own thought 
and action. 
Intellectual Perseverance: Having a consciousness of the 
need to use intellectual insights and truths in spite of 
difficulties, obstacles, and frustrations; firm 
adherence to rational principles despite the irrational 
opposition of others; a sense of the need to struggle 
with confusion and unsettled questions over an extended 
period of time to achieve deeper understanding or 
insight. 
Faith In Reason: Confidence that, in the long run, one's 
own higher interests and those of humankind at large 
will be best served by giving the freest play to reason, 
by encouraging people to come to their own conclusions 
by developing their own rational faculties; faith that, 
with proper encouragement and cultivation, people can 
learn to think for themselves, to form rational 
viewpoints, draw reasonable conclusions, think 
coherently and logically, persuade each other by reason 
and become reasonable persons, despite the deep-seated 
obstacles in the native character of the human mind and 
in society as we know it. 
Fairmindedness: Having a consciousness of the need to 
treat all viewpoints alike, without reference to one's 
own feelings or vested interests, or the feelings or 
vested interests of one's friends, ?Community? or 
nation; implies adherence to intellectual standards 
without reference to one's own advantage or the 
advantage of one's group. 

Go in peace, speaking brilliantly,

Jason Stone

--
Director of Debate
100 N. University Ave.
Department of Communication
University of Central Oklahoma
Edmond, OK 73034
(405) 974-5584 (o)

_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at ndtceda.com
To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




From west  Tue Jun 11 14:20:08 2002
From: west (Terry West)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:20:08 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] oops!  ignore last message and this
Message-ID: <sd05f914.004@gwise.suu.edu>

Got the topic ballot.  Sorry.  Checking e-mail from remote and can't
read the dang screen.

Terry




From db8coach  Tue Jun 11 15:02:17 2002
From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:02:17 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] New debate coach at Bakersfield College
References: <146.f9e5a39.2a326985@aol.com>
Message-ID: <002401c21182$e3bb0360$6401a8c0@r3w9c7>

It gives me GREAT pleasure to announce the addition of Mike Korcok (yes THAT
Mike Korcok) to the staff of Bakersfield College. I look forward to working
with a man (and a friend) who I have only admired from afar.

Welcome to BC Mike. Renegade Debate is indeed lucky to have you.

Peace,

Bob Lechtreck
Bakersfield College
"Putting out fires and damn good debaters"




From stannardmatt  Tue Jun 11 17:04:07 2002
From: stannardmatt (matt stannard)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:04:07 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] WDC enrollment list 6-11-02
Message-ID: <F1212LsslKTsBrzhskV0001da61@hotmail.com>

The following is a list of confirmed students and coaches for the 2002 
Wyoming Debate Cooperative.  If you have confirmed with me, and you are NOT 
on this list, please contact me and I will correct it.

I am still waiting to get students' names from:

Denver
Regis
SMSU
Mansfield
ENMU
Weber

ENROLLMENT LIST:

Kate Kauf, Macalester
Andy Tweeten, Macalester
Lauren Raymer, Capital
Michelle Kelsey, Northern Iowa
Chris Loghry, UMKC
Rick Zeurcher, Albertson
Holly Harrington, Albertson
Jason Courville, UT-Dallas
David Cisneros, Mercer
Adam Siramarco, Colorado State
Matt Plush, Colorado State
Tiara Naputi, Emporia
Tyler Wray, Emporia
Dustin Rimmey, Emporia
Chad Woolard, Emporia
Lisa Gray, Emporia
Kelly Winfrey, Emporia
David Register, Emporia
Marty Golando, UT-San Antonio
Thomas Marples, Rochester
Brandon Berg, Lewis and Clark
Carol Barella, Wyoming
Caroline Simpson, Wyoming
Chris Hilton, Wyoming
Seth "Pinto" Ellsworth, Wyoming
Pete "Sniff" Schneider, Wyoming
Chris Crowe, Wyoming
Brian Delong, Wyoming
Aaron Ridley, Wyoming

Confirmed coaches:

D-Cram Helwich, Macalester
Ken Delaughder, Emporia
John Hansen, ENMU
Joe Schatz, SUNY Binghamton
Matt Stannard, Wyoming
Sarah Stone, Wyoming
Luke Stricker, Wyoming
Steph Gerali, Denver (second week)
Susan Altrui, Colorado State (second week)

Unconfirmed coaches: (we hope they confirm!)

Kelly Young, Wayne State
Larry Watts, Mansfield
Mack Sermon, Albertson
Kevin Cummings, Regis
Sam Maurer, Emporia
Chris Burke, UT-Dallas

We still need more coaches.  Email me with questions about that.

Please keep the confirmations coming in.  Stay tuned for further 
announcements.

stannard

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com




From swhalen  Tue Jun 11 17:31:45 2002
From: swhalen (Shawn Whalen)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:31:45 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Topic Alterations
Message-ID: <3D067A51.CAA9C572@sfsu.edu>

This post has little to do with the SORT yes/no thread but instead
addresses the process of amending a ballot before the ballot goes out to
the membership for a vote.

It is overwhelmingly obvious that each year following the topic
committee meeting there is a call to alter the wording of at least one,
if not all, of the resolutions.  I contend that the diversity of the
community is such that this will always be the case.

That being said, I suspect that there are times when
amendments/revisions are more warranted than others and we have no
governing procedure for amending the ballot.  At present the topic
committee has complete discretion.

When Hester asks, "Can the topic committee change the ballot at this
point?"  The answer is yes - no rule prevents the topic committee from
making changes and there was at least one instance in the recent past
(Africa) where an alteration was made after the topic meeting and before
the "official" ballot was released by the Executive Secretary.

However, there is an overwhelming presumption on the part of the topic
committee against making changes at this point.  There are a multitude
of reasons for this and many current and former committee members might
defend that presumption differently.  The core of that presumption, in
my opinion, is that the topic committee is no longer able to deliberate
in the same face-to-face manner as they did during the meeting.
Additionally, any changes would undoubtedly reverse decisions that were
made in the face-to-face deliberations and would only create an infinite
number of issues that could be redebated in a format that is less
condusive to resolution.

As an example, a proposal to replace SORT with CEDAW in topic 1 is just
one way to address the complaints about SORT's inclusion.  Other
proposals would include eliminating SORT from topic 2 and/or 3, another
(offered during the meeting) is to have a 6 topic ballot composed of the
3 current topics and the same 3 topics without SORT.  These are just 3
of a potentially limitless number of options for dealing with a SORT
removal.  Each of these options has a different effect on other concerns
facing the committee like vote splitting, issue balance, topic breadth
etc.

If you find yourself heavily in the "SORT will ruin the topic camp", you
obviously will feel that regardless of the difficulty the committee
should revisit the issue and provide an alternative.  However, the
majority of the committee is not in that camp and, not sharing your
opinion, will never choose to throw out the higher quality face-to-face
deliberation in favor of a fractured, partial and questionably
representative email exchange.

If I'm right about this, you can expect that your "official ballot" will
be amended to include colons after "Resolved" but that the rest of it
will be unchanged.  Grammatical housekeeping like the colons are easy
and don't reopen deliberations, alterations like SORT removal do.

However, I'm concerned that there could be a time when the committee's
presumption not to revise might need to give way to the concerns of the
larger body.  If you share this concern, I would be interested in
hearing proposals to alter the process that would allow a large
percentage of the membership to add to or amend the ballot produced by
the topic committee.  One possibility could be a petition that required
the approval of a certain number of programs etc.

Let me be clear about my position - I am strongly opposed to alterations
after the topic meeting unless they are minor housekeeping issues or
unless there is an OVERWHELMING community concensus on a particular
alteration.  I am interested in ideas that folks might have about how
interested parties could demonstrate "overwhelming community concensus"
in the limited time available before the official ballot is released.

(An important note - I don't believe that any proposal could be
implemented this year.  I'm interested in your feedback in the ongoing
effort to improve the topic selection process in subsequent years.)


Shawn Whalen

CEDA President






From jmartin  Tue Jun 11 17:38:30 2002
From: jmartin (Josh Martin)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 15:38:30 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] New LPW
Message-ID: <248340-220026211223830390@newwavebriefs.com>

Another week already? A new edition of Low Point Win is up at:
http://www.newwavebriefs.com/lowpointwin/lpw.html

This week's items of note:

-The Reader Poll question: "My Favorite Place to Shop is..." garnered the
most responses from 'I refuse to admit I have an obsession with office
supplies'. Other answers such as 'Office Max', 'Staples' and 'Office Depot'
did not fare so well. It's refreshing to see such an honest answer.

-This week's question should be a good one: "who would win a royal rumble?"
For those who haven't spent time in the south, a royal rumble is when all
the wrestlers get in the ring at the same time and fight it out King of the
Hill style. 

-Thanks to the staff and the new contributors this week. Hope that they
keep it coming, and always looking for submissions. If you think you're
funny write it up and send it in.

I think that's about it. On the side, it seems that my summer plans are
falling through so if someone is looking to add an instructor at the last
minute, give me a jingle.

Have a good week, 
Josh Martin




From Zompetti  Tue Jun 11 17:51:10 2002
From: Zompetti (Zompetti at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:51:10 EDT
Subject: [eDebate] Topic Alterations
Message-ID: <8e.29476d16.2a37d8de@aol.com>

In a message dated 06/11/2002 6:37:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
swhalen at sfsu.edu writes:

<< 
 Let me be clear about my position - I am strongly opposed to alterations
 after the topic meeting unless they are minor housekeeping issues or
 unless there is an OVERWHELMING community concensus on a particular
 alteration.  >>


Shawn,

Is there a way to measure what the community's feelings are about this?  
Could CEDA ask the question: "do you favor altering the resolution ballot to 
remove or change SORT from the list of treaties?"    Could this be done by an 
email ballot?

Then, if the reaction isn't overwhelming, so be it.  If it is, the topic 
committee could reevaluate this *particular* issue (in order to prevent the 
slippery slope you referred to in your email).

Just curious,

Joe




From Caldebate  Tue Jun 11 18:00:16 2002
From: Caldebate (Caldebate at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 19:00:16 EDT
Subject: [eDebate] Topic Alterations
Message-ID: <127.121d0f1e.2a37db00@aol.com>

In a message dated 6/11/2002 3:37:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
swhalen at sfsu.edu writes:


> If I'm right about this, you can expect that your "official ballot" will
> be amended to include colons after "Resolved" but that the rest of it
> will be unchanged.  Grammatical housekeeping like the colons are easy
> and don't reopen deliberations, alterations like SORT removal do.
> 

This grammatical tyranny will not stand. I don't remember any public 
discussion about grammar. There is no mention of "grammar" on the Mancuso 
list. All of my months of "Resolved without colons" work is now useless. If 
this clear violation of my rights under the CEDA and US Constitution is not 
addressed I will be forced to start my own debate organization and take 
Hawaii with me.

Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020611/82f72d22/attachment.htm 


From sharris  Tue Jun 11 18:30:06 2002
From: sharris (Harris, Scott L)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:30:06 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Another famous debater in the news
Message-ID: <06EB4CB0225B3F498418311D9D6A28AA01FF1A91@bluebird.mail.ku.edu>

 

Daryl is from Florida (or at least claims it as one of his homes).  Maybe he
was doing his impersonation of Ross Smith deciding a round and they took
that as sign evidence that he was deranged.


-----Original Message-----
From: Randy Luskey
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Sent: 6/11/02 1:18 PM
Subject: [eDebate] Another famous debater in the news

Look who's making the headlines these days. . . 
 
That case involved Darrell Burch, who was seen bruised and bloodied
wandering on a Florida highway, and was brought by a concerned citizen
to a community mental health service.
<http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=5127c34c6409f702dfd2aca99f46e
ec7&docnum=20&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlb-lSlWk&_md5=400c52dec
0fd8bc8f3ddd9ed641d4afc#n85> 85 He was hallucinating, confused, and
disoriented at the hospital; he thought he was entering heaven.
<http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=5127c34c6409f702dfd2aca99f46e
ec7&docnum=20&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlb-lSlWk&_md5=400c52dec
0fd8bc8f3ddd9ed641d4afc#n86> 86 He signed a form for voluntary admission
and another authorizing treatment.
<http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=5127c34c6409f702dfd2aca99f46e
ec7&docnum=20&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlb-lSlWk&_md5=400c52dec
0fd8bc8f3ddd9ed641d4afc#n87> 87 After three days of treatment with
psychotropic medication, he was transferred to Florida State Hospital
BM_8045_34[*34]  where he signed more voluntary admission and treatment
forms.
<http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=5127c34c6409f702dfd2aca99f46e
ec7&docnum=20&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlb-lSlWk&_md5=400c52dec
0fd8bc8f3ddd9ed641d4afc#n88> 88 As a voluntary patient, he was free to
leave at any time.
<http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=5127c34c6409f702dfd2aca99f46e
ec7&docnum=20&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlb-lSlWk&_md5=400c52dec
0fd8bc8f3ddd9ed641d4afc#n89> 89 He remained there for about five months.
<http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=5127c34c6409f702dfd2aca99f46e
ec7&docnum=20&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlb-lSlWk&_md5=400c52dec
0fd8bc8f3ddd9ed641d4afc#n90> 90 Upon discharge, he complained that he
had been improperly admitted to both facilities and had thus been
confined and treated against his will.
<http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=5127c34c6409f702dfd2aca99f46e
ec7&docnum=20&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlb-lSlWk&_md5=400c52dec
0fd8bc8f3ddd9ed641d4afc#n91> 91 He claimed that because he had not been
competent to sign any legal documents, he had a constitutional right to
a judicial commitment before being admitted and treated, and because
there was no such hearing, he had been deprived of his liberty without
due process of law.
<http://www.lexis.com/research/retrieve?_m=5127c34c6409f702dfd2aca99f46e
ec7&docnum=20&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlb-lSlWk&_md5=400c52dec
0fd8bc8f3ddd9ed641d4afc#n92> 92 
 
 
 




From dsrader  Tue Jun 11 19:34:22 2002
From: dsrader (Doyle Srader)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 19:34:22 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Another famous debater in the news
Message-ID: <000e01c211a8$e6fccba0$67d26090@sfasu.edu>

Well, yeah, but this Darrell Burch was picked up in 1981. How old was our
Darrell Burch then? Nine or ten? How many Crayola markers do you have to
huff before you take a stroll down the highway and think you're entering
heaven?

http://www.psychlaws.org/LegalResources/case%20laws/case9.htm

Doyle Srader
Lecturer, Speech Communication
Stephen F. Austin State University
http://titan.sfasu.edu/~f_sraderdw/

"I don't think Mr. Arafat's the issue. The issue is the Palestinian people.
I am dissatisfied that he has not led in such a way that the Palestinian
people have confidence."
 -- George W. Bush, 6-10-02




From Samnelson4  Tue Jun 11 20:54:42 2002
From: Samnelson4 (Samnelson4 at aol.com)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 21:54:42 EDT
Subject: [eDebate] New Debate Coach at the University of Rochester
Message-ID: <108.131355a5.2a3803e2@aol.com>

Adam Lee, formerly a debater at the University of Texas, has taken a position 
on the University of Rochester Debate Union coaching staff for this coming 
year. All the yellowjackets are really looking forward to working with this 
dynamic and enthusiastic new debate coach. However, we still need to hire two 
more coaches. If you know of anyone interested please have them contact me.

Thanks,

Sam Nelson,
Director of Forensics,
University of Rochester





From miamidebate  Tue Jun 11 20:55:27 2002
From: miamidebate (Miami Debate Team)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 18:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] David Wells
In-Reply-To: <60276432@vixen.Dartmouth.EDU>
Message-ID: <20020612015527.98251.qmail@web13803.mail.yahoo.com>


Hey, Dave could you drop me a line? Seem to have lost your email? Sorry to clog everyone's email.

    Lincoln Bisbee

   Miami University 2004



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020611/c43ff8b5/attachment.html 


From blackmon47  Tue Jun 11 22:03:56 2002
From: blackmon47 (Neil Blackmon)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 23:03:56 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] john jester
Message-ID: <F196oDiFHoVgWXLDdKU0001c522@hotmail.com>

What's up John-

Can you backchannel me when you get a free minute ?

Neil

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com




From Pacedebate  Tue Jun 11 23:20:39 2002
From: Pacedebate (Pacedebate at aol.com)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 00:20:39 EDT
Subject: [eDebate] Topic Alterations
Message-ID: <150.f325f4a.2a382617@aol.com>

In a message dated 6/11/2002 5:37:46 PM Central Daylight Time, 
swhalen at sfsu.edu writes:


> Let me be clear about my position - I am strongly opposed to alterations
> after the topic meeting unless they are minor housekeeping issues or
> unless there is an OVERWHELMING community concensus on a particular
> alteration.  I am interested in ideas that folks might have about how
> interested parties could demonstrate "overwhelming community concensus"
> in the limited time available before the official ballot is released.
> 
> (An important note - I don't believe that any proposal could be
> implemented this year.  I'm interested in your feedback in the ongoing
> effort to improve the topic selection process in subsequent years.)

I think the topic committee does a great job and in those few instances where 
they have made an error the current process gives them leeway to correct 
that. I wouldn't support any amendment that took away the flexibility the 
topic committee has to make changes. However, I would support an amendment 
that required the executive secretary to wait a designated amount of time 
(maybe 7-14 days after it's announced by the topic chair) to send out the 
FINAL ballot and would allow anyone who could get a number equal to 1/3rd of 
those voting on the topic area to petition the topic committee to make a 
change to the ballot. The petition would have to state specifically how the 
ballot would be changed. The topic committee would then vote on whether to 
make the change.
Some might prefer the petition itself be given to the entire membership for a 
vote. I'm open to being persuaded that is the way to go but my instinct says 
to trust the topic committee on most of these issues. SORT is a perfect 
example. My objections were always to the process not providing the community 
with information about what I thought was a substantial change. Complaints 
about it being ratified in the near future are substantive decisions the 
committee considered and researched. There are members of our community who 
disagree with that assesment but that isn't a reason to take the power out of 
the topic committee's hands. If someone can get 1/3rd of the active voters to 
agree with their substantive interpretation then that is a reasonable 
justification to make the topic committee reconsider and I think they would 
take that process very seriously. 3 people like me, roston and stone 
hollering about SORT isn't something that should make the topic committee 
jump up and take notice but 1/3rd is.


Tim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020612/81bb95a6/attachment.htm 


From privethedge  Wed Jun 12 10:18:21 2002
From: privethedge (Duane Hyland)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 08:18:21 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] A Belated Response to Will Baker/ Continuing on UDL
Message-ID: <20020612151821.51483.qmail@web10005.mail.yahoo.com>


HI, I'm sorry, Will, I missed your initial post on this subject and wasn't aware of it until Sarah referred me to it. So,  I went to the archives and I read what you wrote, and, as usual, you raise several good points.

My major complaints, or feelings of unease about an UDL in DC, has always been these issues:

1) A seeming lack of communication between the existing League and the UDL on things like scheduling. Unfortuntaely, this has resulted in both leagues having head to head tournaments, something that could have been avoided.

2) The judge pool in DC is not the biggest. We rely on having the best available judges for our tournament, as, naturally, the UDL will - so now, we are going head to head for judges - something that shouldn't have to happen.

3) The seeming attitude that with the UDL "ONLY NOW" do the students of DC have an oppurtunity to compete in Policy Debate. There have been debate leagues in the DC area since the 1940's, WACFL has existed, in form, or one name, or another, since the 1950's - there's been plenty of oppurtunity for kids to compete in Policy Debate, or any other speech event they wanted to. All schools had to do was join, and at a low end membership fee per school of $50.00 per year, there's nobody that can tell me that we are too high priced for membership.

But, Sarah has been in contact with me, and I feel more positive that the early confusion, and seeming shroud of silence, will be cleared up, and that, when everything gets off to a start around town, it's going to be a great thing!!:)

 I think that when setting up UDL's in other areas of the nation, that it might be good if those organizing the League would try to find out about the local debate "scene." Try to find out a bit of the history of debate in the area, if there are other Leagues in the area, and those types of things. Perhaps, the UDL could form a link of sorts  between the UDL and the existing League, if only for something as simple as obtaining the existing Leagues schedule (if there are any). It seems to me that if good, solid, communication can occur from the outset, that feelings don't get hurt, and noses don't get bent in the long run.

And now, that's the last I'm going to post on the subject, unless responding directly to another post. If the UDL would like our involvement, and I've been told that they may, I've provided my information to Sarah.  Looking forward to the League coming to DC, and seeing debate expand here!!:)

Duane


"Very bored in Barad-Dur. Nothing to do but play Scrabble with Orcs. Is very annoying as Orcs only know Black Speech of Mordor. You try spelling Azg Nazg Gimbatul for a triple word score. Yeah, I didn't think so."  Secret Diary of the 5th Wring Wraith - LOTR
"Have agreed to carry Ring to Mordor. In hindsight, probably a bad move." - Frodo's Diary - LOTR



 


 



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020612/eb1b0750/attachment.html 


From let_the_american_empire_burn  Wed Jun 12 11:05:56 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:05:56 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] My Last Word (Ever) To Confuse-wa: A Promise & A Suggestion
Message-ID: <F105ZVvjWR2UH7HBFL9000079a8@hotmail.com>

Dear Kevin Kuswa & E-debate/Cx-L Readers
(especially, Alfred Snider, William Baker, & Gordon Mitchell):

(I promise to never again so much as mention Kuswa's name on any debate list 
ever again if he responds in-depth to the following post. And I apologize 
beforehand for any repetition.)

Aside from the subtle rhetorical flourishes that Kuswa 'bandies about' so 
adriotly, he has only one adequate answer to those who would cross-apply 
D&G's schizoanalysis to the psychoanalytical control tactics of academic 
debate: that is, that such criticisms 'reterritorialize potential lines of 
flight.' Following Kuswa's reasoning, one must assume that a participant who 
desires to start a Urban Debate League (or a debate information group) would 
be so confused, so hardened, so depressed by Jack Stroube's posts that they 
would simply give up. Following this reasoning a little further, one might 
suspect that if Kuswa ever met Deleuze & Guattari he wouldn't hesitate to 
inform them that this whole Oedipus complex is merely in their imagination; 
that most psychiatrists no longer even believe in Oedipus anymore, or at 
least no longer consider it central to psychoanalysis. 'Shut up, Deleuze,' 
Kuswa would seem to say: 'Don't you know you only make Oedipulization 
stronger by critiquing it?!?'

As persausive as this reasoning is (and its round-winning), Delueze & 
Guattari are concerned about something quite different when they write about 
'reterritorialization.' Take pages 34 & 35 of 'Anti-Oedipus', for an 
instance:

"Marx termed the twofold movement of the tendency to a falling rate of 
profit, and the increase in the absolute quantity of surplus value, the law 
of the counteracted tendency. As a corollary of this law, there is the 
twofold movement of decoding or deterritorializing flows on the one hand, 
and their violent and artificial reterritorialization on the other. The more 
the capitalist machine deterritorializes, decoding and axiomatizing flows in 
order to extract surplus value from them, the more its ancillary 
apparatuses, such as government bureaucracies and the forces of law and 
order, do their utmost to reterritorialize, absorbing in the process a 
larger and larger share of surplus value." (Cross-reference the bottom 
paragraph of page 257 (to 58), discussing 'varied and complex' 
'neoarchaisms' which 'invent jargons' and 'enclaves' to 'nourish modern 
fascism'.)

In this above quotation, who 'reterritorializes'? Governmental burecracies 
like UTNIF which make apologies for the enforcement of law & order. And who 
'deterritorializes' here? Schizoes who accelerate capitalistic flows and 
circulate capital (money, ideas, whatever) freely. Alfred Snider is doing 
this internationally. So is Will Baker in inner-cities. And Gordon Mitchell 
beats his (brilliant) mind against the academy. But the wall folks like 
these keep ramming into (and persist in ramming into) is this forum's 
over-emphasis of tournament competition. And if kritiking does not break 
through this wall (which necessarily entails the risk of 'breaking down' as 
well), then its due to those who defend their (violant and exploitative) 
neo-territorialies ('archaisms with a current function') - those who make 
token efforts to keep up appearances while refusing to de-emphasize 'the 
game.'

UTNIF is not a single entity, of course, and no institute or squad ever is. 
Its hundreds of students & teachers who (almost automatically) seek 
(molecular) chains of escape. But as children attempt to break loose, 
disciplinary institutions keep them tied down in a controlled space. Just as 
they breathe a little easier away from their neurotic parents, UTNIF, for 
example, imposes 'in loco parentis', worrying and busying them with 
jargon-training and curfews and a pre-planned time-schedule. To repeat: I am 
not totalizing here; I am criticizing (UTNIF's) totalization - and after 
studying 'Anti-Oedipus', an educated person like Kuswa should be able to 
discern the difference. (I do not need to reduce the 'real, inorganized' 
multitude to an artificial, organized multiplicity - but you do, Kuswa, cuz 
that's your job. And I'm here to point out the ironic contradiction involved 
in running such a debate colony on 'post-colonial kritiks.')

Today's suggestion for UTNIF: employ every drag-bird you can find to judge 
the institute tournament. Many of those so-called 'bums' have experienced 
the 'mental health services' of next year's high skool topic 
first-fucking-hand. This would revolutionize all prior 
tournament-preparation, since students & teachers would have to learn to 
address folks who live far outside 'the traditional policy community.' The 
only two questions I ask of Kuswa: what do you think of this proposal? And 
will you work with me to make it happen?

(The opinions of Snider, Baker, and Mitchell would also be much appreciated 
on the above proposal's application to other institutes and tournaments.) 
And if Kuswa does not respond, readers should see this as proof that even 
the inihibitions to revolt have become unconscious (that is, psychic 
repression). Will the 'kritik' vanguard continue to make excuses for the 
panoptagon's coercive, petty tribunals, injecting guilt & anxiety into every 
child while exonerating every (parental) authority (that is, social 
repression)? Or will they try their dammedest to spark a revolutionary 
charge?

Step out of the universal delirium for a moment, and think.    :kev



P.S:  Read Jan Oury ... please.


P.P.S: Its worth repeating (yet again, from p277 of 'Anti-Oedipus':

"Good people say that we must no flee, that to escape is not good, that it 
isn't effective, and that one must work for reforms. But the revoutionary 
knows that escape is revolutionary - *withdrawal, freaks* - provided one 
sweeps away the social cover on leaving, or causes a piece of the system to 
get lost in the shuffle. What matters is to break through the wall, even if 
one has to become black like John Brown. George Jackson. 'I may take flight, 
but all the while I am fleeing, I will be looking for a weapon!'"

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com




From west  Wed Jun 12 12:17:51 2002
From: west (Terry West)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 11:17:51 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] Topic Alterations
Message-ID: <sd072de4.005@gwise.suu.edu>

I pretty much agree with the sentiment below from both the original and
respondent, but would add one thing:

While I, too, believe the topic committees do a fine job and am far too
involved with other things in the summer to put my money where my mouth
is and join in the work they do, I think part of the problem here is
that we crafted only 3 topics, and they are all essentially the same. 
Yes, a couple of treaties are added here and there, but all contain a
basic core, and that core includes SORT.  While I understand and respect
the committee's thoughts on this, and am not yet convinced that it is
the travesty some think it is (they may be right; I just haven't gotten
there yet), I do think that there is a very limited opportunity for the
community to actually vote against resolutions they don't like or for
resolutions they do like.  We basically have one choice:  vote for the
resolution, or vote for the resolution plus an addition.  Not really a
choice between resolutions.

I also don't have an answer for the problem, so I'm not claiming the
topic committee did anything wrong here, and I don't mean to be
critical.  I just think it's a bind we might try to avoid in the future.

Hey, being on topic committee is like any other leadership
position--doesn't matter what you do, somebody isn't going to like it.  

Terry
SUU

>>> <Pacedebate at aol.com> 06/11/02 22:47 PM >>>
In a message dated 6/11/2002 5:37:46 PM Central Daylight Time, 
swhalen at sfsu.edu writes:


> Let me be clear about my position - I am strongly opposed to
alterations
> after the topic meeting unless they are minor housekeeping issues or
> unless there is an OVERWHELMING community concensus on a particular
> alteration.  I am interested in ideas that folks might have about how
> interested parties could demonstrate "overwhelming community
concensus"
> in the limited time available before the official ballot is released.
> 
> (An important note - I don't believe that any proposal could be
> implemented this year.  I'm interested in your feedback in the ongoing
> effort to improve the topic selection process in subsequent years.)

I think the topic committee does a great job and in those few instances
where 
they have made an error the current process gives them leeway to correct

that. I wouldn't support any amendment that took away the flexibility
the 
topic committee has to make changes. However, I would support an
amendment 
that required the executive secretary to wait a designated amount of
time 
(maybe 7-14 days after it's announced by the topic chair) to send out
the 
FINAL ballot and would allow anyone who could get a number equal to
1/3rd of 
those voting on the topic area to petition the topic committee to make a

change to the ballot. The petition would have to state specifically how
the 
ballot would be changed. The topic committee would then vote on whether
to 
make the change.
Some might prefer the petition itself be given to the entire membership
for a 
vote. I'm open to being persuaded that is the way to go but my instinct
says 
to trust the topic committee on most of these issues. SORT is a perfect 
example. My objections were always to the process not providing the
community 
with information about what I thought was a substantial change.
Complaints 
about it being ratified in the near future are substantive decisions the

committee considered and researched. There are members of our community
who 
disagree with that assesment but that isn't a reason to take the power
out of 
the topic committee's hands. If someone can get 1/3rd of the active
voters to 
agree with their substantive interpretation then that is a reasonable 
justification to make the topic committee reconsider and I think they
would 
take that process very seriously. 3 people like me, roston and stone 
hollering about SORT isn't something that should make the topic
committee 
jump up and take notice but 1/3rd is.


Tim




From stannardmatt  Wed Jun 12 13:17:52 2002
From: stannardmatt (matt stannard)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:17:52 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] Mick Souders and David Register
Message-ID: <F140fH15eUWOv7tfAJ400005f47@hotmail.com>

I need both Mick and Dave to email me as soon as possible.  It's urgent.

stannard

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From stannardmatt  Wed Jun 12 13:18:25 2002
From: stannardmatt (matt stannard)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:18:25 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] Mick Souders and David Register
Message-ID: <F1723Dl87j4nMZlgmiU0001d71e@hotmail.com>

I need both Mick and Dave to email me as soon as possible.  It's urgent.

stannard

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com




From west  Wed Jun 12 13:33:17 2002
From: west (Terry West)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 12:33:17 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] Another topic ballot issue
Message-ID: <sd073f92.060@gwise.suu.edu>

A more quick-thinking colleague just backchanneled to me an interesting
thought about the topics on the ballot.

What this means is that the topic, essentially, has been announced on
June 8.

My reaction:  that may be a good thing or a bad thing.  But isn't there
anyone in the CEDA leadership, even at the regional rep level, who
wonders about this de facto change in procedures? Does it mean anything?
 If there was ever a reason for setting a date for topic release, is
there one now?  

Those are my questions, not necessarily those of the backchanneler.

Terry
SUU




From stannardmatt  Wed Jun 12 14:18:29 2002
From: stannardmatt (matt stannard)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 13:18:29 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] Wyoming Top of the Rockies Invitation
Message-ID: <F99Ix3vT5uxb9dx5wtw0001f349@hotmail.com>

Dear Colleague:

On behalf of the University of Wyoming Debate Team, the Department of 
Communication and Journalism, and the College of Arts and Sciences, it is 
our pleasure to invite you to attend the Top of the Rockies Tournament, here 
in beautiful Laramie, Wyoming, September 20 through 22, 2002.  We are proud 
to be the season opener for many teams in the forensics community.  
Additionally, we invite all in attendance to help Matt Stannard celebrate 
his 35th birthday on September 21.

We will offer seven preliminary rounds, with appropriate elimination rounds, 
of NDT/CEDA debate and NPDA parliamentary debate.  We will recognize an 
appropriate number of individual speakers in each division of debate.  We 
will offer three preliminary rounds of all AFA-NIET individual events, with 
finals.  The tournament subscribes to CEDA and NPDA Sexual Harassment 
policies.

Our tournament also promises a friendly (late-starting) schedule, food 
provided to participants all three days, and competitive excellence.  We 
hope you can join us.  If you have any questions, please call Matt Stannard 
at (307) 766-6690.

Very truly yours,

Matt Stannard, Director of Forensics
Carol Green, Team President
Randy Deberry, James Devore, Tracey Mahoney, Sarah Stone, Luke Stricker, 
Coaching Staff


THE 2002 TOP OF THE ROCKIES TOURNAMENT: UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING


Debate

We will be offering as many divisions of NDT/CEDA debate as entries warrant. 
  NDT/CEDA teams will debate the 2002-2003 resolution.  Times will be 9-3-6 
with 10 minutes preparation time per team.

We will be offering as many divisions of NPDA debate as entries warrant.  
Times will be 7-8-8-8-4-5 with 20 minutes preparation time before each 
round.  The tournament will adhere to the NPDA Constitution on all other 
questions of procedure.

Round seven (the last preliminary round) in both NDT/CEDA and NPDA debate 
will be a flip-for-sides debate.

One judge covers two debate teams.  We cannot guarantee that there will be 
enough extra judges to cover teams that do not cover their commitment.  We 
urge you to (1) cover your commitment, and (2) offer to judge extra rounds.  
Judges who go beyond their commitment, and hired judges, will receive $15.00 
per round.

Individual Events

Pattern A:  Extemp, Inform, Prose, Dramatic Interp, CA, Persuasion
Pattern B:  Impromptu, Poetry, Duo, ADS, POI.

One judge covers six individual events entries per pattern. We cannot 
guarantee that there will be enough extra judges to cover contestants that 
do not cover their commitment.  We urge you to (1) cover your commitment, 
and (2) offer to judge extra rounds.  Judges who go beyond their commitment, 
and hired judges, will receive $15.00 per round.

Fees:

$50.00 per debate team
$100.00 per uncovered debate team
$10.00 per individual event slot
$10.00 per uncovered individual event slot
$20.00 per person shuttled to and from airport and/or to and from tournament

Lodging:

The following Laramie hotels have reserved blocks of rooms for the 
tournament; the cut-off dates are 30 days before check-in, meaning 
reservations MUST be made by August 19.

Super-8
1987 Banner Rd, Laramie
(307) 745-8901
$54.00 for 1-2 people, $59.00 for 3 people, $64.00 for 4 people.

Comfort Inn
3420 E. Grand Ave, Laramie
(307) 721-8856
$67.50 flat rate for 2 double beds.

Laramie First Inn Gold
421 Boswell, Laramie
(307) 742-3721
$65.69 for 2 people, $81.69 for 4 people.  This is the best hotel in 
Laramie, and the price includes an excellent continental breakfast every 
morning.

Please mention that you are reserving rooms from the block designated for 
the UW debate tournament.  Mention the University of Wyoming Debate 
Tournament, or Matt Stannard.

Please make reservations NOW!  You can cancel them later if you need to.  
Also, please inform Matt Stannard when you have done so, in order that we 
know where you will be staying and so we'll be able to inform others of room 
availability.  Finally, let us know if you have trouble securing 
accommodations; we can direct you to alternatives.

Airports, Shuttles, Parking and Directions to the tournament:

Tournament shuttle service: For a fee of $20.00 per person, we will shuttle 
you to and from the airports and hotels.  Please inform us of the number of 
people requiring this service.

Denver International Airport is 2 and 1/2 hours from Laramie on I-25 to 
I-80.  Several rental agencies are available to provide vehicles.  Follow 
the directions below.

Some may elect to land in Laramie or Cheyenne.  These are small airports, 
which may have limited rental vehicle facilities.  Please call Matt Stannard 
with any questions about these airports.

>From I-80:  From Cheyenne head west on I-80; take the Grand Avenue exit.  
Follow Grand west to campus.  Several signs point to campus.

>From west of Laramie, head east on I-80; take the Grand Avenue exit and 
follow the instructions above.

>From I-25:  Head north into Wyoming.  Upon entering Cheyenne, there will be 
a turn onto I-80 west; the sign will say "Laramie."  Follow directions 
above.

Parking:  From Grand Avenue, turn towards the university on 15th Street.  On 
Ivinson, go to 14th street.  Park in the Business or Union parking lots.

Tournament headquarters will again be in the Classroom Building.  Maps of 
campus are available at http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/tour/west.htm

How to enter the tournament:

For each entry indicate:
School Name
Director of Forensics
Director?s phone number and email address
For debate: Names of debaters, divisions (novice, JV or open, NDT/CEDA or 
NPDA)
For individual events: Name of competitor, events entered
Judges? names, along with contestants from other schools that judge ought 
not hear
Any transportation needs

Email entries to:

Stannard at uwyo.edu

Or, Fax entries to:

Attn: Matt Stannard
(307) 766-3812

Schedule

    friday, september 20

2:00-3:00 PM registration, Classroom Building
3:00 Pairings round one all debate
3:30 round one all debate
5:30 round two all debate
7:30 round three all debate

    saturday, september 21

9:00-10:00 AM registration ie only
9:30 extemp draw
10:00 round one pattern A
10:00 NDT/CEDA round four
11:30 round two pattern A
Noon lunch
1:00 PM NPDA round four, NDT/CEDA round five
2:00 round three pattern A
3:00 NPDA round five
4:00 NPDA round six, NDT/CEDA round six
5:00 NPDA round seven
7:00 NDT/CEDA round seven, finals pattern A
ASAP debate breaks posted and Stannard's birthday party

    sunday, september 22

8:00 AM pairings released for debate elims
8:30 debate elim 1, NDT/CEDA and NPDA
9:30 round one pattern B
10:30 round two pattern B
11:30 lunch
12:30 PM round three pattern B
1:00 debate elim 2, NDT/CEDA and NPDA
3:00 debate elim 3, NDT/CEDA and NPDA
4:00 finals pattern B
5:00 PM NPDA elim 4
6:00 awards
(further debate elims as necessary)



_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com




From siudebate  Wed Jun 12 16:12:33 2002
From: siudebate (zachary sapienza)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 16:12:33 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Washington University in STL job opening.
Message-ID: <F102qk0qcITzSOFI3Jz0002300d@hotmail.com>

Hello folks:

I have resigned as the debate coach at Washington University for a job 
opportunity in Colorado. While my time at WU was short, I would like to 
acknowledge all the people who have assisted our program in growing. Thanks 
to Glen Frappier, Aaron Klemz, Eric Slusher, Jen Rigdon, Matt Moore, Brian 
Campbell, Supafly JT, Jason Stone, Scott and Gina Jensen for all your help 
and assistance.

My position has yet to be filled. If anyone is interested, they can contact 
Melanie Adams or myself to find out more. I can be reached by phone or email 
at 314.761.6175 or zsapienza at hotmail.com. Melanie Adams can be reached at 
adams at dosa.wustl.edu. Chris Wheat, one of my debaters, will fill in as the 
interim debate coach until the position is filled. He can be reached by cell 
at 314.517.1696 or by email at cowheat at artsci.wustl.edu.

In other news, I would like to congratulate Aaron and Jen Klemz in their 
recent marriage. I wish you the best of luck.

Zachary Sapienza


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com




From wishfull  Wed Jun 12 18:48:25 2002
From: wishfull (Michael Roston )
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:48:25 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] ans West
Message-ID: <PNNPGAFNMCHDNAAA@shared1-mail.whowhere.com>

I think the current structure of the ballot in the 5/7/9 treaty form is legitimate.  On a number of occasions in May, I spoke directly to the subject of producing a ballot that had more than one option in terms of what it did.  The most coherent alternative I proposed was the idea of a resolution that suggested the US should ratify a multilateral treaty in one of three different areas defined by the UN in ther treaty register that had been deposited with the UN Secretary General after a cut-off date.  I posted this message during a window of time when there was more topic discussion than Jackfoolery on the list, and it did not appear to generate much interest or discussion.  Some people in fact responded to me directly by noting that they were of the opinion that a 5/7/9-style ballot was preferable.  Additionally, there were a few loose ends on this resolution idea which seemed difficult to resolve - how to exclude treaties between 4 or 5 states, and the potentially much wider affirmative ground it would create.

additionally, the verb/mechanism question was very thoroughly discussed.  It struck me that the conclusion of the discussion was that a mechanism should be selected that would make it possible to concentrate the discussion on which treaties should and should not be excluded.  The hope was that a mechanism would be produced that did not obviate the inclusion of any particular treaties merely because of differences in status.  While I believe there was an opinion going into the topic meeting that "consent to be bound" would emerge as the proposed verb, I imagine that further topic committee research and discussion determined that "ratify or accede to" was sufficient.  

the only potential loose-end here on diversity would be incomplete treaties for which there is no stable text.  I did research on several of these treaties for the committee, and all along it seemed as though there was little community interest in a resolution that would include treaties that were difficult to predict.  Someone even provided an excellent example of where this had created ground problems on the Indian Country topic.

so, if what you describe is a flaw in the ballot, it is a flaw for which there appears to be  general community support because it was an expected outcome of committee deliberations.

---
Michael Roston
-enemy of freedom

"At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."
                    -President Richard Nixon, May 18, 1971



Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com




From mmk_savant  Thu Jun 13 10:45:12 2002
From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 11:45:12 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] puerile indeed
Message-ID: <OE19HAaaz7EjQxzmWec0001444f@hotmail.com>

well, am a fan of the poor man's Burroughs, too.  but that last writer is vintage Tard.

"he instinctively recognizes that the only story anyone can tell is their own, and that "objective journalism" is a game for the kind of fools and pedants who honestly believe that there is something called "the truth," which lies outside of subjective perception and opinion."

The Test:  21st floor of a high-rise. open window. jump out.  if there is "the truth" there is deceleration trauma splatter but if there is only "subjective perception" then there is flying gently away to alight upon a pathway for walking. YOU CAN DO IT, JOSHUA!!!  YOU CAN DO IT!

"I am much more interested in stealing from William Gibson - the man who taught me how to drop pronouns - than from Thompson. You see, I understand that most of the neo-Gonzo journalism out there is parodic at best and puerile at worst..."

2 sentences, 4 pronouns = dancing on table with lampshade on head yelling "i am a Rear Admiral! look at me!"

"Joshua Ellis, raconteur and deranged futurist, has a doctorate in divinity from the Universal Life Church."

and he is a Tard.

just say "no" to drugs.
Michael Korcok
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020613/fb590e12/attachment.html 


From let_the_american_empire_burn  Thu Jun 13 12:28:21 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:28:21 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] SPLAT!!!!! (ans Korcok)
Message-ID: <F29Ahh6YBtgYuERWIXS0001ca15@hotmail.com>

Korcok's quote: 'he instinctively recognizes that the only story anyone can 
tell is their own, and that 'objective journalism' is a game for the kind of 
fools and pedants who honestly believe that there is something called 'the 
truth,' which lies outside of subjective perception and opinion.'

Korcok's remark: "The Test: 21st floor of a high-rise. open window. jump 
out. if there is "the truth" there is deceleration trauma splatter but if 
there is only "subjective perception" then there is flying gently away to 
alight upon a pathway for walking. YOU CAN DO IT, JOSHUA!!! YOU CAN DO IT!"

Korcok's phallacy: The error resides in the separation between objective and 
subjective reality; in truth, there is no such duality. There's only 
energy-flows and 'consciousness' is a recent, paranoid simulacra on the big 
shebang.

Jumping from the 21st floor is an experience that can vary widely depending 
on one's relation to death in addition to a slew of unpredictable 
occurences. (Take the ending of the movie 'Vanilla Sky', for an example.) Or 
maybe this is what really happens: 'Oh glory be, a god-fearing Republican 
has broken my fall - well, Praise the Lord!'

Apparently, you view the whole deal as 'the test' - and if so, then life for 
you is probably a lot more boring than death would be. To another way of 
looking at things, perhaps we're all always already falling from a great 
height, and the splatter at the end is not a mess so much as a work of art. 
(Will you ever know the beauty of going insane, Michael?)

Since you brought him up, one of William S. Burrough's quotations from Byrin 
Gysin comes to mind actually (paraphrasing, of course) ...

The All-Purpose Bed-Time Story - Once upon a time there was a sloppy, dirty 
Giant, eating His way through Time, dropping Shit from His fingers 
everywhere. And one of those gobs of grease is our universe ... on its way 
to the floor ... SPLAT!!!!!

However, Korcok, we are in agreement: most Hunter S. Thompson is drivel - if 
he's the modern-day De Quincey, then he's a picture-perfect depiction of how 
shitty things have become in Amnesaic-America.

Funny guy though. Good to see a babbling drug-taking fool doing well for 
themself. Too bad more folks can't earn a nice living that way, eh there 
Kuswa?

byebyenow   :kev


My next trick will be an attack on the JackAttack and his project of 
SLF-aggrandizement. On guard, Mr. Strubes ...

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com




From a-brovero  Thu Jun 13 12:32:15 2002
From: a-brovero (Adrienne Brovero)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:32:15 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Another famous debater in the news
References: <DAV67RgjWKXOzPPa12y00011929@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <001201c21300$4ec423c0$0401000a@attbi.com>


Dartmouth alum David Reymann is tangetially involved in the search for Elizabeth Smart in Utah -- he's handling requests by investigators for tapes of media coverage of the search according to this morning's SLT...

http://www.sltrib.com/06132002/nation_w/745086.htm

-adri

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020613/2aeb3dda/attachment.htm 


From west  Thu Jun 13 13:33:10 2002
From: west (Terry West)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:33:10 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] ans West
Message-ID: <sd089115.048@gwise.suu.edu>

Well, I know that challenging the orthodoxy of what is now claimed to be
"community consensus" (interesting view; chase off most of the
community, then claim "consensus") is the unforgivable sin in our new,
"inclusive" and "diverse" (insert sarcastic chuckles here)world of
intercollegiate debate, but I'm not too impressed with claims of
community consensus based on e-debate or who we know.

Flaw or no flaw, verb or no verb, popular among the "elite" or not, the
fact remains that CEDA now announces its topic on June 8.  As I said in
my previous post, there are arguments to be made about whether that is a
good or bad thing.  I remember about 8 years ago in a national CEDA
meeting when a LOT more people were in the organization and attended
those things that we spent the better part of two hours arguing about
whether we should accommodate the desires of NDT (which had announced
that they would adopt the CEDA resolution or a policy form of it)by
moving CEDA's traditional topic release date of Sept 3 (had been 10th at
one time) to August 1.  The compromise became August 15, and was
eventually made August 1 later.

There was a lot of debate about that, and we lost a lot of programs
because of the decision (which I voted for, by the way).  But lots of
programs felt that earlier topic release simply magnified the already
significant advantages that larger and more powerful programs had in
research.  Others felt like debaters should have some part of the year
to "get a life," rather than 365 days of wall-eye.

Now all of these things are debatable, and don't strawfigure me into
arguments I never made.  The point I'm making is that these things were
never really debated, and they should have been.  In the proper format
(not e-debate), and our elected officials should have at least
considered it.  If they did, those considerations and their reasons
should be made public.

When will next year's topic be released?  Why don't we do like the high
schools and release it in April?

Terry
SUU

>>> "Michael Roston " <wishfull at eudoramail.com> 06/12/02 17:51 PM >>>

I think the current structure of the ballot in the 5/7/9 treaty form is
legitimate.  On a number of occasions in May, I spoke directly to the
subject of producing a ballot that had more than one option in terms of
what it did.  The most coherent alternative I proposed was the idea of a
resolution that suggested the US should ratify a multilateral treaty in
one of three different areas defined by the UN in ther treaty register
that had been deposited with the UN Secretary General after a cut-off
date.  I posted this message during a window of time when there was more
topic discussion than Jackfoolery on the list, and it did not appear to
generate much interest or discussion.  Some people in fact responded to
me directly by noting that they were of the opinion that a 5/7/9-style
ballot was preferable.  Additionally, there were a few loose ends on
this resolution idea which seemed difficult to resolve - how to exclude
treaties between 4 or 5 states, and the potentially much wid!
er affirmative ground it would create.

additionally, the verb/mechanism question was very thoroughly discussed.
 It struck me that the conclusion of the discussion was that a mechanism
should be selected that would make it possible to concentrate the
discussion on which treaties should and should not be excluded.  The
hope was that a mechanism would be produced that did not obviate the
inclusion of any particular treaties merely because of differences in
status.  While I believe there was an opinion going into the topic
meeting that "consent to be bound" would emerge as the proposed verb, I
imagine that further topic committee research and discussion determined
that "ratify or accede to" was sufficient.  

the only potential loose-end here on diversity would be incomplete
treaties for which there is no stable text.  I did research on several
of these treaties for the committee, and all along it seemed as though
there was little community interest in a resolution that would include
treaties that were difficult to predict.  Someone even provided an
excellent example of where this had created ground problems on the
Indian Country topic.

so, if what you describe is a flaw in the ballot, it is a flaw for which
there appears to be  general community support because it was an
expected outcome of committee deliberations.

---
Michael Roston
-enemy of freedom

"At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."
                    -President Richard Nixon, May 18, 1971



Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail
account at http://www.eudoramail.com

_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at ndtceda.com
To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




From smithr  Thu Jun 13 14:43:18 2002
From: smithr (Ross Smith)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:43:18 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Good topic choices
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020613152307.04093dc0@pop.wfu.edu>

Congrats to the committee and to all who helped.

I may be especially dense but do not see what the big deal is about SORT.

If it passes, each topic is that much smaller, that's all.

Until it does there seems to be good two sided debate on it. And if it 
really is a bad policy, then the whole issue is moot.

Hell, I would have left out the conditional language in the resolution and 
just let affs try to defend the execute half even after the Senate ratified 
(is that like colons? maybe that clause could be stricken a a friendly 
amendment).

As for size of the topics, I'll just chime in a bit w/ Tejinder by saying 
Kyoto by itself is huge.  As is CTBT. Etc.

The large number of ISSUES on a small number of treaties will keep the 
debates interesting.

The AFF has a huge burden to get ready for all of the different ways the 
neg could attack Kyoto. When people think of breadth they often just think 
the neg is the only team that has to do research.

The only other thing on size is that I do not share Jonathan Paul's opinion 
that it will be easy to counterplan out changes in the way the aff 
implements (Kyoto). He says neg can just c-plan w/ do the implementation 
but not ratify. I have a feeling, however, that the reasons not to ratify 
in a world where the US is already implementing will be few and far 
between. The advantages of ratifying and increasing multilateral solvency 
might just be large.

If I am correct in this last paragraph, then Paul's entire argument seems 
to crumble.



Ross Smith
WFU Debate Coach
336-758-5268 (o)




From blackdebateguy  Thu Jun 13 14:49:25 2002
From: blackdebateguy (doug dennis)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] New Debate Coach at the University of Rochester
In-Reply-To: <108.131355a5.2a3803e2@aol.com>
Message-ID: <20020613194925.24554.qmail@web13103.mail.yahoo.com>


 i just wanted to send out a congrats to adam lee (arlee)...he's a awesome individual as well as coach and will help continue the monsterous success of the rochester union...
good job!!
doug d
 
 Samnelson4 at aol.com wrote: Adam Lee, formerly a debater at the University of Texas, has taken a position 
on the University of Rochester Debate Union coaching staff for this coming 
year. All the yellowjackets are really looking forward to working with this 
dynamic and enthusiastic new debate coach. However, we still need to hire two 
more coaches. If you know of anyone interested please have them contact me.

Thanks,

Sam Nelson,
Director of Forensics,
University of Rochester


_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at ndtceda.com
To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate


---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020613/2fa5e840/attachment.html 


From bauschar  Thu Jun 13 15:32:56 2002
From: bauschar (Stefan.Bauschard)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:32:56 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Early Topic Release
Message-ID: <3D0E7FD8@netfin6.bc.edu>

I'm don't care to wade into a full-fledge discussion of early topic release 
(or anything) on edebate, but I don't think the early topic release has much 
of an impact on anyone's competetive success.

What follows is a list of issues that are more likely to drive win- next year 
than any topic specific research.  You could research and write blocks on 
these all summer, and until you have these down, your topic-specific work 
probably isn't going to get you too far.  This is just a start...

Irony good/bad
Narratives good/bad
Poetry good/bad
Deconstruction good/bad
State action good/bad
Realism good/bad
Ir feminism good/bad
Capitalism good/bad
Simulation good/bad
Policy debate good/bad
Humanism good/bad
Gender pronouns
apologies good/bad
nuke war good/bad
Psychopolitics
Speaking for Others
Growth good/bad

T is/isn?t a voter
A whole slew of theory blocks

Performance debate good/bad
International veto/consult counterplan
Anarcyh CP Answers
World Gov CP Answers
Politics internals
Midterm elections scenarios
Court Counterplan solvency/answers
Referundums counterplan/answers

Multilateralism good/bad
International law good/bad
Ks of international law

Stefan Bauschard
Boston College Debate
617-552-1720

Hitchhiker's Companion to the C-X Debate Topic Research Site
www.oneparadigm.com/hitchhiker/home.html

2001-2002 College Debate Caselist
http://136.167.201.102:2001/

September 11 Attacks Research Site
http://www.terrorismlibrary.com





From j-paul2  Thu Jun 13 17:15:05 2002
From: j-paul2 (j-paul2 at northwestern.edu)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 17:15:05 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Good topic choices
Message-ID: <200206132215.RAA23185@webemail.it.northwestern.edu>

I am 10 pages away from a diploma so this will not be very long.   Maybe later. 

I agree with Ross about the SORT.   No big deal. 

My support of the 9 treaty topic has declined considerably (if i had a vote it 
would be for the 2nd topic) but more because of the extra treaties (I may post 
later about this when I have more time) and not the concerns raised by the 
Tejinder/Ross camp.  In short, I am not convinced that 9 treaties is too big.  
Tejinder's concerns of a reliance on generic arguments is inevitable.   People 
will run what they think they will win with.  5 treaties instead of 9 will not 
make Gendered IR disappear from boxes. Trice had a post a long time ago on an 
unrelated issue about Calum going for the Story K every round despite the 
coaches/team putting together good case negs that speaks to this phenomena.  
Ross raises the concern about aff research burden.   Maybe I am the dense one, 
but I dont see how 5 treaties eliminates that.  Would it not increase the aff 
research burden because teams would have more strategies against cases on a 5 
treaty topic than on 9 treaty topic?  This discussion over research burdens is 
irrelevant anyways.  You have a research burden no matter what topic you 
choose-none of the topics put you in an unmanageable position (like 
Indians/Africa)   It may be different issues, but I dont think the amount of 
work people do will change.  I do not have anything to add about the 
implementation question except that people usually find a way (kritik/bush DA). 
 JP 







Ross Smith <smithr at wfu.edu> writes on Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:43:18 -0400: 
> 
> 
> Congrats to the committee and to all who helped. 
> 
> I may be especially dense but do not see what the big deal is about SORT. 
> 
> If it passes, each topic is that much smaller, that's all. 
> 
> Until it does there seems to be good two sided debate on it. And if it 
> really is a bad policy, then the whole issue is moot. 
> 
> Hell, I would have left out the conditional language in the resolution and 
> just let affs try to defend the execute half even after the Senate ratified 
> (is that like colons? maybe that clause could be stricken a a friendly 
> amendment). 
> 
> As for size of the topics, I'll just chime in a bit w/ Tejinder by saying 
> Kyoto by itself is huge.  As is CTBT. Etc. 
> 
> The large number of ISSUES on a small number of treaties will keep the 
> debates interesting. 
> 
> The AFF has a huge burden to get ready for all of the different ways the 
> neg could attack Kyoto. When people think of breadth they often just think 
> the neg is the only team that has to do research. 
> 
> The only other thing on size is that I do not share Jonathan Paul's opinion 
> that it will be easy to counterplan out changes in the way the aff 
> implements (Kyoto). He says neg can just c-plan w/ do the implementation 
> but not ratify. I have a feeling, however, that the reasons not to ratify 
> in a world where the US is already implementing will be few and far 
> between. The advantages of ratifying and increasing multilateral solvency 
> might just be large. 
> 
> If I am correct in this last paragraph, then Paul's entire argument seems 
> to crumble. 
> 
> 
> 
> Ross Smith 
> WFU Debate Coach 
> 336-758-5268 (o) 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> eDebate mailing list 
> eDebate at ndtceda.com 
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: 
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate 
> 







From tejinder  Thu Jun 13 17:47:31 2002
From: tejinder (Tejinder Singh)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:47:31 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Good topic choices
References: <200206132215.RAA23185@webemail.it.northwestern.edu>
Message-ID: <000901c2132c$4d769120$56052080@Berkeley.EDU>

JP is generally right that people will run what they win on. In other words,
it will probably be impossible to get Asher Haig to run an argument that's
written in the english language. BUT, there are teams who feel that with
enough work, they can win on a case-specific strategy. My claim is only that
for those people who make their argumentative choices based on what they
perceive to be a strategic investment of time and resources, a smaller topic
is more likely to facilitate a choice that includes a robust case debate.
Nothing more.

The reason that I "control the uniqueness" in this discussion is that JP
says: "Would it [a smaller topic] not increase the aff research burden
because teams would have more strategies against cases on a 5 treaty topic
than on 9 treaty topic?" My answer to that is a resounding, capital-lettered
NO. The reason that's true is because each negative team can only run one
strategy per round, and because each squad is likely to formulate a
different strategy from each other squad anyway. In other words, it doesn't
matter how many different strategies the Northwestern squad has against my
aff unless those strategies are different from the strategies written and
run by every other team in the country. If Northwestern has 20 strategies,
but all of them are also run by Dartmouth, MSU, USC, Texas, Wake,
Louisville, and Kentucky, then probably I'd still be prepared for them. So
the aff research burden can't increase...only the neg research burden can,
by virtue of inclusion of more treaties. A big research burden is good, but
like Ross said, some of these treaties are topics unto themselves. This goes
beyond big, and into the realm of the unreasonable.

I'll explicate on this point a little bit, but not much, because the logic
is relatively intuitive.

The Kyoto treaty, for example, has a plethora of harm areas attached to it.
The warming debate alone can fill two tubs, and it accesses debates about
the economy, etc. Then there are all the possible implementation mechanisms,
from tradable permits to carbon taxes to mandatory caps or renewables, etc
etc. Then there are all the international implications totally independent
of warming like US leadership. That's about 3 tubs of stuff, without even
whipping out the K.

Debating the CTBT means getting all up on the prolif debate in ways that
haven't been required on the college topic for years. Not even sanctions
dealt with the impacts to this stuff on nearly the same scale, which means
that only small portions of the prolif work from then will be applicable.
The solvency debate on the CTBT has been hashed out so many times by various
advocates that it would take a significant amount of time to line up one's
ducks and be ready to roll. The CTBT also has implications for other arms
control treaties and for relations with allies. And let's NOT forget the
Western Shoshone, who've been the most bombed nation in the world.

Blah blah on and on, you get the idea. These are big treaties.

Tejinder


----- Original Message -----
From: <j-paul2 at northwestern.edu>
To: "Ross Smith" <smithr at wfu.edu>
Cc: <eDebate at ndtceda.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 3:15 PM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Good topic choices


> I am 10 pages away from a diploma so this will not be very long.   Maybe
later.
>
> I agree with Ross about the SORT.   No big deal.
>
> My support of the 9 treaty topic has declined considerably (if i had a
vote it
> would be for the 2nd topic) but more because of the extra treaties (I may
post
> later about this when I have more time) and not the concerns raised by the
> Tejinder/Ross camp.  In short, I am not convinced that 9 treaties is too
big.
> Tejinder's concerns of a reliance on generic arguments is inevitable.
People
> will run what they think they will win with.  5 treaties instead of 9 will
not
> make Gendered IR disappear from boxes. Trice had a post a long time ago on
an
> unrelated issue about Calum going for the Story K every round despite the
> coaches/team putting together good case negs that speaks to this
phenomena.
> Ross raises the concern about aff research burden.   Maybe I am the dense
one,
> but I dont see how 5 treaties eliminates that.  Would it not increase the
aff
> research burden because teams would have more strategies against cases on
a 5
> treaty topic than on 9 treaty topic?  This discussion over research
burdens is
> irrelevant anyways.  You have a research burden no matter what topic you
> choose-none of the topics put you in an unmanageable position (like
> Indians/Africa)   It may be different issues, but I dont think the amount
of
> work people do will change.  I do not have anything to add about the
> implementation question except that people usually find a way (kritik/bush
DA).
>  JP
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Ross Smith <smithr at wfu.edu> writes on Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:43:18 -0400:
> >
> >
> > Congrats to the committee and to all who helped.
> >
> > I may be especially dense but do not see what the big deal is about
SORT.
> >
> > If it passes, each topic is that much smaller, that's all.
> >
> > Until it does there seems to be good two sided debate on it. And if it
> > really is a bad policy, then the whole issue is moot.
> >
> > Hell, I would have left out the conditional language in the resolution
and
> > just let affs try to defend the execute half even after the Senate
ratified
> > (is that like colons? maybe that clause could be stricken a a friendly
> > amendment).
> >
> > As for size of the topics, I'll just chime in a bit w/ Tejinder by
saying
> > Kyoto by itself is huge.  As is CTBT. Etc.
> >
> > The large number of ISSUES on a small number of treaties will keep the
> > debates interesting.
> >
> > The AFF has a huge burden to get ready for all of the different ways the
> > neg could attack Kyoto. When people think of breadth they often just
think
> > the neg is the only team that has to do research.
> >
> > The only other thing on size is that I do not share Jonathan Paul's
opinion
> > that it will be easy to counterplan out changes in the way the aff
> > implements (Kyoto). He says neg can just c-plan w/ do the implementation
> > but not ratify. I have a feeling, however, that the reasons not to
ratify
> > in a world where the US is already implementing will be few and far
> > between. The advantages of ratifying and increasing multilateral
solvency
> > might just be large.
> >
> > If I am correct in this last paragraph, then Paul's entire argument
seems
> > to crumble.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ross Smith
> > WFU Debate Coach
> > 336-758-5268 (o)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > eDebate mailing list
> > eDebate at ndtceda.com
> > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
> > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




From bdurham  Fri Jun 14 00:41:13 2002
From: bdurham (bdurham at mail.utexas.edu)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 00:41:13 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [eDebate] dR. Sanchez and the Birth of the Debait Clinic
In-Reply-To: <000901c2132c$4d769120$56052080@Berkeley.EDU>
References: <200206132215.RAA23185@webemail.it.northwestern.edu> <000901c2132c$4d769120$56052080@Berkeley.EDU>
Message-ID: <1024033273.3d0981f976a41@webmailapp2.cc.utexas.edu>

        I have been following some of Kevin Sanchez's posts with major 
disappointment.  I don't really want to be subjected to his cheap tactics, but 
I don't feel that his slandering of debate institutes is credible and I am 
concerned about his reappropriation of Jack's tactics (although it they were 
successful, I wasn't a fan).  I find these tactics- although well intentioned- 
only reinforce a conception of what debate should be like, not taking into 
consideration why people actually participate in the activity be it for the 
competitive aspect or for the gaining of personal knowledge.  It's very similar 
to the same arguments that Foucault has made against the dangers of utilizing 
psychoanalysis.


        I guess I have a couple of concerns about how Kevin conceives of the 
debate community:

1)  A complete misconception of competition-  I believe that Dr. Sanchez has 
put the cart before the horse.  He premises a majority of his argument on the 
fundamental assumption that the subject enters the debate community as a 
politicized subject, willing and wanting to be "politically" active (btw: what 
is politically active?  If rhetoric/discourse shapes reality, then doesn't 
debate function as a "politically active" activity).  Instead, I believe that 
debate can operate as a beneficial technology of the self that motivates the 
subject to become politicized.  It provides knowledge, which can function as a 
foundation of knowledge upon which one can take social action outside of the 
exclusive academic community that debate has become.  The problem with many 
social movements as they stand is that they lack an organizational foundation 
of knowledge upon which to take action-- conceptions of how to approach to 
issue and the tactics that should be deployed are not thought out well enough.  
There's almost too much of a focus on being efficient, and hurrying to get the 
problems "solved" without recognition that many social organizations quick fix 
solutions only function to remedy the symptoms of a social problem that has 
been exposed instead of searching for the root of the social problem. 
Personally, I am starting to recognize that I am not as smart as I thought 
(something that I was taught by debate) and that even if I continue to do 
social organizing on the UT campus that it won't really solve anything...I am 
not going to start the revolution on my campus because there is no Grande 
Revolution.  The Revolution is occuring right now, all around us.  The question 
is do you recognize it, and can the current infrastructures that exist be 
utilized in a proactive fashion. I think that your arguments are the same kinds 
of simplification of Foucault that our community is now facing: exercises of 
power are bad bad bad...Come on, now.  We all know that Foucault doesn't say 
that ALL exercises of power; instead, Foucault argues that exercises of power 
produce norms that can be productive or counter productive.  I think a majority 
of those involved in the activity would agree that debate has produced a 
technology of the self that is driven for more knowledge that has the 
oppurtunity to function as a catalyst for social action in areas outside of 
debate tournaments.  I like to think of it in the context of what I would be 
like without debate...would I even know who Foucault was?  Would I be reading 
about psychoanalysis?  It's not likely, whats more likely is that I would be 
pre-law and I wouldn't be majoring in African-American studies studying white 
privilege which I was motivated to do by being in Jack Stroube's lab at the 
UTNIF...Instead, competition has functioned as a catalyst to make me want to 
know more so I have the ability to answer those arguments- hence learning about 
them in the process and figuring out how to answer those positions.  Kevin, if 
you want to apply psychoanalytical philosophy to the debate community and 
competition you might want to go back to the roots of Freud and take into 
consideration the influences of self-projection.  In the context of your 
arguments about competition, it seems like you just have a chip on your 
shoulder because you couldn't cut it when it came down to the W/L's.

2) Your Debate Institute Arguments are about as bad as your haircut-  I really 
wish you would step out of Jack's shadow and recognize his self-projections of 
angst against the UTNIF, which has nothing to do with you (coincedentally, 
someone who hasn't even attended the UTNIF).  I am a product of the UT debate 
community.  My high school coach's were Eric Emerson, Chris Burk, Jack Stroube, 
and Joel Paige.  I attended the UTNIF for 7 weeks, 3 years in a row.  My senior 
year, I was in JV Reed, Eric Jenkins and Jack Stroube's Affirmate Action lab--
an experience which has had significant influence on my life.  It was THAT lab 
that taught me about activism...ie, I wouldn't have become politicized if it 
wasn't for the UTNIF.  I think that in a lot of ways you are demanding too much 
of students- you are attempting to normalize them into becoming politicized 
subjects, potentionally against their will.  It's called autonomy, and it is 
something that gives people the ability to determine when and where and if they 
even want to become politicized-- your suggestions of politicizing high 
schoolers against their will smells like micro-fascism to me.  As for campers 
at institutes, you have to recognize- just like many social organizations- that 
WE need more time and more knowledge before we deploy any tactics that could be 
effective in exposing the root of social processes of exclusion.  Besides, Some 
people just like to win, and don't have the same compassion about social ills 
as you do (which I have absolute respect for).  Ironically, I think that your 
posts on here are a lot of talk and no walk.  You talk a lot about activism, 
but I have not seen you become involved with ANY social organizations when you 
were at the UT campus- could this be an example of recognizing that you needed 
more time (aka knowledge) before taking any social action??...if you are 
interested, I am working on declaring the UT campus a Nuclear Free Zone to 
block out the contracting out of Sandia National Laboratories, as well as 
having the UT Chancellor reimplement affirmative action in the undergraduate 
schools in the UT system.  THIS IS ME CALLING YOU OUT- I COULD USE THE HELP, SO 
PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS.

As for your recommendations about the "drag rats" judging rounds.  I have a 
story for you:  My second year at debate camp (at the UTNIF) I was in Brian 
McBride and Dave Breshears public diplomacy affirmate lab (an awful and non-
topical aff on the Russia topic).  We talked a lot about the power of talking 
AND LISTENING, and Dave recommended that we take advantage of the oppurtunity 
of being at UT on campus and all the people that live around the West Campus 
area.  He then recommended that we approach some of the people that live on the 
drag and talk to them.  I won't say anymore except that this recommendation is 
something I live by and utilize daily and has definitely helped me approach my 
privilege with more recognition of my social status of being an upper-middle 
class, white male through listening and talking to people that are less 
fortunate than me.

THE PHONE IS RINGING...WILL YOU PICK IT UP OR WASTE YOUR TIME CONTINUING TO 
EMAIL FOLKS WITH STOLEN IDEAS?

Respecting and concerned about the direction of this discussion,

Ben Durham
Univ. of Texas Debate




From venture2jeremy  Fri Jun 14 11:31:08 2002
From: venture2jeremy (JEREMY !)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 11:31:08 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] test - ignore
Message-ID: <LAW2-F93Qiehy5NW9fU0002218a@hotmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020614/ded22fef/attachment.htm 


From let_the_american_empire_burn  Fri Jun 14 15:47:24 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 15:47:24 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] dirtys' duel -- response to ben
Message-ID: <F27cYTjr8cU6xfPTeip0000645c@hotmail.com>

Thanks a lot for your response Ben (and I'll save the cheap tactics for 
those who cheapen discussion by their glib non-responsiveness.)

On page 112 of Anti-Oedipus, good ol' D&G argue that 'schizoanalysis' (their 
contrast to psycho-analysis) must be "an openly malevolent activity". That 
is, to 'de-oedipalize,' in their view, a schizo-critic must sincerely 
subject Oedipal analysts (like our dear Dr. Kuswa), who feign a "benevolent 
psuedo neutrality", to "shock treatment". I admit that Kuswa's unwillingness 
to actually read the work he profits from aggravates me, and I am sorry that 
I've disappointed you. I was disappointed to see that Kuswa did not respond 
to my promise to never mention his name again (cuz now I've got to keep 
publicly noting his hypocrisy).

I do not, however, admit to 'reinforcing a conception of what debate should 
be like' because by refusing what debate is, I try to re-open the question 
of what debate can be. I've been attempting to better understand 'why people 
actually participate in the activity' and find that Anti-Oedipus as well as 
Discipline & Punish help tremendously.

Yes, I do think that every debater-subject enters this community as a 
'politicized subject' even if their conscious minds remain indifferent to 
politics proper. Every debater, every coach, every participant is always 
already 'politically active' - the question is whether folks can inject 
critical thinking into unquestioned social practices. This is policy debate, 
Ben, and its not outlandish to question how politics (that is, power) is 
practiced in this forum, whether its in a round or at an institute. 
Continuing on that last example, how camps are organized, how much folks get 
paid, whether they threaten or bust folks for certain things ((like 
student-staff sexual relationships, for instance)), how lab discussion go 
down, how much time is spent preparing for the institute tourney, how time 
is scheduled, and on and on and on - all of these are political problems, 
which is to say, issues of power.

Now, I've tried to demonstrate that modern forensics implies both a 
disciplinary pedagogy and an ideological structure of mono-competition; so 
I'm very interested in understanding how people experience this activity and 
in revealing the very concrete ways in which discipline functions and 
agonivity constructs. Yet your implicit assumptions seem to re-inscribe 
those very notions Foucault, Deleuze, and Guattari try to transcend ....

One, discourse does not just 'shape' reality, discourse is a manifestation 
of reality - its real. Thought and action are inseparable from the real - 
thinking is an activity and every activity relies on a certain mode of 
thinking. The fundamental proposition of kritiking - 'fiat is illusory' - 
also means that debate-reality is glued to the real lives of its 
participants. Debate is a game to be sure, but its never *just* a game.

Two, I agree that debate operates as a (political) technology of the self 
(although I prefer the term 'body' as per D&P's first chapter). But 
'motivation' is *not* only an individual process; its social and historical. 
To get at why people 'do what they do' one must also get at the specific 
modes of power that are fabricating them. For instance, Foucault notes in 
part 3 of D&P that punishments & awards are concrete ways that 
disciplinarians manipulate (student) 'motivation' - which is why I 
juxtaposed UTNIF's official wesbite with Foucault's genealogy of military 
skools. Its insufficient to say, 'people just like to win' - how are they 
made to like it? and an aesthetic 'technology of self' also ask, is it 
possible to re-make ourselves differently?

Three, knowledge is not 'provided' in debate so much as a specific way of 
relating to (power&)knowledge is created. Increasing education is beneficial 
depending on what education means in a specific context. Forensics has a 
tendency to co-opt revolutionary criticism by reducing it to formalized 
expression - UTNIF's emphasis on 'per(form)ativity' re-legitimates this 
anti-critical practice. (Cross-reference Anti-Oedipus' discussion of 
American literature on page 132-3.) Often 'carding' does not consist of 
listening to what an author has to say - and I don't think so little of 
students as to believe that they need to be tricked into critical thinking. 
I just think instructors need to stop reducing criticism to some abstract 
and hard-to-understand strategic position and nourish the (exciting) process 
of self-criticism.

Four, to say debate encourages 'political activism' is undoubtably correct. 
And I write with great admiration of those activists (who happen to be in 
debate) who 'take social action outside of the exclusive academic 
community'. But debate is *always* politically active, both in its internal 
functioning and external effects (which are indivisible). Though I agree its 
often 'elitist' and 'exclusive' (though perhaps becoming less so), this is 
not to say that its irrelevant to larger social condition(ing)s (or to say 
that if it were ever to become thoroughly un-elitist and inclusive that 
critics of debate should go away. A UDLer can be disciplined and Oedipulized 
the same as any WASP.) Debate *already* plays a complex, interesting, and 
important role in cultural reproduction - not merely because many lawyers, 
journalists, academics, and politicians go through forensic training, but 
more fundamentally, because its a place where skool, agon, and empire meet. 
So its quite germane to say that public questions (even from former debaters 
& coaches like myself) must be asked and discussed, such as, Is spewing 
carded authors at high-speeds to win contests the best way to go about 
'education' and 'democratic empowerment'? And is the claim that students 
wouldn't join da-bait unless baited in any way ethical or factual?

Five, I dig your thoughts on social organization. Amidsts Marxists screaming 
for 'the Revolution', Foucault theorized local resistances that reject 
totalizing solutions, hence the GIP which injected prisoners personal 
narratives into mainstream French culture. He said that the notion in our 
heads of 'the whole of society' is exactly what we must get rid of - its a 
trap set up for critical thinkers, exemplified by questions like: 'What 
would you do if you were in the place of official decision-makers?' or 'What 
if everybody acted like you're acting now?' or 'Can't you just give us more 
time?'

You write: "There's almost too much of a focus on being efficient, and 
hurrying to get the problems 'solved' without recognition that many social 
organizations quick fix solutions only function to remedy the symptoms of a 
social problem that has been exposed instead of searching for the root of 
the social problem." - And I couldn't agree more, but in what ways does 
debate contribute to these civilized madnesses? (See my genealogical 
analysis of TS's discourse regarding 'research time', for instance.) Also, 
is there such a beast as 'the root of the social problem'?

Six, I don't say 'power bad' or 'competition bad' - c'mon now, you're 
reading me more closely than that, aren't you, Ben? Every discourse entails 
conflict (hence competition in some form) and every relationship entails 
power (hence discipline in some form) - that's a given. Over-simplification 
(on your part) only serves to over-look how power specifically functions in 
debate: the very concrete ways disciplinary skools and 
mono-hyper-competitive tournament-contests operate. Past and future posts 
will continue to try to brings these things to light. (btw, slight error in 
your reading of Foucault: he never says that power operates 
'counter-productively'. All power is productive, even when it 'produces' 
repressions or idealistic masks for its operations.)

Seven, in truth, critique should never try to 'solve' anything. This is what 
D&G mean when they focus on the process above the goal - what one does 
should be done because its good to do (production), not because it will one 
day lead to something good (expression). There's no one-size-fits-all 
quick-fix - so small acts of resistance must be constantly put forward, even 
when this haults the established order's assembly-line 
(fasterfasterfaster-moremoremore).

Eight, I agree, that debate makes discussions of critical works like these 
possible is *fucking awesome* - but if kritiking is to remain true to its 
radical roots then it must go even farther and transcend the traditional 
fornesic models of game and skool. No one is arguing that debate doesn't do 
good things; my question is can it do better? 'Democratic empowerment' and 
'education' must not be reduced to a 'linguistic game of chess' - they 
aren't just 'voters'; they're values which can re-structure debate itself. 
Just as kritiks destroy a mono-policymaker's forum, this new wave of 
experimentation in debate will destroy a mono-competitor's forum - and the 
wall of in-round performance must be the first one to come crashing down. 
(Goes without saying that those benefiting from the status quo, whether they 
call themselves 'kritikers' or not, will be the most resistant to change.)

Nine, "In the context of your arguments about competition, it seems like you 
just have a chip on your shoulder because you couldn't cut it when it came 
down to the W/L's." - Hey, I did alright when I was Justin Freemyn's 'tool' 
(as ya'll say). I just really didn't care about winning or losing my senior 
year, and quit debate my second semester. And as a coach, I didn't want to 
put any competitive pressure upon my students - but we had lots of fun and I 
learned a lot too (before getting fired, that is :). There's no chip on me 
shoulder - I'm just asking questions here, engaging in genealogy and 
schizoanalysis, and I often do so in a very cut-the-bullshit manner to 
provoke responses. I also admit to discrediting the kritik vanguard, but a 
lot of that is their own fault, first because they often act hypocritically 
in defending institutional coercion and game-totalizations, and second, 
because they often don't know what in the hell they're talking about. Alfie 
Kohn is the guy who rejects 'competition' outright, and he makes a brillant 
argument in 'The Case Against Competition' - a paragraph on page 57 even 
critiques academic debate specifically (since he's a former participant). 
But that's too structuralist for me, I'm a constructivist now - I want to 
analyze history and get beyond ideology (even beyond 'cooperation' as some 
kind of panacea).

Ten, "Your Debate Institute Arguments are about as bad as your haircut." - 
Hey now, I recently cut my hair, and apologize for any harm incurred to 
innocent bystanders. (And how could I make them better? I used UTNIF's own 
website for goodness sakes!)

Eleven, "WE need more time and more knowledge" - Do *you* need more time, or 
do *they* need more time, Ben? Or has your identification with that 
institution become so complete and unconscious that you can no longer 
re-cognize a difference? - And let me ask you point-blank: if you learned so 
much from Jack Stroube, why didn't you speak in his defense when he got 
canned? (And if Kuswa or Emerson got fired for something I write, don't you 
know that I'd be the first person to make every attempt to get them their 
jobs back?)

Twelve, "Some people just like to win[.]" - I can't leave it at that, man. 
You gotta ask WHY? That's why Foucault and D&G write hundreds of pages upon 
hundreds of hard-to-read pages, to precisely lay down why people *desire* 
those very things which castrate their creativity.
'Some people just like to watch TV.'
'Some people just like paying shrinks.'
'Some people just like bombing brown people.'
Well with those four statements we can throw out libraries full of critical 
theory - good job, Ben :)

And Thirteen, "[A] lot of talk and no walk." - I decided not to attend UT 
and so I never got involved in any of their social organizations: but I 
trust you for that job. (Can I even participate in your organization as a 
non-UT student?)

I write e-debate posts to talk about activism *in debate*, not activism 
generally, or even activisms I'm engaged in personally. I'd enjoy meeting up 
with you and chatting about my various projects (Mojo's one night?), but 
e-debate isn't the place for that - I'm a subscriber of this list for one 
reason only: to critique. Walking is for the streets. Of course, I'd be 
happy to work with you to recruit as many drag birds as possible to judge 
the UTNIF institute tourney, if the higher ups with give us the go ahead ... 
or even if they don't :)


:luvkev


oh oh oh, and as I said before, my next post will be an attack of jack and 
the SLF - so stay tuned

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From let_the_american_empire_burn  Fri Jun 14 16:06:36 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 16:06:36 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] "WASTE YOUR TIME ... WITH STOLEN IDEAS"?
Message-ID: <F184PYzDabigPasSmz6000082b9@hotmail.com>

the above is a truncated quotation from DB - does this also mean that 
UTNIF's 'cutting' of critical literature also constitutes 'stealing' and a 
'waste of time'?

if we can agree that 'kritiks' are in the wrong forum, then i'll stop 
e-mailing e-debate this very second - but if ya'll claim to be a critical 
forum, then i'm going to critique debate's 'form of content' (AO-133), which 
renders language incapable of sparking a revolutionary charge by reducing it 
to mere ideological expression - i'm going keep talking (and listening to 
others) in hopes of causing critical explosions and provoking discrusive 
ruptures
... 'stupid,' 'hopeless,' 'unoriginal,' 'futile'?
perhaps.

the question i'm asking is, who cares?    :kev

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com




From let_the_american_empire_burn  Fri Jun 14 22:53:21 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 22:53:21 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] 'Cool Cards' - one more post for Benny ... then on to Jacky
Message-ID: <F53uQY1CfJcbWioPGk80001d046@hotmail.com>

Here's some quotations that got cut from the second draft of the geneaogy 
and schizoanalysis I'm doing for DiG. Hope they help to understand where I'm 
coming from.

(Also Andy, if I type out the Foucault's entire interview with French 
high-skoolers, will you put it up on your website, senor?
It is "Revolutionary action: 'Until Now'" from 'language, counter-memory, 
practice' (Donald Bouchard ed., 1977) - I'm a fast typer.)

First off, here's classic Gordon. From his "Pedagogical Possibilities for 
Argumentative Agency in Academic Debate" published in 'Argumentation & 
Advocacy' in the Fall of 98.

"Likewise, academic debaters possess consideratble latent agency to change 
the set that serves as the backdrop for their discussions in policy debate 
tournaments. They can accomplish this by turning their attention beyond a 
narrow exclusive focus on competitive success in tournament contest rounds 
and toward possible roles they might play in broader fields of social 
action. The resulting shift in perspective changes fundamentally the 
dynamics of academic debate by foregrounding the central purpose of the 
activity: to serve as a medium for democratic empowerment. ... Within the 
limited horizon of zero-sum competition in the contest round framework for 
academic debate, questions of purpose, strategy, and practice tend to 
collapse into formulaic axioms for competitive success under the *crushing 
weight of tournament pressure.* The purpose of debate becomings the 
*unrelenting pursuit of victory at a zero-sum game.* Strategies are 
developed to gain competitive edges that translate into contest round 
success. Debate practice involved debaters 'spewing' a highly technical, 
specialized discourse at expert judges trained to understand enough of the 
speeches to render decisions. Even in 'kritik rounds.' where the political 
status and meaning of the participants' own discourse is up for grabs, ... 
the contest round framework tends to freeze the discussion into bipolar, 
zero-sum terms that highlight competitive payoffs at the expense of 
opportunities for co-operative 'rethinking.'"

Boy that says it all, doesn't it? I remember when I first read that at 
Darmouth and I was though, 'Wow! Maybe I'm not such a freak! Or at least a 
freak with company.'

Another guy who's work I followed was Pierre Schlag. I e-mailed him once to 
ask what he thought of this word-concept of 'agonivity.' He wrote back 
saying that if normative legal thought was the commodification of ethics, 
then agonivity was the commodification of dialogue. Here's something he 
wrote about the former in regards to his experience as a lar professor which 
I think sheds some light on the latter. "Indeed, there is nothing at all - 
no body of knowledge, no learning, no insight, no emotion, no critique - 
that the legal academic will not transform (and denature) into ... into a 
regulatory device, into a norm, into more grist for the normative legal 
thought mill." (http://stripe.colorado.edu/~schlag/prefiguration.html)

I also read the work of Marcelo Dascal with some interest. In April 95 he 
got elected Dean of the Faculty of Humanities at Tel Aviv Unversity, and 
he's done empirical studies of all kinds of conflictual discourses. He 
concludes that there's basically three types: discussion which seeks true 
solutions (proofs), dispute that seeks winning (strategems), and controversy 
that seeks persausion (argument). Most forensics, tournaments especially, 
seems to fall in the second category and experimenters/critics of this 
activity seem to want to open up space for the other two, especially the 
third, category. Here's something he wrote (it was on 
http://spinoza.tau.ac.il/hci/vip/dean.htm): "I am persauded that the neglect 
of the category of 'controversy' as a third alternative, between the strict 
rule-based notion of rationality that characterizes 'discussion' and the 
conception of 'dispute' as governed by extra-rational factors, has been a 
major setback for the history of ideas and for epistemology, depricing these 
(and other) disciplines from the possibility of identifying and developing 
an alternative model of rationality." (If I step over the line quite often, 
its because I only get backchannels or public responses if I'm 
controversial; my audience for little posts like this one is never 
garaunteed - perhaps that why I enjoy it.)

I also edited out some Bakhtin's work, despite Kirk Evans advice. His 
conception of the 'carnival' in social life, like 'heterglossia' in the 
novel or 'polyphony' in language, is very intriquing though - he also 
advocates 'dialogism'. As for what all these words mean, I couldn't tell ya 
- I've only studied what he had to say about novels. Michael Holquist seems 
to get it though, for those interested. What got me was how he said that 
established orders will create space of false carnivals, since true 
carnivals pose a threat to dominant hegemony and its appartuses of power. 
This is an appeasement, an illusion of blurring boundaries, while after its 
over it has almost no lasting effect to the univocal, monologic quality of 
today's existence. How does one tell a true one from a false one? 'The 
suspension of all hierarchical ranks, privledges, norms, and prohibitions.' 
(Radelais and His World, Bakhtin - p10.)

Lisa Coopletta & Daniel Scales wrote "(Re)constructing Liberatory Locations 
for Argument" for the 'Southern Journal of Forensics' in the Spring of 97. 
This struck me: "[O]ur game reality of academic debate entrenches oppression 
in the life-world. For example, there have been numerous discussion that 
have surfaces in forensic journals, electronic debate list serves, and 
regional and national tournaments which address the need for increased 
participation rates of traditionally disenfranchised groups in academic 
debate. Although these discussion are warranted and liberatory proposals 
should be enacted, few proponents have considered how in-round competitive 
practices facilitate spaces of exclusion rather than inclusion." Potent 
shit.

Arnie Madsen and Robert C. Chandler wrote "Institute Without Tournaments" 
for the 'Forensic of Pi Kappa Delta' in the Fall of 94. In a long line of 
debate scholars, from Craig Cutbirth to Steven Kalmon (my favorite), they 
say that institutes should scrap their end-of-camp tourneys. Here's one 
reason among others: "[I]nstitute tournaments serve to undermine interactive 
learning. ... During the tournament students within a specific lab group 
develop into an isolated unity, devoted to the primary goal of defeating the 
opposing lab groups. ... Friendships and working relationships erode as 
competitive pressures increase." (Was reprinted on debate central at: 
gopher://debate.uvm.edu:70 - last time I checked.) They also say institute 
tourneys motivate students & staff to focus on short-term oppositional 
strategy instead of long-term education, as well as encouraging unethical 
'drity tricks.' They argue for de-emphasizing competition as the only viable 
solution. Now why on earth this wouldn't apply to debate as a whole, they 
never provide succifient reason - my hunch is that they wouldn't have gotten 
published if they went that far. Kalmon pretty much said that and he's not 
in debate anymore - no surprise.

I was gonna quote some Giroux for Eric Emerson, but no one responded last 
time I typed out this long-ass card on the cx-l, and as per Ben's advice, I 
don't want to 'waste my time' as it were. Just take pages 37 through 39 in 
'Teachers As Intellectuals' and replace the word 'teachers' with 'judges and 
coaches' and the word 'grades' with 'ballot' and the word 'classroom' with 
'round' and the word 'cirriculum' with 'agonvitiy' and 'student' with 
'debater' and you'll get the gist.

Alfie Kohn also doesn't get a place in this schizo-genealogy, but he had 
this to say about his experiences in debate. "[I]n high school I was a 
nationally ranked debater. And although I was winning and liking it, it took 
me years to unlearn the poisonous messages I was taught: that any argument 
can be successfully defended if you're clever enough. And that winning is 
what counts most. I still describe myself today as a recovering debater." 
("In Defense of the Progressive School: An Interview with Alfie Kohn," 
published in 'Independent School' in the Fall of 99. p90.) Of course he went 
on to write some great fucking sociological studies of competition and 
punishment&reward systems - interesting how someone can use forensics in the 
exact opposite direction that all the behavioral control 'motivates' you 
toward.

And enough with the academic pricks, here's a Salinger quote from 'The 
Catcher in the Rye' that I had to let go too. Holden Caulfield says:

"Game, my ass. Some game. If you get on the side where all the hot-shots 
are, then it's a game, all right - I'll admit that. But if you get on the 
*other* side, where there aren't any hot-shots, then what's a game about it? 
Nothing."

Alright, next post this self is going after Jack - if you apologist for 
status quo debate aren't going to persausively defend it, then I guess I'll 
have to do the job myself. Should be fun to watch.    :kev



sorry for any typos, i'm not spell checking or looking over this fucker - 
and is the difference between "its" and "it's" really that important?

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.




From schizoliberation  Fri Jun 14 23:38:44 2002
From: schizoliberation (Schizo Liberation Front)
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 00:38:44 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] sanchez's shadow
Message-ID: <F69mrPqJq5ib5aPqR140002250f@hotmail.com>

uh oh, looks like ben durham is about to make a pathetic "comeback" as the 
next pathetic competitive UT "kritik" dabaiter to thrive on the circuit/.  
he's followin edabait//  watch out he'll be fresh with the hottest UT kritik 
crap next fall// he grants rollins authoritative power as DOF in the name of 
student submission like a fucking idiot on an emotional, ideological 
"activism" trip...

sanchez's shadow is where i prefer to be to your bogus UT NDT first round 
kritik shit...how could he possibly be in my shadow when it his dark side 
ugly spirit that i inhabit...

dry and sterile academic coopted dirty ben hot recruit that they would never 
bust...coward who sits by while rollins and breshears send your mates home 
and steal their money...psychophant obsequeous opportunist benefactor of 
selective discipline...FUCK YOU and your bullshit about "stroube's 
angst"...according to the disciplinary standards of reciprocity invoked by 
your asshole masters, you should have been sent home for violating UTNIF 
policy and smoking pot...everyone knew and opportunist cronyist fucking 
shithead coward that you be you took advantage and did not take disadvantage 
and commit ACTIVIST civil disobedience when your HYPOCRITE masters 
disciplined and sent home in the fucking lousy hypocrite name of foucault 
your comrades and comrade sisters like commodified kritik sell-out UT idiots 
that you be...you take for granted your cronyist UT dabait power...and 
sanchez and co. are gonna sink your ass, pal...double standards and foucault 
coming out of your bullshit ANGST asshole...hopefully, the high students 
this year won't sell out like hot recruit fuck up next dirty ben and sit by 
like cowards when the UTNIF discipline machine arbitrarily comes to 
power...hopefully for once the UTNIF students won't be totally mystified 
lyrical emotional idiots and strike against the masters and throw the 
institute into total chaos...

slf

ps.  we won't stay in retreat when the list-serv sinks into this embarassing 
state of "lyrical argument"....

at least, sanchez has a kritik of "commodified argumentation"...at least, he 
appears to have read what he does not assume the power to teach...at least, 
he does not pretend to be a sublime, good UT sell-out kritik-head and go 
lyrical on its args..

OPERATION STUDENTS SHUTDOWN THE UTNIF...student democracy in power via 
strikes against centralized bullshit hypocritical commodified disciplinary 
power celebrated by the bogus UT dabait team...

why don't y'all learn to shut up with your "avoid critiques" of UT dabait 
with emotional appeals?  fuckin don't be a coward.  answer the critique of 
selective discipline, crony pawn fuck.  angst ain't cuttin it on the flow 
and you know...anst came first from the bossmen supervisors when they 
executed the discipline...you got the cart before the horse public relations 
UT spinmaster fuck

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.




From let_the_american_empire_burn  Sat Jun 15 07:49:51 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 07:49:51 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] GAME FUCKING ON
Message-ID: <F57mZMaY6Gt8A43XykP0001d310@hotmail.com>

: A Schizo's Look at Jack Stroube's SLF-Defeating Rants

(I'll dare you poke fun at Dirty B when only Dirty S can do so! You're in 
for it now Jack.)

Jean-Francois Lyotard writes in 'The Postmodern Condition: A Report on 
Knowledge' : "What is needed if we are to understand social relations in 
this manner, on whatever scale we choose, is not only a theory of 
communication, but a theory of games which accepts *agonistics* as a 
founding principle. In this context, it is easy to see that the essential 
element of newness is not simply 'innovation.' ... In the ordinary use of 
discourse - for example, in a discussion between two friends - the 
interlocutors use any available *ammunition*, changing games from one 
utterance to the next: questions, requests, assertions, and narratives are 
*launched pell-mell into battle.* The *war* is not without rules, but the 
rules allow and encourage *the greatest possible flexibility of utterance*."
(Cross-reference Lyotard's book, Just Gaming.)

That last sentence compares notably to academic debate's value/voter of 
'clashful dispute.' Folks are inspired by a good fight.

Baudrillard asks Jack: "Why become stuck undermining foundations, when a 
light manipulation of appearances will do?" (Seduction, p10.)

'Revolution' seeks to end the seduction of appearances, seeks to erect the 
Phallic Truth, seeks morality and justice and the American way. The reason 
that Kuswa, Emerson, Hoe, Evans, etc and others on SLF's hit-list have been 
so unable to defend themselves is because they must keep up their kritiky 
apperances. The smartest thing written on this list in a while was when 
Kuswa said that SLF only reterritorializes what it claims to 
deterritorializes, thereby cutting potential lines of flight. But Kuswa 
can't win the argument because he still conceptualizes 'flight' within a 
Deluezian framework. No matter how hard he tries, he can't pull Deleuze into 
this new century ... no one can. Deleuze is stuck in 6Os liberationalist 
pigshit; in fact, he's moving backwards: his later books even talk about 
'communism' as that which makes all people common - just Marxist-humanist 
tripe ... Snoooze-Snoooze

In truth, there is no truth, no 'escape,' no 'refuge,' not even the 
certainty of the walls of a prison. Even the darkest of prisons is a game of 
control and entails a cast of characters playing for dominance. Nietzsche 
understood that, which is why he tells us 'accelerate' capitalism instead of 
seeking to liberate the masses from it - oh please, 'the lay public' ... who 
the fuck is that, Jack? If you're still saying we need to transcend the 
game, or liberate desire from interest, or deterritorialize everybody, or 
some such hippie-stink, then you're only trying to make up for being a 
loser, for being throughly un-interesting, and for wanting everyone to exist 
in your own territoriality. Power always masks - it always creates an 
appearance of knowledge around itself that's unreal. Stupidity occurs when 
when folks start talking like only they know how to speak Truth to power and 
only they have the real Real mask.

There is no longer any true versus the false, no longer any oppressed versus 
the oppressor, no longer any definite classes of pigs or schizos - there is 
only the false versus the more false, and everyone is schizo, and we're 
swimming in a sea of mythos, pathos, logos, and ethos - and you ain't got 
jack in any of these areas, jack. Learn to swim instead of drowning others 
in the shallow end. (Come out to the deep end with me ... think you can take 
me, bitch?)

'Performance' is precisely the best paradigm for debate because it 
recognizes itself as threater, as a role-playing ritual in a game 
simulation. But the critical authors performance-kritiks deploy are often 
ignorant of game theory, because the kritik vanguard has chosen to draw from 
dried up wells like Foucault & Deleuze & Heidegger & Spanos & Habermas & 
Zizek & Derrida & other great white, blubbery whales. Forget them all. 
'Fiat' isn't 'illusory' (in the way kritikers mean it) - its simply a 
convention, a 'magic wand' that competitors agree upon as a central rule of 
the game. Its as real as a green slip of paper with a dead president on it 
serving as hard currency, as real as an e-mail address, which is to say, its 
a real way of accessing and intiating an information transfer.

'Hijack' the game, Jack? What kind of a game is THAT? You're as frustrating 
as a Heideggerean anti-technologist turning off my computer while I'm 
intimately engaged in Duke Nukem III.

Luckily, for all the power you preach, you have absolutely none. Debaters 
can laugh at your 'final solutions' and your 'warrior revolutions' ... and 
then they can return to their game. A game to which you can't return because 
you broke the rules. And you're just pissed because you got seduced, because 
you took 'da bait' hook, link & sinker. But come on now, Jack, was getting 
fucked all as horrible as you make it out to be? You know you liked it, 
liked it a little too much, a little too much to let them get away with it - 
hence your pathetic nostalgia.

Don't sanitize seduction, kritikers - don't get serious and boring - get 
even more and more fake, show off your skills with even more flair, hold 
nothing as sacred except the originality of a new adventurous position, 
explore, overdose on pleasure, and explode. Play. And please, cut some 
Baudrillard and shut up these sad militants. (Jean-Francois Lyotard also 
writes about 'pagan voices' and 'differends' which would help tremendously 
in carving out exciting new aspects in debate theories regarding as 
narrative and topicality.)

Let's make it as clear as possible for Jack: the world of laws is 
*completely separate* from the world of rules. This is the fundamental 
proposition of this activity, and if forensics drops this, it ceases to be, 
and negates everything its ever stood for. In this ridiculous and addictive 
and beautiful game-simulation, you don't have to argue for what you believe 
in personally - because here you can compete at acting an advocate's role, 
here you can be someone else, here you can play fight, here you can seduce - 
because the game necessarily entails lifting the law, and Jack, you're 
laying just the law back down again.

When you enter the agon with your simple answers and predictable realities, 
you overlook the uncertainty of competitive rounds, the thrilling rush of 
indeterminacy shared by participants. Of course, this is fine by me, because 
in overlooking this experience, you make finding it again possible in new 
ways. But only because the game will assimilate your critiques within its 
axiomatics with new strategems. One can already see how Jack's posts have 
done much to strengthen 'performative contradiction' arguments against 
kritiks. This may lead to the loss of more kritik rounds, but is that really 
any big loss? The next generation of debaters will go farther and figure out 
different ways to escape the traps you've set. And so on, thesis and 
anthesis, action and counter-action, affirmative and negative, statement and 
response, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth - the erotic 
seduction of the game. 'The unharmonizable', as Lyotard calls it, is 
debate's saving grace - that which cannot be reduced to commodification - 
its art. ...

the silent moment before a top-speaker starts spewing...

the risk of breaking a new affirmative...

the nerve-racking accident of forgetting to read a card...

the frenzied delirium of pulling 9 DAs through the block...

the quiet pause of waiting for a judge's decision...

the excess in body temperature, rosy cheeks and arousing thoughts...

the suspense of getting to finals...


Are these what you wish to destroy, Jack the party pooper? - Fucking (back 
and forth, back and forth, back and...) is hella more fun without 
blather-mouths like you interrupting. Simon says: 'Sell crazy somewhere 
else, we're all stocked up here.' (That's 'As Good As it Gets'.)

I've said before that students should not feel ashamed of being punished, 
and just the same, they should not feel ashamed for enjoying the game - 
temptation is sweet, and Jack is bitter.

I've also said that so-called 'kritik coaches' can't respond to SLF, not 
only because they haven't read the works they cut (ya dummies), but also 
because they're fundamentally trapped within inadequate theoretical models. 
They're reading Marxist drivel written for communication scholars when they 
need to become post-modern game theorists. But its funny to watch kritikers 
squirm, isn't it? Capt'n Kirk will come at Jack with that 'repressive 
hypothesis' card even though the book from which that card is cut (History 
of Sexuality: Volume 1) tries to better situate repression within a social 
context of bio-power production, that is, that patneralistic and 
disciplinary method of controlling populations and exploiting bodies ... 
hell, Foucault even mentions fucking 'secondary schools' as a site of 
domination in that book - ironic considering the activity of forensics is 
structurally and ideologically dependent on such schools. I mean, who can 
win with these kritik-people?

Hyper-reality demands hyper-competition, Jack - there is no use dreaming of 
some new debate land where shining seas can be sailed without pesky 
technicalities. Life is pesky technicalities, and a strategy of appearances: 
challenges, duels, plays, reversible power relations. Do you think a student 
can't seduce an institute staffer? And who gets in trouble? Do you think 
students can't get away with smoking pot? You've got to be fucking stoned to 
get caught - duh! Do you think children are duped, that they really don't 
know what they're getting into with this game? Bullshit; often they're more 
competitive than their coaches. Often they make their coaches feel guilty 
for not being more disciplinary and more competitive. Now Deleuze can say 
that's because the masses desire facsism, but that's ivory-tower talk, 
that's 'experts' thinking they know what's best for everyone - that's 
speaking for others, Jack.

True madness does not lay down the Law - it suspends it by turning reality 
into an image on the cave-wall. Madness molds truths like clay. Go outside 
and see the sun-light if you want to, Plato-boy, but don't fucking come back 
to tell everyone how great things are in the scorching heat. You're 
interrupting the movie, and blocking the air conditioner, ya prick. 
Schizophrenia isn't 'deterritorialization': its the realization that no 
territorities exist at all, just a wide-open dance floor - now get the fuck 
down or get the fuck out!

Towards the end of his life Foucault realized the philosopher-actor he was - 
Why does he talk about re-creating oneself as a work of art in the last 
interview before his death? Why does he move away from the rejectionist 
ontology of his youth towards a more mature 'aesthetics of existence'? Why 
did he never fully critique the contest models in his own genealogy: the 
insurrection, the strategy, the game? When he's asked 'Why this stock of 
military metaphors?', he responds 'I have no idea at the present time'? 
(p123, Politics, Philosophy, Culture. And remember that's in 1977, after 
most of his work you cite.) Why does he say, 'My books don't tell people 
what to do' (p15-PPC) and goes on to critique exactly the 'prophetism' you 
display? Why does he say in 1983, 'I think I knew it from the moment when I 
was a child, that knowledge can do *nothing for transforming the world.* I 
have a feeling knowledge can't do anything for us and that political power 
may destroy us'? (p14-PPC) See, he later learns to emphasize artistic 
transformation instead of revolutionary bore-dumb-ology?

Lyrical indigination
against lyrical indigination
  makes me indignant too,
   and so i write these lyrics! ... 'nough said?

Learn a lesson in Foucault's 'strategic reversibility' of power - the truth 
of debate, its essence in fact, is that all truths are strategic, that there 
are no absolutes, only rhetorical appearances, only a persausion that means 
anything well-argued can win. So have fun, quit complaining, and play hard! 
Or don't - debate doesn't give a shit - it'll go on with or without you, and 
that's why this whole 'coercion' spiel is such horse shit. Its an 
*extra-cirricullar activity*, Jack, in both high skool and college. From the 
novice UDLer to the life-time elite coach, no one is putting guns to these 
people's heads and saying, 'Debate or die, docile body o' mine!' And upon 
entering this community, yes, you must accept certain rules - first one 
being 'do no harm to the game.' If you break the rules, then *you* put 
yourself back under the rule of Law. One doesn't 'transgress' a game-rule, 
one only fails to observe it, and when one does, you are a cheater and 
cheating yourself out of the sanctuary the game provides - the suspension of 
the rule of Law. In a game, the normal rules of real-life don't apply - one 
can advocate AIDS as population control, one can advocate nuking Russia, one 
can advocate any posiiton one damn well pleases ... why? BECAUSE ITS JUST A 
FUCKING GAME! because its the 'winningness' of the argument which judges 
decide upon, not its truthfulness, nor its ethics ... unless of course, the 
truth or ethical statement in question is persausive, dig?

The agon is brilliant precisely because its all smoke and mirrors: there's 
no better way to reflect and refract light. And in this space set aside for 
simulated and stimulating disputes, nothing is true and everything is 
permitted. That's what opening up a safe space for art and madness means, 
Jack. And what's funny is you're still in the debate dream because you're 
still mistaking it for reality - that's why you can pronounce the absolute 
criteria for pronouncing Truth ... where's your uncertainty? what risks are 
you taking with your creative thought? Fanaticism is easy, try doubt for a 
change. Try insolutibility. Wake up because this is no longer even a dream - 
its a game. Drink some coffee and place you bets, folks.

You're more superificial than those you're claiming to critique, Jack, 
because you're critiquing Halloween costumes. Trick-or-Treaters dress up in 
this forum: 'I'll be an affirmative witch called anti-nuclearism, you be a 
negative demon called Khalizhad, and the judge will come as Satan.' It is 
just the silly masks that are scaring you, Jack. So you lash out against the 
costume makers (ie. handbook publishers, institute directors, etc) who have 
never seen their work (ie. commodification) as an end in itself, but as a 
way of providing treat-or-treaters with fabric and material. On Halloween, 
dressing up like a prositute doesn't make one a prostitute - even the 
prudest of liberal-feminists knows that. You're mistaking the ceremonial 
convention for a real production. Everybody knows 'fiat' is as real as any 
costume can be, everybody knows outlandish DAs are as real as any ghost 
story - don't be frightened, you Christian fundamentalist freak.

Burroughs is PARODY - can you say that Jack? - no really, try it - 
PEEEHHH-ROOOW-DEEEE. He provokes our morbid curiousity - but he knows his 
'naked truth' is just another lie to sell books. 'Do you think I give a shit 
about these people?' he ends 'Dead City Radio' with. He knows he's a 
sell-out, but he delivers a damn fine product. Its the best literature 
written in a hundred years precisely because it never gets hung up - its 
always moving. Learn it from Burroughs, Jack, the surface really is 
everything when you're in a game (and what is life but a game?) - And 
there's a difference between Burroughs and SLF-serving porno: Jack zooms in 
on the tiniest antatomical detail of debate, flashing everyone his genitals 
and pulling teachers pants down. That takes the fun out of things, see. 
Debate at its best is pretensious, not flashy; its a slow strip-tease for 
all its speed, a fetish, a grab-bag of dark secrets, which might be 
inappropraite to reveal elsewhere, but within the game (and NOT E-DEBATE!), 
no one gets hurt ... why? say it with me now Jack:

because
its
just
a
fucking
game

...

Don't unplug debate TV: just change the fucking channel.

Honestly now, do you think so lowly of kids in debate that you don't think 
they know what's going on? Their gossip circles are as close to 'the real 
truth' as this forum will ever get, and I really mean that. They know their 
coaches are stoners and drunks who would give anything to get back on the 
circuit again. They know its all drama. They smell bullshit much better than 
us old farts, and that's why they're nervous a lot - 'you want me to read 
this ... ?' they ask, as if to say, 'are you nuts?' And they're right, 
debate is nuts, and until debaters learn to put on their ego-masks and walk 
the talk with confidence, to ask questions with a knowing smirk and 
temporarily exercise their vanity, then debate can be a scary place. They 
overcome their fear though, and there's nothing weak or manipulative about 
this picture until the 'karma police' come along to tell everyone why what 
they're saying ain't P.C. or how their every silly ritual is 'facsist'. Good 
teachers don't coerce, they seduce; they don't punish, they tame (in 'the 
little prince' sense of the word); they don't hold their students captive, 
they captivate them, just like I'm doing to you right now. Debaters know 
what they put themselves through, Jack; they know a shitload better than you 
seem to, but they stay involved because they see how fascinating debate can 
be - they revel in how many plays are possible in this political theatre. 
Bottom-line: debaters have no need of SLF-proclaimed 'liberators'.

Debate space is actualized by simulation, a small reality-studio for 
strategic argument. Machiavellian politicians have always known that the 
mastery of a simulated space is the key source of their power - politics is 
perception. If someone would try to deny this principle, the immediate 
response would be: and how is he or she percieved? Its an accepted 
proposition that needn't even be discussed: debate as 'simulacra' (in the 
Baud's terms). If you wish to speak of something 'revolutionary' in academic 
debate, this is it ... the down-to-earth knowledge that this activity 
teaches ... that all power-plays are reversible, or as debate theorists 
might conclude: there's always the potential of a turn.

Postmodernism has something very fundamental to say to us today - in a world 
of proliferating databases and comprehensive demographical studies and 
exponential growth-rates of science and art and everything, the only sure 
thing in life is our ignorance. Every one of us is up to our asses in things 
we'll never fully understand, or could ever hope to. We act like we know 
what we are doing most of the time, but our confidence is just that - an 
act. There is no firm ground to stand on; even if we believe in God 
nowadays, somehow she isn't as powerful as he used to be. As Spiritualized 
sings -

'Ladies and Gentlemen, We are Floating in Space.'

You're critiques of debate do not reveal that debate is trapped, Jack, but 
that *you are.* 'Flight' doesn't mean clogging the machinery, it means 
realizing how false the machine really is and floating above it, flying 
under it, soaring through it. The joke is on you: you're a Japanese Kamakaze 
stuck on an island in the South Pacific still fighting World War II.

Mr Baud again, "To seduce is to die as reality and reconstitute oneself as 
illusion. It is to be taken in by one's own illusion and move in an 
enchanted world." (69)

At its best, debate is neither political or intellectual, neither a strictly 
policy-making activity, nor a strictly critical one - its a meaingless 
ritual, a dance around a camp-fire with rhetorical jirations. Kritiking 
isn't in the wrong forum, either - Shanahan has done a marvellous job of 
making things interesting again. That is what makes his scalp tingle - not 
'winning' but playing to win (even if he loses). That's what makes the men 
erect and the womyn wet - the smooth friction of skin on skin, breath 
against breath, the back & forth and back & forth of seduction ... spreading 
and spewing and flowing and gasping for air.

Discourses that are too sure of themselves, that are too prude to let 
themselves be seduced, that are too 'rational' (Habermas ... YUCK!) aren't 
qualified to be called 'schizophrenic.' Your inability to escape the game 
(or your critique thereof) is neurotic and psychotic, hence your outbursts 
of un-called for anger. What 'hurts so good' about debate is its high 
intensity - it can send one into tears of sorrow or joy. That's what folks 
will pop a few no-doze for and stay up all-night cutting cards for. This is 
what coaches will hang around for decaded for. That's what keeps em coming 
back for more. Outsiders simply can't understand. And what's needed is not 
more whining about not getting some, but more seduction all around. I've 
played my part well in this regard by seducing others into believing that I 
believe like Stroube's SLF - I really believe in nothing, just like all of 
you ... just the fun of a good fuck.     :kev

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.




From let_the_american_empire_burn  Sat Jun 15 07:56:16 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 07:56:16 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] So does everyone agree with Tim's opinion below?
Message-ID: <F10reocvBLwPiFBfKJD0001e70f@hotmail.com>

"Only a fool thinks debate rounds are a site of activism. It is an effective 
strategy to say in debates that rounds can be sites of activism but 99% of 
folks realize that isn't really true ... but as long as it wins debates 
people will continue to make that argument."

(my e-mail is, heliogabalus at eudoramail.com, or
let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com --- thanks for listening)

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com




From west  Sat Jun 15 10:47:25 2002
From: west (Terry West)
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 09:47:25 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] Re: Early Topic Release
Message-ID: <sd0b0d37.037@gwise.suu.edu>

Sure Stefan, but even small programs that are well-coached with
hard-working students have most of these backfiled and can keep up
through updates.  When you add a bunch of topic-specific new stuff,
that's where real debating begins.

You really prove my point; the earlier the topic release, the more
smaller programs are forced into generic debate.  When it gets to crunch
time, the borg programs aren't going to lose to the generics below.



>>> "Stefan.Bauschard" <bauschar at bc.edu> 06/13/02 14:33 PM >>>
I'm don't care to wade into a full-fledge discussion of early topic
release
(or anything) on edebate, but I don't think the early topic release has
much
of an impact on anyone's competetive success.

What follows is a list of issues that are more likely to drive win- next
year
than any topic specific research.  You could research and write blocks
on
these all summer, and until you have these down, your topic-specific
work
probably isn't going to get you too far.  This is just a start...

Irony good/bad
Narratives good/bad
Poetry good/bad
Deconstruction good/bad
State action good/bad
Realism good/bad
Ir feminism good/bad
Capitalism good/bad
Simulation good/bad
Policy debate good/bad
Humanism good/bad
Gender pronouns
apologies good/bad
nuke war good/bad
Psychopolitics
Speaking for Others
Growth good/bad

T is/isn't a voter
A whole slew of theory blocks

Performance debate good/bad
International veto/consult counterplan
Anarcyh CP Answers
World Gov CP Answers
Politics internals
Midterm elections scenarios
Court Counterplan solvency/answers
Referundums counterplan/answers

Multilateralism good/bad
International law good/bad
Ks of international law

Stefan Bauschard
Boston College Debate
617-552-1720

Hitchhiker's Companion to the C-X Debate Topic Research Site
www.oneparadigm.com/hitchhiker/home.html

2001-2002 College Debate Caselist
http://136.167.201.102:2001/

September 11 Attacks Research Site
http://www.terrorismlibrary.com






From schizoliberation  Sat Jun 15 12:15:47 2002
From: schizoliberation (Schizo Liberation Front)
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 13:15:47 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] GAME FUCKING ON
Message-ID: <F258wLPiOEa0nBu3QGy00021435@hotmail.com>

well, well, sanchez,

as long as you like to suck policy dick...you can dispense w "lay judges" 
and tingle your scalp while the think-tanks keep reaming discursive spin 
tricks up the ass of the public television consumers...communists like us 
aren't so persuaded by baudrillardian simulation as the new philosophical 
basis of policy dabait as invoked by shamaham...if you're gonna go with 
artaud and make use of pigshit to take out deleuze then re-examine his views 
on the external coitus trap....not quite as glamorous as you portray with 
all of your pigshit about sexy gaming...dabait as sexual stimulation 
simultaneous with sexual repression...dabait as license to drug use with 
simultaneous repression...=control just like simultaneous sending of mixed 
signals to rats that leads to exhaustion, death, musing over the simulations 
on the screen,,,this is the elite franchised k problem in a 
nutshell...sanchez's schizo "no-truth" nietzschean high-flying academic 
non-sense...before the game of dabait there were no formalized rules of 
dabaiting...after the game of dabait there will be no formalized rules of 
dabaiting...basic genealogical principle...remembering before the prison 
invokes death of prison...no truth 4 slf means temporal fleeting nature of 
institutions like formalized expert speech training even if you dress it up 
like gaming simulation laboratory and hide the preparatory pedagogy under 
the rug,..

grant self-defeating nature of our rhetoric...preferred to safety in numbers 
of competitive kritikers...




>From: "Kevin Sanchez" <let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: moksha23 at earthlink.net
>To: edebate at ndtceda.com, cx-l at debate.net
>Subject: [eDebate] GAME FUCKING ON
>Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 07:49:51 -0500
>
>: A Schizo's Look at Jack Stroube's SLF-Defeating Rants
>
>(I'll dare you poke fun at Dirty B when only Dirty S can do so! You're in 
>for it now Jack.)
>
>Jean-Francois Lyotard writes in 'The Postmodern Condition: A Report on 
>Knowledge' : "What is needed if we are to understand social relations in 
>this manner, on whatever scale we choose, is not only a theory of 
>communication, but a theory of games which accepts *agonistics* as a 
>founding principle. In this context, it is easy to see that the essential 
>element of newness is not simply 'innovation.' ... In the ordinary use of 
>discourse - for example, in a discussion between two friends - the 
>interlocutors use any available *ammunition*, changing games from one 
>utterance to the next: questions, requests, assertions, and narratives are 
>*launched pell-mell into battle.* The *war* is not without rules, but the 
>rules allow and encourage *the greatest possible flexibility of 
>utterance*."
>(Cross-reference Lyotard's book, Just Gaming.)
>
>That last sentence compares notably to academic debate's value/voter of 
>'clashful dispute.' Folks are inspired by a good fight.
>
>Baudrillard asks Jack: "Why become stuck undermining foundations, when a 
>light manipulation of appearances will do?" (Seduction, p10.)
>
>'Revolution' seeks to end the seduction of appearances, seeks to erect the 
>Phallic Truth, seeks morality and justice and the American way. The reason 
>that Kuswa, Emerson, Hoe, Evans, etc and others on SLF's hit-list have been 
>so unable to defend themselves is because they must keep up their kritiky 
>apperances. The smartest thing written on this list in a while was when 
>Kuswa said that SLF only reterritorializes what it claims to 
>deterritorializes, thereby cutting potential lines of flight. But Kuswa 
>can't win the argument because he still conceptualizes 'flight' within a 
>Deluezian framework. No matter how hard he tries, he can't pull Deleuze 
>into this new century ... no one can. Deleuze is stuck in 6Os 
>liberationalist pigshit; in fact, he's moving backwards: his later books 
>even talk about 'communism' as that which makes all people common - just 
>Marxist-humanist tripe ... Snoooze-Snoooze
>
>In truth, there is no truth, no 'escape,' no 'refuge,' not even the 
>certainty of the walls of a prison. Even the darkest of prisons is a game 
>of control and entails a cast of characters playing for dominance. 
>Nietzsche understood that, which is why he tells us 'accelerate' capitalism 
>instead of seeking to liberate the masses from it - oh please, 'the lay 
>public' ... who the fuck is that, Jack? If you're still saying we need to 
>transcend the game, or liberate desire from interest, or deterritorialize 
>everybody, or some such hippie-stink, then you're only trying to make up 
>for being a loser, for being throughly un-interesting, and for wanting 
>everyone to exist in your own territoriality. Power always masks - it 
>always creates an appearance of knowledge around itself that's unreal. 
>Stupidity occurs when when folks start talking like only they know how to 
>speak Truth to power and only they have the real Real mask.
>
>There is no longer any true versus the false, no longer any oppressed 
>versus the oppressor, no longer any definite classes of pigs or schizos - 
>there is only the false versus the more false, and everyone is schizo, and 
>we're swimming in a sea of mythos, pathos, logos, and ethos - and you ain't 
>got jack in any of these areas, jack. Learn to swim instead of drowning 
>others in the shallow end. (Come out to the deep end with me ... think you 
>can take me, bitch?)
>
>'Performance' is precisely the best paradigm for debate because it 
>recognizes itself as threater, as a role-playing ritual in a game 
>simulation. But the critical authors performance-kritiks deploy are often 
>ignorant of game theory, because the kritik vanguard has chosen to draw 
>from dried up wells like Foucault & Deleuze & Heidegger & Spanos & Habermas 
>& Zizek & Derrida & other great white, blubbery whales. Forget them all. 
>'Fiat' isn't 'illusory' (in the way kritikers mean it) - its simply a 
>convention, a 'magic wand' that competitors agree upon as a central rule of 
>the game. Its as real as a green slip of paper with a dead president on it 
>serving as hard currency, as real as an e-mail address, which is to say, 
>its a real way of accessing and intiating an information transfer.
>
>'Hijack' the game, Jack? What kind of a game is THAT? You're as frustrating 
>as a Heideggerean anti-technologist turning off my computer while I'm 
>intimately engaged in Duke Nukem III.
>
>Luckily, for all the power you preach, you have absolutely none. Debaters 
>can laugh at your 'final solutions' and your 'warrior revolutions' ... and 
>then they can return to their game. A game to which you can't return 
>because you broke the rules. And you're just pissed because you got 
>seduced, because you took 'da bait' hook, link & sinker. But come on now, 
>Jack, was getting fucked all as horrible as you make it out to be? You know 
>you liked it, liked it a little too much, a little too much to let them get 
>away with it - hence your pathetic nostalgia.
>
>Don't sanitize seduction, kritikers - don't get serious and boring - get 
>even more and more fake, show off your skills with even more flair, hold 
>nothing as sacred except the originality of a new adventurous position, 
>explore, overdose on pleasure, and explode. Play. And please, cut some 
>Baudrillard and shut up these sad militants. (Jean-Francois Lyotard also 
>writes about 'pagan voices' and 'differends' which would help tremendously 
>in carving out exciting new aspects in debate theories regarding as 
>narrative and topicality.)
>
>Let's make it as clear as possible for Jack: the world of laws is 
>*completely separate* from the world of rules. This is the fundamental 
>proposition of this activity, and if forensics drops this, it ceases to be, 
>and negates everything its ever stood for. In this ridiculous and addictive 
>and beautiful game-simulation, you don't have to argue for what you believe 
>in personally - because here you can compete at acting an advocate's role, 
>here you can be someone else, here you can play fight, here you can seduce 
>- because the game necessarily entails lifting the law, and Jack, you're 
>laying just the law back down again.
>
>When you enter the agon with your simple answers and predictable realities, 
>you overlook the uncertainty of competitive rounds, the thrilling rush of 
>indeterminacy shared by participants. Of course, this is fine by me, 
>because in overlooking this experience, you make finding it again possible 
>in new ways. But only because the game will assimilate your critiques 
>within its axiomatics with new strategems. One can already see how Jack's 
>posts have done much to strengthen 'performative contradiction' arguments 
>against kritiks. This may lead to the loss of more kritik rounds, but is 
>that really any big loss? The next generation of debaters will go farther 
>and figure out different ways to escape the traps you've set. And so on, 
>thesis and anthesis, action and counter-action, affirmative and negative, 
>statement and response, back and forth, back and forth, back and forth - 
>the erotic seduction of the game. 'The unharmonizable', as Lyotard calls 
>it, is debate's saving grace - that which cannot be reduced to 
>commodification - its art. ...
>
>the silent moment before a top-speaker starts spewing...
>
>the risk of breaking a new affirmative...
>
>the nerve-racking accident of forgetting to read a card...
>
>the frenzied delirium of pulling 9 DAs through the block...
>
>the quiet pause of waiting for a judge's decision...
>
>the excess in body temperature, rosy cheeks and arousing thoughts...
>
>the suspense of getting to finals...
>
>
>Are these what you wish to destroy, Jack the party pooper? - Fucking (back 
>and forth, back and forth, back and...) is hella more fun without 
>blather-mouths like you interrupting. Simon says: 'Sell crazy somewhere 
>else, we're all stocked up here.' (That's 'As Good As it Gets'.)
>
>I've said before that students should not feel ashamed of being punished, 
>and just the same, they should not feel ashamed for enjoying the game - 
>temptation is sweet, and Jack is bitter.
>
>I've also said that so-called 'kritik coaches' can't respond to SLF, not 
>only because they haven't read the works they cut (ya dummies), but also 
>because they're fundamentally trapped within inadequate theoretical models. 
>They're reading Marxist drivel written for communication scholars when they 
>need to become post-modern game theorists. But its funny to watch kritikers 
>squirm, isn't it? Capt'n Kirk will come at Jack with that 'repressive 
>hypothesis' card even though the book from which that card is cut (History 
>of Sexuality: Volume 1) tries to better situate repression within a social 
>context of bio-power production, that is, that patneralistic and 
>disciplinary method of controlling populations and exploiting bodies ... 
>hell, Foucault even mentions fucking 'secondary schools' as a site of 
>domination in that book - ironic considering the activity of forensics is 
>structurally and ideologically dependent on such schools. I mean, who can 
>win with these kritik-people?
>
>Hyper-reality demands hyper-competition, Jack - there is no use dreaming of 
>some new debate land where shining seas can be sailed without pesky 
>technicalities. Life is pesky technicalities, and a strategy of 
>appearances: challenges, duels, plays, reversible power relations. Do you 
>think a student can't seduce an institute staffer? And who gets in trouble? 
>Do you think students can't get away with smoking pot? You've got to be 
>fucking stoned to get caught - duh! Do you think children are duped, that 
>they really don't know what they're getting into with this game? Bullshit; 
>often they're more competitive than their coaches. Often they make their 
>coaches feel guilty for not being more disciplinary and more competitive. 
>Now Deleuze can say that's because the masses desire facsism, but that's 
>ivory-tower talk, that's 'experts' thinking they know what's best for 
>everyone - that's speaking for others, Jack.
>
>True madness does not lay down the Law - it suspends it by turning reality 
>into an image on the cave-wall. Madness molds truths like clay. Go outside 
>and see the sun-light if you want to, Plato-boy, but don't fucking come 
>back to tell everyone how great things are in the scorching heat. You're 
>interrupting the movie, and blocking the air conditioner, ya prick. 
>Schizophrenia isn't 'deterritorialization': its the realization that no 
>territorities exist at all, just a wide-open dance floor - now get the fuck 
>down or get the fuck out!
>
>Towards the end of his life Foucault realized the philosopher-actor he was 
>- Why does he talk about re-creating oneself as a work of art in the last 
>interview before his death? Why does he move away from the rejectionist 
>ontology of his youth towards a more mature 'aesthetics of existence'? Why 
>did he never fully critique the contest models in his own genealogy: the 
>insurrection, the strategy, the game? When he's asked 'Why this stock of 
>military metaphors?', he responds 'I have no idea at the present time'? 
>(p123, Politics, Philosophy, Culture. And remember that's in 1977, after 
>most of his work you cite.) Why does he say, 'My books don't tell people 
>what to do' (p15-PPC) and goes on to critique exactly the 'prophetism' you 
>display? Why does he say in 1983, 'I think I knew it from the moment when I 
>was a child, that knowledge can do *nothing for transforming the world.* I 
>have a feeling knowledge can't do anything for us and that political power 
>may destroy us'? (p14-PPC) See, he later learns to emphasize artistic 
>transformation instead of revolutionary bore-dumb-ology?
>
>Lyrical indigination
>against lyrical indigination
>  makes me indignant too,
>   and so i write these lyrics! ... 'nough said?
>
>Learn a lesson in Foucault's 'strategic reversibility' of power - the truth 
>of debate, its essence in fact, is that all truths are strategic, that 
>there are no absolutes, only rhetorical appearances, only a persausion that 
>means anything well-argued can win. So have fun, quit complaining, and play 
>hard! Or don't - debate doesn't give a shit - it'll go on with or without 
>you, and that's why this whole 'coercion' spiel is such horse shit. Its an 
>*extra-cirricullar activity*, Jack, in both high skool and college. From 
>the novice UDLer to the life-time elite coach, no one is putting guns to 
>these people's heads and saying, 'Debate or die, docile body o' mine!' And 
>upon entering this community, yes, you must accept certain rules - first 
>one being 'do no harm to the game.' If you break the rules, then *you* put 
>yourself back under the rule of Law. One doesn't 'transgress' a game-rule, 
>one only fails to observe it, and when one does, you are a cheater and 
>cheating yourself out of the sanctuary the game provides - the suspension 
>of the rule of Law. In a game, the normal rules of real-life don't apply - 
>one can advocate AIDS as population control, one can advocate nuking 
>Russia, one can advocate any posiiton one damn well pleases ... why? 
>BECAUSE ITS JUST A FUCKING GAME! because its the 'winningness' of the 
>argument which judges decide upon, not its truthfulness, nor its ethics ... 
>unless of course, the truth or ethical statement in question is persausive, 
>dig?
>
>The agon is brilliant precisely because its all smoke and mirrors: there's 
>no better way to reflect and refract light. And in this space set aside for 
>simulated and stimulating disputes, nothing is true and everything is 
>permitted. That's what opening up a safe space for art and madness means, 
>Jack. And what's funny is you're still in the debate dream because you're 
>still mistaking it for reality - that's why you can pronounce the absolute 
>criteria for pronouncing Truth ... where's your uncertainty? what risks are 
>you taking with your creative thought? Fanaticism is easy, try doubt for a 
>change. Try insolutibility. Wake up because this is no longer even a dream 
>- its a game. Drink some coffee and place you bets, folks.
>
>You're more superificial than those you're claiming to critique, Jack, 
>because you're critiquing Halloween costumes. Trick-or-Treaters dress up in 
>this forum: 'I'll be an affirmative witch called anti-nuclearism, you be a 
>negative demon called Khalizhad, and the judge will come as Satan.' It is 
>just the silly masks that are scaring you, Jack. So you lash out against 
>the costume makers (ie. handbook publishers, institute directors, etc) who 
>have never seen their work (ie. commodification) as an end in itself, but 
>as a way of providing treat-or-treaters with fabric and material. On 
>Halloween, dressing up like a prositute doesn't make one a prostitute - 
>even the prudest of liberal-feminists knows that. You're mistaking the 
>ceremonial convention for a real production. Everybody knows 'fiat' is as 
>real as any costume can be, everybody knows outlandish DAs are as real as 
>any ghost story - don't be frightened, you Christian fundamentalist freak.
>
>Burroughs is PARODY - can you say that Jack? - no really, try it - 
>PEEEHHH-ROOOW-DEEEE. He provokes our morbid curiousity - but he knows his 
>'naked truth' is just another lie to sell books. 'Do you think I give a 
>shit about these people?' he ends 'Dead City Radio' with. He knows he's a 
>sell-out, but he delivers a damn fine product. Its the best literature 
>written in a hundred years precisely because it never gets hung up - its 
>always moving. Learn it from Burroughs, Jack, the surface really is 
>everything when you're in a game (and what is life but a game?) - And 
>there's a difference between Burroughs and SLF-serving porno: Jack zooms in 
>on the tiniest antatomical detail of debate, flashing everyone his genitals 
>and pulling teachers pants down. That takes the fun out of things, see. 
>Debate at its best is pretensious, not flashy; its a slow strip-tease for 
>all its speed, a fetish, a grab-bag of dark secrets, which might be 
>inappropraite to reveal elsewhere, but within the game (and NOT E-DEBATE!), 
>no one gets hurt ... why? say it with me now Jack:
>
>because
>its
>just
>a
>fucking
>game
>
>...
>
>Don't unplug debate TV: just change the fucking channel.
>
>Honestly now, do you think so lowly of kids in debate that you don't think 
>they know what's going on? Their gossip circles are as close to 'the real 
>truth' as this forum will ever get, and I really mean that. They know their 
>coaches are stoners and drunks who would give anything to get back on the 
>circuit again. They know its all drama. They smell bullshit much better 
>than us old farts, and that's why they're nervous a lot - 'you want me to 
>read this ... ?' they ask, as if to say, 'are you nuts?' And they're right, 
>debate is nuts, and until debaters learn to put on their ego-masks and walk 
>the talk with confidence, to ask questions with a knowing smirk and 
>temporarily exercise their vanity, then debate can be a scary place. They 
>overcome their fear though, and there's nothing weak or manipulative about 
>this picture until the 'karma police' come along to tell everyone why what 
>they're saying ain't P.C. or how their every silly ritual is 'facsist'. 
>Good teachers don't coerce, they seduce; they don't punish, they tame (in 
>'the little prince' sense of the word); they don't hold their students 
>captive, they captivate them, just like I'm doing to you right now. 
>Debaters know what they put themselves through, Jack; they know a shitload 
>better than you seem to, but they stay involved because they see how 
>fascinating debate can be - they revel in how many plays are possible in 
>this political theatre. Bottom-line: debaters have no need of 
>SLF-proclaimed 'liberators'.
>
>Debate space is actualized by simulation, a small reality-studio for 
>strategic argument. Machiavellian politicians have always known that the 
>mastery of a simulated space is the key source of their power - politics is 
>perception. If someone would try to deny this principle, the immediate 
>response would be: and how is he or she percieved? Its an accepted 
>proposition that needn't even be discussed: debate as 'simulacra' (in the 
>Baud's terms). If you wish to speak of something 'revolutionary' in 
>academic debate, this is it ... the down-to-earth knowledge that this 
>activity teaches ... that all power-plays are reversible, or as debate 
>theorists might conclude: there's always the potential of a turn.
>
>Postmodernism has something very fundamental to say to us today - in a 
>world of proliferating databases and comprehensive demographical studies 
>and exponential growth-rates of science and art and everything, the only 
>sure thing in life is our ignorance. Every one of us is up to our asses in 
>things we'll never fully understand, or could ever hope to. We act like we 
>know what we are doing most of the time, but our confidence is just that - 
>an act. There is no firm ground to stand on; even if we believe in God 
>nowadays, somehow she isn't as powerful as he used to be. As Spiritualized 
>sings -
>
>'Ladies and Gentlemen, We are Floating in Space.'
>
>You're critiques of debate do not reveal that debate is trapped, Jack, but 
>that *you are.* 'Flight' doesn't mean clogging the machinery, it means 
>realizing how false the machine really is and floating above it, flying 
>under it, soaring through it. The joke is on you: you're a Japanese 
>Kamakaze stuck on an island in the South Pacific still fighting World War 
>II.
>
>Mr Baud again, "To seduce is to die as reality and reconstitute oneself as 
>illusion. It is to be taken in by one's own illusion and move in an 
>enchanted world." (69)
>
>At its best, debate is neither political or intellectual, neither a 
>strictly policy-making activity, nor a strictly critical one - its a 
>meaingless ritual, a dance around a camp-fire with rhetorical jirations. 
>Kritiking isn't in the wrong forum, either - Shanahan has done a marvellous 
>job of making things interesting again. That is what makes his scalp tingle 
>- not 'winning' but playing to win (even if he loses). That's what makes 
>the men erect and the womyn wet - the smooth friction of skin on skin, 
>breath against breath, the back & forth and back & forth of seduction ... 
>spreading and spewing and flowing and gasping for air.
>
>Discourses that are too sure of themselves, that are too prude to let 
>themselves be seduced, that are too 'rational' (Habermas ... YUCK!) aren't 
>qualified to be called 'schizophrenic.' Your inability to escape the game 
>(or your critique thereof) is neurotic and psychotic, hence your outbursts 
>of un-called for anger. What 'hurts so good' about debate is its high 
>intensity - it can send one into tears of sorrow or joy. That's what folks 
>will pop a few no-doze for and stay up all-night cutting cards for. This is 
>what coaches will hang around for decaded for. That's what keeps em coming 
>back for more. Outsiders simply can't understand. And what's needed is not 
>more whining about not getting some, but more seduction all around. I've 
>played my part well in this regard by seducing others into believing that I 
>believe like Stroube's SLF - I really believe in nothing, just like all of 
>you ... just the fun of a good fuck.     :kev
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
>http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.




From jbruschke  Thu Jun 13 16:52:37 2002
From: jbruschke (Bruschke, John)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:52:37 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] ADI Fellows announced
Message-ID: <C12079793797A84CA92DF1A6805676F218A31E@e2k1.AD.FULLERTON.EDU>

The Arizona Debate Institute is pleased to announce this year's research fellows.  The research fellows assist labs with the completion of research assignments, hear practice rounds and rebuttal re-dos, and complete assignments of their own.  It is our belief that they have significantly improved the quality of the camp and the quality of the evidence that is produced.  Last year's fellows have distinguished themselves in competition throughout the year, and some of the most successful include:  Rusty Hubbard (NDT finalist), Greta Stahl (NDT and CEDA semi-finalist), John Rains (NDT and CEDA Octo-finalist, CEDA top speaker), Peter McCullum (CEDA quarter-finalist), and Toni Nielson (CEDA quarter-finalist).
 
This year's group is:
 
Pip Losnegard (Gonzaga)
Elizabeth Thatcher (Mercer)
John Ross (Liberty)
Melissa Newton (Kansas State)
Michele Lancaster (JMU)
James Thomas (West Georgia)
Teddy Albiniak (Redlands)
Cameron Ward (CSUF)
Casey Wolmer (Emory)
Phil Samuels (Emporia)
 
Finally, I am pleased to say that our enrollment is the highest it has ever been on June 1.  Our next price bump occurs on July 15, so we encourage all interested parties to sign up as soon as possible.
 
Hope everyone is having a pleasant summer; look forward to seeing you when the topic comes out!
 
Jon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020613/b29736c4/attachment.html 


From let_the_american_empire_burn  Sat Jun 15 23:52:30 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 23:52:30 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] SLF-sacrifice : Mr. Jack-off has lost the debate
Message-ID: <F728hAEtzMJKYthvf4300008300@hotmail.com>

Well you heard it here first folks: Jack-off just admitted SLF-defeat. Not 
only did he publicly acknowledge the 'self-defeating nature' of his 
rhetoric, but he's dropping so many arguments all over this flow that his 
'attacks' have effectively been stopped. Those 'kritik coaches' listening 
should learn a lesson: get the right weapon for the right job. You can't 
defend academic debate with punks like Delueze and Foucault. (Who are they 
again? I forget.) So cut some Lyotard and Baudrillard ... now, on with the 
show ...

What meager spasms Jack-off does display aren't at all persuasive; they're 
death throes. First, he uses a heterosexist perjorative about 'sucking 
policy dick.' Well save your repugnant anti-queer phobias. In order to get 
one's dick sucked, one must return the favor - and there ain't no shame in 
that game.

Second, 'lay judges' is a bit over-generalizing a term (no surprise from 
this Jack-off) but let's put the question to the list: what debater likes 
being judged by people who know nothing about debate? Speak up if you're out 
there.
- One of the distinct benefits of this activity is getting away from 
soccer-parents, and on most high skool ciruits, that is what's meant by 'lay 
judges'. That's why the high skool NDT sucks so much ass.

Third, think-tanks do only one thing, Jack-off: THINK. Call it 'spin tricks' 
if you like, but name one thing you've written to this list that isn't a 
spin trick. Truth is spin, knowledge is presentation, and one of the 
arguments you dropped, (Machiavelli was right) politics is preception. 
Think-tanks produce a mulitiplicity of different ideas, as Gordon 
Mithchell's listing of articles produced by former debaters should have 
proven to you - including critiques of nuclear rhetoric and Cold War 
mentalities. Your think-tank of one, called SLF, isn't convincing anyone, 
cuz you're spinning down.

Fourth, "Communists like us aren't so persuaded by baudrillardian simulation 
as the new philosophical basis of policy dabait." I know, I know, Jack-offs 
like you won't be happy until the proletarait revolts ... I mean, Jack-offs 
like you will never be happy.
- This doesn't change the fact that you're losing this argument.

Fifth, can't just cite God-Deleuze and expect to win - explain 'the external 
coitus trap'. And if sounds Catholic to me, I'm gonna ask the judges to 
throw it out.

Sixth, "Not quite as glamorous as you portray with all of your pigshit about 
sexy gaming...dabait as sexual stimulation simultaneous with sexual 
repression...dabait as license to drug use with simultaneous repression." 
Seduction isn't glamorous, its sticky and exhausting, but its also thrilling 
as fuck. After Foucault (who?), 'repression' is a production, and it 
increases pleasure. (Perhaps this is why a teacher-student sexual 
relationship is such an exciting place for the game of seduction - its 
naughty. Perhaps this is why smoking pot is seen as so glamorous - its 
forbidden fruit. In fact, I think post-legalization, marijuana use would 
decline - where's the fun if you're not scared of the cops busting your 
ass?) When someone enters this forum, they accept that there's rules against 
pot-smoking and teacher-student sex. That does *not* mean they have to 
follow these rules; it simply means they cannot get caught breaking them. 
For debate instructors to smoke pot with their students is a bonding 
experience, precisely because they're sharing in an illicit activity - 
another instance where a fun ritual can suspend the normal (and 
'repressive') roles. Don't you know that even if students are busted by 
their teachers, they laugh about it years later? So if its not that big a 
deal to those involved, why is it the 'repression to end all repression' to 
Jack-offs like you?

Seventh, "Control just like simultaneous sending of mixed
signals to rats that leads to exhaustion, death, musing over the simulations 
on the screen." - Life leads to death, Jack-off, and while we're on our way 
to that place we're all going anyway, its the role-playing games we play 
that make life fun. Everyday every person meets with kaboodles of 
contradictory impulses - wanting to have sex with someone they're not 
allowed to, feeling hungry but not wanting to be obese, wanting to be a part 
of a game they've been kicked out of, etc. This is the juice of life, that 
our bodies want to go off in about five directions at once, and we're riding 
the tiger of our desre. You say, 'Control'? Who is the controller? Even the 
masters are slaves to their desire. Control to me is a single stream of 
despotic singals, like the kind Jack-offs like you spew. In a postmodern, 
hip-hop age, re-mixing the signals is where its at.

Eighth, "the elite franchised k problem"? Go join an UDL then ... oh that's 
right, they only 're-mask' the 'real problem' right Mr. Fuck-o?

Nineth, "Sanchez's schizo "no-truth" nietzschean high-flying academic
non-sense." - Academic nonsense is thinking that tens of thousands of 
students voluntarily compete in an activity that 'oppresses' them. Academic 
nonsense is thinking so little of the 'lay public' that you think they don't 
know what's going on and that YOU alone can lead them into the blessed light 
of 'liberation.' On the contrary, the fact that no absolute truth exists in 
this theatrical game is just common-fucking-sense.

Tenth, "Before the game of dabait there were no formalized rules of
dabaiting...after the game of dabait there will be no formalized rules of 
dabaiting." - Before the rules, there wasn't a game. And what's 'formalized' 
mean here? Debate really has only one rule: two teams walk into a round and 
one team walks out the winner. A tournament exists to set things up so as 
many of these rounds are interesting as possible. But all other questions of 
'form' are up for grabs in that debate round. A team can even win on a 
critique of formalism as Schlag's Normativity has proven time and time 
again. Perhaps teams can even win with the SLF's kritiks of debate itself - 
which would be very strange. And there's even more and more non-decision 
rounds and half-wins and half-losses and double-wins and double-losses. 
Everyone is playing with the form except you. So like I said, you're just a 
party pooper, who, thankfully, has no power to actually poop on this party.

Eleventh, "No truth 4 slf means temporal fleeting nature of
institutions like formalized expert speech training even if you dress it up 
like gaming simulation laboratory and hide the preparatory pedagogy under 
the rug." - What isn't temporal and fleeting, Jack-off? Debate is still a 
tradition that will outlive the SLF - trust me. And 'expert speech 
training'? Please! Debate operates on a game jargon: Try writing an academic 
paper with the phrase 'mutually exclusive net-benefit' thrown in. Try 
convincing your employer to give you a job by running down a list of 
'voters'. Try writing your congress-person with 'turns' and 'disads' and 
'kritiks'. Now, does learning all this verbiage require some 'training'? 
Well, yes, yes it does. You still DROPPED that *you* consider high skool and 
college kids *stupid*. A student has to go out of their way to be a debater, 
and it requires a lot of work and time - they are *not* brain-washed 
zombies; they are dedicated game-players. Show some fucking respect.

Twelve, "Grant self-defeating nature of our rhetoric." Well that's all I 
wanted to hear - and it only took me *one* post.

Thirteen, let's go over the drops. From Deleuze, you dropped the 
reterritorialization implication and the acceleration alternative. You also 
dropped the turn of your 'expert' speech kritik to Deleuze's 'speaking for 
others' (e.g: debaters desire 'facsism' blahblahblah).

>From Foucault, you dropped his 'knowledge doesn't lead to change' take-out 
and his 'strategic reversibility of power' re-conceptualization juxataposed 
with his artistic transformation alternative (creating oneself as a work of 
art, applied to in-round speech performances).

>From Burroughs, you dropped the parody alternative (hint-hint).

You didn't answer Baudrillard when he asked you: "Why become stuck 
undermining foundations, when a light manipulation of appearances will do?" 
(Seduction, p10.)

>From me, you dropped the Trick-or-Treat analogy (also a take-out of 
Foucauldian 'dressage' and your handbook publishers' indicts.) You dropped 
the fundamental distinction between Laws and rules. You dropped the 
uncertainty net-benefit (Lyotard's 'unharmonizable'). You dropped the 
'performativity' advocacy. You dropped all the schizophrenic turns as well 
(madness resides in the surface of apperances etc).

And finally here's a fine piece of evidence that bears repeating:

Jean-Francois Lyotard writes in
'The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge' :

"What is needed if we are to understand social relations in this manner, on 
whatever scale we choose, is not only a theory of communication, but a 
theory of games which accepts *agonistics* as a founding principle. In this 
context, it is easy to see that the essential element of newness is not 
simply 'innovation.' ... In the ordinary use of discourse - for example, in 
a discussion between two friends - the interlocutors use any available 
*ammunition*, changing games from one utterance to the next: questions, 
requests, assertions, and narratives are *launched pell-mell into battle.* 
The *war* is not without rules, but the rules allow and encourage *the 
greatest possible flexibility of utterance*."

Your utterances are inflexible because you exist in a boring world of Law 
(hence your 'liberation') and not an enchanted world of rules (hence your 
inability to play freely).
So SLF is essentially nothing new ... YAWN ... so, moving on ...
       :kev

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com




From doyle  Sun Jun 16 14:18:21 2002
From: doyle (Doyle Srader)
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 14:18:21 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Send in the clowns
Message-ID: <200206161418988.SM00342@[209.39.34.159]>

"There wanst was two cats in Kilkenny,
Aitch thought there was one cat too many;
So they quarrelled and fit,
They scratched and they bit,
Till, excepting their nails,
And the tips of their tails,
Instead of two cats, there wasn't any."

Hey, we can hope, can't we? Maybe they'll meet up somewhere for a slap
fight. Or maybe they'll just square off and spout inflated, hyper-affected
nonsense and quote entire chapters of Toulouse and Daktari at each other
until their heads explode simultaneously. Ahhh, if only ...

Doyle Srader
Lecturer, Speech Communication
Stephen F. Austin State University
http://titan.sfasu.edu/~f_sraderdw/

"The guy memorizes four words, and he plays like he's intercontinental."
 -- George W. Bush, frequent Spanish butcher




From david  Sun Jun 16 22:05:35 2002
From: david (David Seikel)
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 20:05:35 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Intercollegiate Speech Tournament Results
Message-ID: <B932A00F.508%david@seikel.net>

I am trying to assemble a complete set of Intercollegiate Speech Tournament
Results.  I have all but these volumes:

    Volume 4 (1964-1965),

    Volume 21 (1981-1982),

    Volume 22 (1982-1983), and

    Volume 23 (1983-1984).

If you have any of these volumes or have any suggestions about how to locate
them, please backchannel me at david at seikel.net.

I have already contacted Bill English, Steve Hunt, Seth Hawkins, and Bill
Southworth.  Seth Hawkins, who edited ISTR from the late 1980s through 1992,
does not believe that volumes 21, 22, and 23 were published.

Thanks.

David Seikel

david at seikel.net




From let_the_american_empire_burn  Sun Jun 16 23:54:40 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 23:54:40 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] send in the clown
Message-ID: <F195MeYunH5dZTLOAnj00007aac@hotmail.com>

Doyle Srader did live in a shoe
>From which he cried boo-fucking-hoo:
'I don't understand kritiks;
  and I'll soon be obslete!'
What was Doyle Srader to do?


nah, better yet - Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream:

"Or, if there were a sympathy in choice,
War, death, or sickness did lay siege to it,
Making it momentary as a sound,
Swift as a shadow, short as any dream;
Brief as the lightning in the collided night,
That, in a spleen, unfolds both heaven and earth,
And ere a man hath power to say 'Behold!'
The jaws of darkness do devour it up:
So quick bright things come to confusion."         :kev






_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com




From jbhdb8  Mon Jun 17 03:36:42 2002
From: jbhdb8 (jbhdb8 at earthlink.net)
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 01:36:42 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] USA Soccer MVP - If it quacks like a.......Duck?
Message-ID: <Springmail.0994.1024303002.0.45780300@webmail.pas.earthlink.net>

Has anyone seen the Duck lately????  I am pretty sure he just cemented the US landing in the Quarters of the world cup for the first time ever.  Nice goal by BmcB as well.  Thank goodness Evanston could leave for Korea.

Go USA Soccer!

Josh




From let_the_american_empire_burn  Mon Jun 17 07:47:18 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 07:47:18 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Michel Foucault's conversation with French high skoolers
Message-ID: <F6Y5jVkjA2DJxRVVfdY0001ffc4@hotmail.com>

Revolutionary Action: 'Until Now' - This interview appeared in Actuel, No. 
14 (Nov. 1971), pp. 42-47. Cornell University Press republished it in 
'Language, Counter-memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews by 
Michel Foucault' (1977), pp. 218-233. Sherry Simon and Donald F. Bouchard 
translated it from the French, and their footnotes are ennumberated and 
bracketed.

If readers discover any typos, please report them to Andy Ellis, 
dig at ndtceda.com, who promises to re-publish this interview on the Debate 
Information Group's website.

If you have any comments (like 'Screw you, ya commie-twirp!') or questions 
(like 'How can i employ Foucauldian tactics of resistance at my skool?'), 
please don't hesitate to drop me a line:
let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com.

Thank you very much for reading and for caring.    :kev


_____

Michel Foucault: What is the most intolerable form of repression for those 
of you currently enrolled in a lycee [high school]: family authority, the 
impact of the police on ordinary life, the organization and discipline 
imposed by the lycee, or the passive role encouraged by the press (and this 
may include a journal like Actuel)?

Serge: Repression in the schools is the most obvious, since it is aimed at 
those groups trying to be active; it seems most violent and we experience 
its effects in the most immediate way.

Alain: We shouldn't ignore the street scene - the raids in the Latin 
Quarter, the constant harassment of drug searches by the police. They seem 
to be everywhere: no sooner do I sit down than someone in uniform is telling 
me to stand. Aside from this, the schools may be worse: the obvious 
repression, biased information.

Serge: We must make distinctions: first, there is the action of parents who 
force their children into schools, as a necessary step toward a particular 
professional goal and who discourage anything that gets in the way; second, 
there is the administration which prohibits all forms of free or collective 
action; and finally, the teaching itself, but this is more complicated.

Jean-Pierre: In most cases, our classes are not immediately experienced as 
repressive, even if they are.

Foucault: You're right, of course, since the communication of knowledge is 
always positive. Yet, as the events of May showed convincingly, it functions 
as a double repression: in terms of those it excludes from the process and 
in terms of the model and the standard (the bars) it imposes on those 
receiving this knowledge.

Philippe: It's your belief, then, that our educational system is not meant 
to convey real knowledge, that its main objective is to separate the good 
from the bad, and that it does this according to the standards of social 
conformity?

Foucault: Knowledge initially implies a certain political conformity in its 
presentation. In a history course, you are asked to learn certain things and 
to ignore others: thus, certain things form the content of knowledge and its 
norms. [1. A repetition of the theme of exclusion found in L'Ordre du 
discours, pp. 10-23.) To give two examples: official knowledge has always 
represented political power as arising from conflicts within a social class 
(the dynastic disagreements within the aristocracy or parliamentary 
conflicts in the middle class) or, perhaps, as a conflict generated between 
the aristocracy and the middle class. Popular movements, on the other hand, 
are said to arise from famines, taxes, or unemployment; and they never 
appear as the result of a struggle for power, as if the masses could dream 
of a full stomach but never of exercising power. The history of this 
struggle for power and the manner in which power is exercised and maintained 
remain totally obscured. Knowledge keeps its distance: this should not be 
known! To take another example: the workers, at the beginning of the 
nineteenth century, carried out detailed investigations into their material 
conditions. This work served Marx for the bulk of his documentation; it led, 
in large part, to the political and trade-union practices of the proletariat 
throughout the nineteenth century; it maintains and develops itself through 
continuing struggles. Yet this knowledge has never been allowed to function 
within official knowledge. It is not specific proceses that have been 
excluded from knowledge, but a certain kind of knowledge.  And if we become 
aware of it today, it is in a secondary sense: through the study of Marx and 
those elements in his texts that are most easily assimilated into official 
knowledge.

Jean-Francois: For the sake of argument, Alain, would you say that most 
students in your school are from working class families?

Alain: A little under fifty percent.

Jean-Francois: Were trade unions discussed in your history courses?

Alain: Not in those I attended.

Serge: Nor in mine. Look at the way our studies are organized: only past 
history is discussed in lower grades. You're sixteen or seventeen before you 
arrive at modern ideas or movements - the only ones that can be slightly 
subversive. Yet even in the third year of a lycee, teachers of French 
absolutely refuse to discuss contemporary authors; and of course, there is 
never a word about the actual problems of life. When we do touch on them in 
the last two years, it's probably too late, given the conditioning of our 
part education.

Foucault: As a way of approaching texts - as a matter of choice and 
exclusion - this presentation affects everything that is said and done in 
the present. The system is telling you in effect: "If you wish to understand 
and perceive events in the present, you can only do so through the past, 
through an understanding - carefully derived from the past - which was 
specifically developed to clarify the present." We have employed a wide 
range of categories - truth, man, culture, writing, etc. - to dispel the 
shock of daily occurrences, to dissolve the event. The obvious intention of 
those famous historical continuities is to explain; the eternal "return" of 
Freud, Marx, and others is obviously to lay a foundation. But both function 
to exclude the radical break introducted by events. [2. Ibid., p. 59.] In 
the broadest sense, both the nature of events and the fact of power are 
invariably excluded from knowledge as presently constituted in our culture. 
This is to be expected since the power of a certain class (which determines 
this knowledge) must appear inaccesible to events; and the event, in its 
dangerous aspect, must be dominated and dissolved in the continuity of power 
maintained by this class, by a class power which is never defined. On the 
other hand, the proletariat develops a form of knowledge which concerns the 
struggle for power, the manner in which they can give rise to an event, 
respond to it urgency, avoid it, etc.; this is a knowledge absolutely alien 
to the first kind because its preoccupation with power and events. For this 
reaon, we should not be fooled by the modernized educational program, its 
opennes to the real world: it continues to maintain its traditional 
grounding in "humanism" while emphasizing the quick and efficient mastery 
ofa certain number of techniques, which were neglected in the past. Humanism 
reinforces social organization and these techniques allow society to 
progress, but along its own lines.

Jean-Francois: What criticism do you direct against humanism; and what 
values, in another system for transmitting knowledge, can replace it?

Foucault: By humanism I mean the totality of discourse through which Western 
man is told: "Even though you don't exercise power, you can still be a 
ruler. Better yet, the more you deny yourself the exercise of power, the 
more you submit to those in power, then the more this increases your 
sovereignty." Humanism invented a whole series of subjected sovereignties: 
the soul (ruling the body, but subjected to God), consciousness (sovereign 
in a context of judgement, but subjected to the necessities of truth), the 
individual (a titular control of personal rights subjected to the laws of 
nature and society), basic freedom (sovereign within, but accepting the 
demands of an outside world and "aligned with destiny"). In short, humanism 
is everything in Western civilization that restricts *the desire for power*: 
it prohbits the desire for power and excludes the possibility of power being 
seized. The theory of the subject (in the double sense of the word) is at 
the heart of humanism and this is why our culture has tenaciously rejected 
anything that could weaken its hold upon us. But it can be attacked in two 
ways: either by a "desubjectification" of the will to power (that is, 
through political struggle in the context of class warfare) or by the 
destruction of the subject as a pseudosovereign (that is, trhough an attack 
on "culture": the suppression of taboos and the limitations and division 
imposed upon the sexes; the setting up of communes; the loosening of 
inhibitions with regard to drugs; the breaking of all the prohibitions that 
form and guide the development of a normal individual). I am referring to 
all those experiences which havebeen rejected by our civilization or which 
it accepts only within literature. [3. Cf. The Order of Things, p.300.)

Jean-Francois: Since the Renaissance?

Foucault: From the beginning of Roman law - the armature of our civilization 
that exists as a definition of individuality as subjected sovereignty. The 
system of private property implies this conception: the proprietor is fully 
in control of his goods; he can use or abuse them, but he must nevertheless 
submit to the laws that support his claim to property. The Roman system 
structured the government and established the basis of property. It 
controlled the will to power by fixing the "sovereign right of property" as 
the exclusive possession of those in power. Through this elegant exchance, 
humanism was institutionalized.

Jean-Pierre: Society forms an organized whole. It is repressive by nature 
because its seeks to reproduce itself and perpetuate its existence. How is 
struggle possible: are we dealing with a global and indissociable organism 
which responds to a general law of conservation and evolution, or is it a 
more differentiated entity where on class tries to maintain its interest 
against another, where one class profits by maintaining order and another is 
set on its destruction? The answer is far from obvious: I don't subscribe to 
the first hypothesis, but the second seems too simplistic. There is, in 
fact, interdependence within the social organism which perpetuates itself.

Foucault: The movement of May suggests an initial response: the individuals 
who were subjected to the educational system, to the most constraining forms 
of conservatism and repetition, fought a revolutionary battle. In this 
sense, the intellectual crisis created by the events of May goes very deep. 
Society has been placed in an extremely perplexing and embarrassing position 
from which it has yet to extricate itself.

Jean-Pierre: But teaching is far from being the only instrument of humanism, 
the only tool for social repression - there are more essential mechanisms 
that operate before we enter school or outside of school.

Foucault: It has always been a problem for someone like me, someone who has 
been teaching for a long time, to decide if I should act outside or inside 
the university. Should we decide that the question was settled in May, that 
the university has broken down, and that we can now move on to other 
concerns? (This is plainly the direction of some of the groups with whom I 
am working in the struggle against repression, in the penal system, in 
pscyhiatric hospitals, and in the police or judicial systems.) Or is this 
merely a way of evading a fact that continues to embarrass me: namely, that 
the university structure remains intact and that we must continue to fight 
in this arena?

Jean-Francois: Personally, I don't believe that the university was actually 
demolished. I think that the Maoists were wrong to dismiss the university - 
which might have served as a solid base - to cultivate the factory where 
their task was especially difficult and their position relatively 
artificial. The university was in the process of cracking: we should have 
widened the fissure; we should have created an irreparable rupture in the 
system that transmits knowledge. The school and the university remain 
decisive. Life doesn't end at the age of five, even if one does have an 
alcoholic father and a mother who does her ironing in the bedroom.

Jean-Pierre: The revolt in the universities immediately confronted a problem 
- always the same one: the revolutionaries, or those who had nothing 
practical to gain from their education, were blocked by the students who 
wanted to work and to learn a trade. What were we to do? Search for new 
models? New content?

Jean-Francois: In the last analysis, this would only improve the present 
structure and train more students for the system.

Philippe: That isn't so. We can learn different things and be exposed, in a 
different way, to a different knowledge without falling back into the 
system. If the university is abandoned after it's been shaken a bit, it will 
continue to function and to reproduce itself through inertia - unless we can 
propose concrete alternatives and gain the support of its victims.

Foucault: The university stands for the institutional appratus through which 
society ensures its uneventful reproduction, at the least cost to itself. 
The disorder within institutions of high learning, their imminent demise 
(whether real or apparent), does no extend to the society's will for 
conservation, identity, and repetition. You are asking what can be done to 
disrupt the system's cycle of social reproduction; and it isn't enough to 
suppress or overturn the university. Other forms of repression must be 
attacked.

Jean-Pierre: Unlike Philippe, I don't hold with this idea of a "different" 
education. What would interest me, on the other hand, would be the reversal 
of the university's functions under revolutionary pressure: undoing earlier 
conditioning and destroying established values and knowledge. An increasing 
number of teachers are prepared to attempt this.

Frederic: Expericnes of this sort carried to their logical conclusion are 
very rare. Only Senik comes to mind, a professor of philosophy at Bergson in 
1969: he was actually able to demolish the status of the teacher and of 
knowledge in general. Of course, he was quickly isolated and excluded. 
Academic institutions still possess active mechanisms to defend themselves. 
They are still capable of integrating a great many things and of eliminating 
those foreign objects they cannot assimilate. You speak as if French 
universities, before May 1968, were adapted to our industrial society. In my 
opinion, they were not particularly profitable or functional, but especially 
archaic. The events of May effectively fractured the old institutional 
framework of higher education. But did the ruling class suffer? It 
reconstructed the system and it is now far more functional. It preserved the 
best schools, those whose primary function was the selection of technocrats. 
It created a center like Dauphine, the first American-style business school 
in France. And finally, for the last three years, official opposition has 
been confined to Vincennes and to certain departments at Nanterre - 
university pockets that are irrelevant to the system, nets in which the 
small fish of the left have been trapped. The university eliminated its 
archaic structure and it effectively adapts itself to the needs of 
neocapitalism; it is now that we should return to the field of struggle.

Foucault: I'm afraid I was referring to the "death of the university" in the 
most superficial way. The events of May effectively ended the form of higher 
education that began in the nineteenth century - the curious set of 
institutions that transformed a small proportion of the young into a social 
elite. This nevertheless leaves the full range of hidden mechanisms through 
which society conveys its knowledge and ensures its survival under the mask 
of knowledge: newspapers, television, technical schools, and the lycee (even 
more than the university).

Serge: Repression in the lycee continues unchecked. The educational system 
is sick, but only a minority are aware of this and dare to oppose it.

Alain: And the politicized minority of two or three years ago has 
disappeared from our school.

Jean-Francois: Does the fact of long hair continue to mean something?

Alain: Not anymore. Fashionable students now let their hair grow.

Jean-Francois: And drugs?

Serge: Drug use has no meaning in itself. It largely means that a student 
has abandoned the idea of a career. The politicized students continue their 
studies; those who take drugs leave school altogether.

Foucault: The campaign against drugs is a pretext for the reinforcement of 
social repression; not only through police raids, but also through the 
indirect exaltation of the normal, rational, conscientious, and 
well-adjusted individual. This prominent image can be found at every level. 
Read today's headlines in "France-Soir": fifty-three percent of the French 
population favors the dealth penalty, while only thirty-eight percent were 
supporting it a month ago.

Jean-Francois: Does this stem from the revolt at Clairvaux prison?

Foucault: Evidently. We emphasize the fear of criminals: we brandish the 
threat of the monstrous so as to reinforce the ideology of good and evil, of 
the things that are permitted and prohibited - precisely those notions which 
teachers are now somewhat embarrassed to communicate. What the professor of 
philosophy no longer dares to say in his convoluted language, the journalist 
can now say in the most direct fashion. You might think that this has always 
been the case, that journalists and professors always existed to say the 
same things. But journalists are now expected, if not forced, to say these 
things in a loud and persistent voice. There is an interesting story in 
this: because of Clairvaux, a week of revenge was inflicted on the prisons. 
Inmates were indicriminately beaten by the guards, especially at 
Fleury-Merogis, the prison for juveniles. The mother of an inmate came to 
see us, and I went with her to R.T.L. [4. Radio Luxembourg.] to find 
coverage for her report. A journalist agreed to see us and said: "You know, 
I'm not surprised by this; the guards are nearly as degenerate as the 
prisoners." A professor who spoke this way in a lycee would create a small 
riot and would have his ears boxed.

Philippe: That's true; a teacher would never speak this way. Is it that he 
no longer can or that he would say it differently, in keeping with his role? 
In your opinion, how can we fight this ideology and its mechanisms of 
repression, apart from petitions and other actions of reform?

Foucault: Local actions which are well-timed can be quite effective. 
Consider the actions of the G.I.P. (Information Group on Prisons) during the 
past year. The ultimate goal of its interventions was not to extend the 
visitng rights of prisoners to thirty minutes or to procure flush toilets 
for the cells, but to question the social and moral distinction between the 
innocent and the guilty. And if this goal was to be more than a 
philosophical statement or a humanist desire, it had to be pursued at the 
level of gestures, practical actions, and in relation to specific 
situations. Confronted by this penal system, the humanist would say: "The 
guilty are guilty and the innocent are innocent. Nevertheless, the convict 
is a man like any other and society must respect what is human in him: 
consequently, flush toilets!" Our action, on the contrary, isn't concerned 
with the soul or the man *behind* the convict, but it seeks to obliterate 
the deep division that lies between innocence and guilt. This was Genet's 
emphasis with relation to the judge and the poor tourist being held in the 
middle of the desert for no apparent reason. Genet, for his part, was 
saying: "But is the judge innocent and what of an American lady who can 
afford to be a tourist in this way?"

Philippe: Does this mean that your primary object is to raise consciousness 
and that you can neglect, for the moment, the struggle against political and 
economic institutions?

Foucault: You have badly misunderstood me. If it were a question of raising 
consciousness, we could simply publish newspapers and books, or attempt to 
win over a radio or television producer. We wish to attack an institution at 
the point where it culminates and reveals itself in simple and basic 
ideology, in the notions of good and evil, innocence and guilt. We wish to 
change this ideology which is experienced through those dense institutional 
layers where it has been invested, crystallized, and reproduced. More 
simply, humanism is based on the desire to change the ideological system 
without altering institutions; and reformers wish to change the institution 
without touching the ideological system. Revolutionary action, on the 
contrary, is defined as the simultaneous agitation of consciousness and 
institutions; this implies that we attack the relationships of power through 
the notions and institutions that function as their instruments, armature, 
and armor. Do you think that the teaching of philosohy - and its moral code 
- would remain unchanged if the penal system collapsed?

Jean-Pierre: We can also reverse the question. Could we imprison people in 
the present way if we changed the educational system? Most of all, we should 
not restrict our actions to a single sector where the movement bogs down in 
individual reforms. We should move from the educational system to the 
prisons, from the prisons to the asylum. Isn't this your basic intention?

Foucault: We have already started interventions in the aslyum, using methods 
similar to those employed in the prisons: a kind of aggressive enquiry 
formulated, at least in part, by those who are being investigated. The 
repressive role of the aslyum is well known: people are locked up and 
subjected to treatment - chemical or psychological - over which they have no 
control; or they are subjected to the nontreatment of a straitjacket. But 
the influence of psychiatry extends beyond this to the activity of social 
workers, professional guidance counsellors, school psychologists, and 
doctors who dispense psychiatric advice to their patients - all the 
psychiatric components of everyday life which form something like a third 
order of repression and policing. This infiltration is spreading throughout 
society, and this is not counting those psychiatrists who publish advice in 
the newspapers. The psychopathology of everyday life may reveal the 
unconscious facets of desire; the "psychiatrization" of everyday life, if it 
were closely examined, might reveal the invisible hand of power.

Jean-Francois: On what level do you plan to act? Can you address yourself to 
social workers?

Foucault: No. We would like to work with students in the lycee, those whose 
education has been supervised, anyone who has been subjected to 
psychological or psychiatric repression in their choice of studies, in their 
relationships to their family, in their response to sexuality or drugs. We 
wish to know how they were divided, distributed, selected, and excluded in 
the name of psychiatry and of the normal individual, that is, in the name of 
humanism.

Jean-Francois: Aren't you interested in antipsychiatry, in working with 
psychiatrists in the asylum?

Foucault: This is a task for psychiatrists, since entry into an asylum is 
restricted. We should, nevertheless, be careful that this movement directed 
against psychiatry, which opposes the idea of the asylum, does not 
ultimately serve to introduce psychiatry into the outside world by 
multiplying its interventions upon daily life.

Frederic: The situation in prisons is apparently worse, because the only 
relationships they sanction center on the conflict between the victims and 
the agents of repression: no "progressive" brutes will enlist in the 
movement. In the asylum, on the other hand, the struggle is being led by 
psychiatrists and not the victims: the agents of repression are fighting 
repression. Is this really an advantage?

Foucault: I'm not sure. Unlike prison revolts, it is only with great 
difficulty that a patient's rejection of the psychiatric hospital can become 
a collective and political action. The problem is to know whether patients 
subjected to the segregation of the aslyum can stand against the institution 
and finally denounce the very division that designates and excludes them as 
mentally ill. Basaglia, the psychiatrist, attempted some experiments of this 
kind in Italy: he brought together the patients, the doctors, and the 
hospital personnel, but not to stage a sociodrama where each could expose 
his fantasies and re-enact the primal scene. Rather, he posed this question: 
could the victims of the asylum initiate a political struggle against the 
social structure that denounces them as mad? These experiments were savagely 
prohibited.

Frederic: The distinction between the normal and the pathological is even 
stronger than that between innocence and guilt.

Foucault: They reinforce each other. When a judgement cannot be framed in 
terms of good and evil, it is stated in terms of normal and abnormal. And 
when it is necessary to justify this last distinction, it is done in terms 
of what is good and bad for the individual. These are expressions that 
signal the fundamental duality of Western consciousness. In more general 
terms, this also means that we can't defeat the system through isolated 
actions; we must engage it on all fronts - the university, the prisons, and 
the domain of psychiatry - one after another since our forces are not strong 
enough for a simultaneous attack. We strike and knock against the most solid 
obstacles; the system cracks at another point; we persist. It seems that 
we're winning, but then the institution is rebuilt; we must start again. It 
is a long struggle; it is repetitive and seemingly incoherent. But the 
system it opposes, as well as the power exercised through the system, 
supplies its unity.

Alain: This is a tiresome question, but it must be faced eventually: what 
replaces the system?

Foucault: I think that to imagine another system is to extend our 
participation in the present system. This is perhaps what happened in the 
history of the Soviet Union: apparently, new institutions were in fact based 
on elements taken from an earlier system - the Red Army reconstituted on the 
model of the Czarist army, the return to realism in art, and the emphasis on 
traditional family morality. The Soviet Union returned to the standards of 
bourgeois society in the nineteenth century, and perhaps, more as a result 
of Utopian tendencies than a concern for realities.

Frederic: I don't accept that. Marxism defined itself as scientific 
socialism as opposed to Utopian socialism. It refused to declare itself on 
the possible forms of future society. Soviet society was besieged by 
concrete problems, by the problems generated by the civil war. The war must 
be won and the factories must operate: consequently, its recourse to the 
only available and immediately effective models - the military hierarchy and 
the Taylor system. [5. Frederick W. Taylor, The Principles of Scientific 
Management (1911). Lenin, in a speech in 1919, advised the adoption of 
Taylor's time and study techniques.] If the Soviet Union has progressively 
assimilated the standards of bourgeois society, it is probably because they 
were the only ones available. It is not utopianism, but its absence, that is 
in question. Utopianism might have a key role to play.

Jean-Francois: The present movement may require a utopian model and a 
theoretical elaboration that goes beyond the sphere of partial and repressed 
experiences.

Foucault: Why not the opposite? Reject theory and all forms of general 
discourse. This need for theory is still part of the system we reject.

Jean-Francois: You feel that the simple fact of employing a theory still 
relates to the dynamic of bourgeois knowledge?

Foucault: Maybe so. I would rather oppose actual experiences than the 
possibility of a utopia. It is possible that the rought outline of a future 
society is supplied by the recent experiences with drugs, sex, communes, 
other forms of consciousness, and other forms of individuality. If 
scientific socialism emerged from the Utopias of the nineteenth century, it 
is possible that a real socialization will emerge, in the twentieth century, 
from *experiences*.

Jean-Francois: The events of May were, of course, the experience of a 
certain power. But this experience essentially implied utopian discourse: 
May way a discourse occupying a space.

Philippe: A disourse that was inadequate. The older ideas of the Left had 
only a marginal relationship to the aspirations liberated in May. The 
movement could have gone much further if it had been supported by an 
adequate theory, a thought capable of providing it with new perspectives.

Foucault: I'm not convinced of this. But Jean-Francois has reason to speak 
of the experience of power. It is of the utmost importance that thousands of 
people exercised a power which did not assume the form of hierarchical 
organization. Unfortunately, since power is by definition that which the 
ruling class abandons least readily and recaptures on the first occasion, it 
was impossible to maintain the experience for longer than a few weeks.

Philippe: If I understand you correctly, you think it's also useless or 
premature to create parallel circuits like the free universities in the 
United States that duplicate the institutions being attacked.

Foucault: If you wish to replace an official institution by another 
institution that fulfills the same function - better and differently - then 
you are already being reabsorbed by the dominant structure.

Jean-Francois: I can't believe that the movement must remain at its present 
state, as this vague, unsubstantial, underground ideology that refuses to 
endorse any form of social work or community service, any action that 
requires going beyond the immediate group. It's unable to assume the 
responsibility for the whole of society, or it may be that it's incapable of 
conceiving of society as a whole.

Foucault: You wonder if a global society could function without general 
discourse on the basis of such divergent and dispersed experiences. I 
believe, on the contrary, that this particular idea of the "whole of 
society" derives from a utopian context. The idea arose in the Western 
world, within this highly individulized historical development that 
culminates in capitalism. To speak of the "whole of society" apart from the 
only form it has ever taken is to transform our past into a dream. We 
readily believe that the least we can expect of experiences, actions, and 
strategies is that they take into account the "whole of society." This seems 
absolutely essential for their existence. But I believe that this is asking 
a great deal, that it means imposing impossible conditions on our actions 
because this notion functions in a manner that prohibits the actualization, 
success, and perpetuation of these projects. "The whole of society" is 
precisely that which should not be considered except as something to be 
destroyed. And then, we can only hope that it will never exist again.

Frederic: The social forms of Western culture were universalized as a 
"social whole" that is embodied by the state, and not necessarily because it 
stood as the best model, but because it has material power and superior 
efficiency. Our problem is that all successful revolts against the system 
succeeded by reinforcing similar kinds of organization - under partisan or 
state control - forms which exactly correspond to the dominant structure and 
which pose the essential question of power. This includes Leninism, but also 
the Maoist revolt: a popular organization and army against a bourgeois 
organization and army, dictatorship and the proletarian state. These 
instruments, initially conceived for taking power, must disappear after the 
transition stage. Of course, this is never the case as shown by the 
Bolshevik experience; and the cultural revolution in China was unable fully 
to eliminate them. As a condition for victory, they maintain their own 
dynamic which is quickly directed against the spontaneities they helped to 
liberate. Plainly a contradiction, and it may be the fundamental 
contradiction of revolutionary action.

Foucault: What strikes me in your argument is that it takes the form of 
"until now." However, a revolutionary undertaking is directed not only 
against the present but against the rule of "until now."

_____



Kev's footnotes:

_ In addition to 'Language, Counter-memory, Practice' and 'The Order of 
Things', I'd recommend the following for those interested in a better 
understanding of Foucault's ideas, as well as the part those ideas will play 
in the up-coming high skool topic:

Politics, Philosophy, Culture (later interviews, lectures, and essays: 
especially chapter on legislation surrounding childhood sexulity);

Discipline & Punish ('genealogical' analysis of criminality: especially part 
III on discipline proper, including 'panopticism');

Power/Knowledge (early interviews, lectures, and essays: especially 'truth 
and power');

Madness & Civilization ('archealogical' analysis of normality).

_ For a few interesting cross-references of the ideas discussed above to 
American politics, see:

N. Chomsky & E. Herman, Manufacturing Consent (study of media-propaganda 
system);

J. W. Loewen, Lies My Teacher Told Me (study of high school history 
textbooks);

b. hooks, Teaching to Transgress (narrative of life-time college professor);

R. Whitaker, Mad in America (history of treatment of mental illness);

R. Farson, Birthrights (a 'bill of rights' for children facing adultist 
oppresion in all areas of social life)

(... just off the top of my head.)

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From bgaston76  Mon Jun 17 14:07:18 2002
From: bgaston76 (Bryan Gaston)
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 12:07:18 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] The Duck Invasion and USA Soccer
Message-ID: <NMFFFHLBJGMMABAA@mailcity.com>


 Is it possible with the emerging bio-tech advances that the Duck was cloned.....and the use of his powers in the world cup is just the beginning?  What's next can a Jason Kidd & Duck led Nets team win next years NBA championship....all sports champions beware, Tiger Woods could be next to feel the wrath of the Duck!

Go USA Soccer, beat Germany!

B. Gaston

--

On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 01:36:42  
 jbhdb8 wrote:
>Has anyone seen the Duck lately????  I am pretty sure he just cemented the US landing in the Quarters of the world cup for the first time ever.  Nice goal by BmcB as well.  Thank goodness Evanston could leave for Korea.
>
>Go USA Soccer!
>
>Josh
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
>http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>


_________________________________________
Communicate with others using Lycos Mail for FREE!
http://mail.lycos.com/

--------- End Forwarded Message ---------



_________________________________________
Communicate with others using Lycos Mail for FREE!
http://mail.lycos.com/




From schizoliberation  Mon Jun 17 22:09:50 2002
From: schizoliberation (Schizo Liberation Front)
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 23:09:50 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Michel Foucault's conversation with French high skoolers
Message-ID: <F1670YZ97jKaNLQR6HO00024ba4@hotmail.com>

grant statement from foucault in dialogue w high schoolers:

"To give two examples: official knowledge has always represented political 
power as arising from conflicts within a social class
(the dynastic disagreements within the aristocracy or parliamentary
conflicts in the middle class) or, perhaps, as a conflict generated
between the aristocracy and the middle class. Popular movements, on the
other hand, are said to arise from famines, taxes, or unemployment; and they 
never appear as the result of a struggle for power, as if the masses could 
dream of a full stomach but never of exercising power. The history of this 
struggle for power and the manner in which power is exercised and maintained 
remain totally obscured. Knowledge keeps its distance: this should not be 
known! To take another example: the workers, at the beginning of 
thenineteenth century, carried out detailed investigations into their 
material conditions. This work served Marx for the bulk of his 
documentation; it led, in large part, to the political and trade-union 
practices of the proletariat throughout the nineteenth century; it maintains 
and develops itself
through continuing struggles. Yet this knowledge has never been allowed to 
function within official knowledge. It is not specific proceses that have 
been excluded from knowledge, but a certain kind of knowledge.  And if we 
become aware of it today, it is in a secondary sense: through the study of 
Marx and those elements in his texts that are most easily assimilated into 
official knowledge."

1) proves divergence from likes of baudrilliard and lyotard.  "little 
seduction" is not enough.  do not have to conceive of total overthrow of the 
state to indict competitive dabait as a form of official knowledge that 
permits theatrical "subversion" while excluding teaching how to conduct a 
general strike, how to start a riot at a peaceful protest, how to pirate 
dabait evidence, how to spread computer viruses to take out elite 
communication structures.   demonstrates why on numerous occasions foucault 
cites marx's work on the paris commune as the most pertinent for him.  a new 
form of non-totalizing struggle emerged in the streets where baudrilliard 
and lyotard can't swim.

2) the certain kind of knowledge being talked about is not students and 
teachers getting hard and wet while sparring in formalized speeches.

3) proves that competitive kritik dabait has opted for a sexy theatrical 
cooption.  the sociological components of foucault's work have been totally 
ignored to the benefit of the hierarchical structures that permeate the 
activity.  Discipline and Punish is best read alongside Capital and not the 
sexy theorists you propose.  after 5 years of working w the Group of 
Information on Prisons (GIP) using the sociological techniques that Marx 
borrowed from the workers, foucault wrote his genealogy of disciplinary 
societies theoretically informed by insights from prisoners and their 
families.  adorno and habermas are much better parallels.  if you want to 
look to french thinkers, try Pierre Bourdieu who worked w foucault to get 
50,000 in the streets (a revolutionary situation) of paris to oppose soviet 
tanks rolling into poland in late 1980, Robert Castel who worked with 
foucault in the GIA (Group of Information on the Asylum) and theorized the 
non-scientific purpose of the repression of mental illness, Alain Touraine 
or a number of other sociologists who with foucault critique the trendy lit 
crit direction of the "thinkers" sanchez has recently mobilized as an 
apologist for the fundamentally flawed competitive dabait.  good evidence 
you got there.

4) in other words, we perceive a link between the sociological practices 
excluded by official knowledge and uprisings that go beyond theatrical 
performances.  shamaham and the "in-round" tradition of competitive kritik 
are complicit with strategies of official knowledge indicted by foucault in 
the recent evidence supplied by sanchez.  "post-structuralism" is a hoax to 
excise sociological practices from critical inquiry and make a big lit crit 
soup like you see with krik and jarius.

>From: "Kevin Sanchez" <let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: moksha23 at earthlink.net
>To: dig at ndtceda.com, edebate at ndtceda.com, cx-l at debate.net
>Subject: [eDebate] Michel Foucault's conversation with French high skoolers
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 07:47:18 -0500
>
>Revolutionary Action: 'Until Now' - This interview appeared in Actuel, No.
>14 (Nov. 1971), pp. 42-47. Cornell University Press republished it in
>'Language, Counter-memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews by
>Michel Foucault' (1977), pp. 218-233. Sherry Simon and Donald F. Bouchard
>translated it from the French, and their footnotes are ennumberated and
>bracketed.
>
>If readers discover any typos, please report them to Andy Ellis,
>dig at ndtceda.com, who promises to re-publish this interview on the Debate
>Information Group's website.
>
>If you have any comments (like 'Screw you, ya commie-twirp!') or questions
>(like 'How can i employ Foucauldian tactics of resistance at my skool?'),
>please don't hesitate to drop me a line:
>let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com.
>
>Thank you very much for reading and for caring.    :kev
>
>
>_____
>
>Michel Foucault: What is the most intolerable form of repression for those
>of you currently enrolled in a lycee [high school]: family authority, the
>impact of the police on ordinary life, the organization and discipline
>imposed by the lycee, or the passive role encouraged by the press (and this
>may include a journal like Actuel)?
>
>Serge: Repression in the schools is the most obvious, since it is aimed at
>those groups trying to be active; it seems most violent and we experience
>its effects in the most immediate way.
>
>Alain: We shouldn't ignore the street scene - the raids in the Latin
>Quarter, the constant harassment of drug searches by the police. They seem
>to be everywhere: no sooner do I sit down than someone in uniform is 
>telling
>me to stand. Aside from this, the schools may be worse: the obvious
>repression, biased information.
>
>Serge: We must make distinctions: first, there is the action of parents who
>force their children into schools, as a necessary step toward a particular
>professional goal and who discourage anything that gets in the way; second,
>there is the administration which prohibits all forms of free or collective
>action; and finally, the teaching itself, but this is more complicated.
>
>Jean-Pierre: In most cases, our classes are not immediately experienced as
>repressive, even if they are.
>
>Foucault: You're right, of course, since the communication of knowledge is
>always positive. Yet, as the events of May showed convincingly, it 
>functions
>as a double repression: in terms of those it excludes from the process and
>in terms of the model and the standard (the bars) it imposes on those
>receiving this knowledge.
>
>Philippe: It's your belief, then, that our educational system is not meant
>to convey real knowledge, that its main objective is to separate the good
>from the bad, and that it does this according to the standards of social
>conformity?
>
>Foucault: Knowledge initially implies a certain political conformity in its
>presentation. In a history course, you are asked to learn certain things 
>and
>to ignore others: thus, certain things form the content of knowledge and 
>its
>norms. [1. A repetition of the theme of exclusion found in L'Ordre du
>discours, pp. 10-23.) To give two examples: official knowledge has always
>represented political power as arising from conflicts within a social class
>(the dynastic disagreements within the aristocracy or parliamentary
>conflicts in the middle class) or, perhaps, as a conflict generated between
>the aristocracy and the middle class. Popular movements, on the other hand,
>are said to arise from famines, taxes, or unemployment; and they never
>appear as the result of a struggle for power, as if the masses could dream
>of a full stomach but never of exercising power. The history of this
>struggle for power and the manner in which power is exercised and 
>maintained
>remain totally obscured. Knowledge keeps its distance: this should not be
>known! To take another example: the workers, at the beginning of the
>nineteenth century, carried out detailed investigations into their material
>conditions. This work served Marx for the bulk of his documentation; it 
>led,
>in large part, to the political and trade-union practices of the 
>proletariat
>throughout the nineteenth century; it maintains and develops itself through
>continuing struggles. Yet this knowledge has never been allowed to function
>within official knowledge. It is not specific proceses that have been
>excluded from knowledge, but a certain kind of knowledge.  And if we become
>aware of it today, it is in a secondary sense: through the study of Marx 
>and
>those elements in his texts that are most easily assimilated into official
>knowledge.
>
>Jean-Francois: For the sake of argument, Alain, would you say that most
>students in your school are from working class families?
>
>Alain: A little under fifty percent.
>
>Jean-Francois: Were trade unions discussed in your history courses?
>
>Alain: Not in those I attended.
>
>Serge: Nor in mine. Look at the way our studies are organized: only past
>history is discussed in lower grades. You're sixteen or seventeen before 
>you
>arrive at modern ideas or movements - the only ones that can be slightly
>subversive. Yet even in the third year of a lycee, teachers of French
>absolutely refuse to discuss contemporary authors; and of course, there is
>never a word about the actual problems of life. When we do touch on them in
>the last two years, it's probably too late, given the conditioning of our
>part education.
>
>Foucault: As a way of approaching texts - as a matter of choice and
>exclusion - this presentation affects everything that is said and done in
>the present. The system is telling you in effect: "If you wish to 
>understand
>and perceive events in the present, you can only do so through the past,
>through an understanding - carefully derived from the past - which was
>specifically developed to clarify the present." We have employed a wide
>range of categories - truth, man, culture, writing, etc. - to dispel the
>shock of daily occurrences, to dissolve the event. The obvious intention of
>those famous historical continuities is to explain; the eternal "return" of
>Freud, Marx, and others is obviously to lay a foundation. But both function
>to exclude the radical break introducted by events. [2. Ibid., p. 59.] In
>the broadest sense, both the nature of events and the fact of power are
>invariably excluded from knowledge as presently constituted in our culture.
>This is to be expected since the power of a certain class (which determines
>this knowledge) must appear inaccesible to events; and the event, in its
>dangerous aspect, must be dominated and dissolved in the continuity of 
>power
>maintained by this class, by a class power which is never defined. On the
>other hand, the proletariat develops a form of knowledge which concerns the
>struggle for power, the manner in which they can give rise to an event,
>respond to it urgency, avoid it, etc.; this is a knowledge absolutely alien
>to the first kind because its preoccupation with power and events. For this
>reaon, we should not be fooled by the modernized educational program, its
>opennes to the real world: it continues to maintain its traditional
>grounding in "humanism" while emphasizing the quick and efficient mastery
>ofa certain number of techniques, which were neglected in the past. 
>Humanism
>reinforces social organization and these techniques allow society to
>progress, but along its own lines.
>
>Jean-Francois: What criticism do you direct against humanism; and what
>values, in another system for transmitting knowledge, can replace it?
>
>Foucault: By humanism I mean the totality of discourse through which 
>Western
>man is told: "Even though you don't exercise power, you can still be a
>ruler. Better yet, the more you deny yourself the exercise of power, the
>more you submit to those in power, then the more this increases your
>sovereignty." Humanism invented a whole series of subjected sovereignties:
>the soul (ruling the body, but subjected to God), consciousness (sovereign
>in a context of judgement, but subjected to the necessities of truth), the
>individual (a titular control of personal rights subjected to the laws of
>nature and society), basic freedom (sovereign within, but accepting the
>demands of an outside world and "aligned with destiny"). In short, humanism
>is everything in Western civilization that restricts *the desire for 
>power*:
>it prohbits the desire for power and excludes the possibility of power 
>being
>seized. The theory of the subject (in the double sense of the word) is at
>the heart of humanism and this is why our culture has tenaciously rejected
>anything that could weaken its hold upon us. But it can be attacked in two
>ways: either by a "desubjectification" of the will to power (that is,
>through political struggle in the context of class warfare) or by the
>destruction of the subject as a pseudosovereign (that is, trhough an attack
>on "culture": the suppression of taboos and the limitations and division
>imposed upon the sexes; the setting up of communes; the loosening of
>inhibitions with regard to drugs; the breaking of all the prohibitions that
>form and guide the development of a normal individual). I am referring to
>all those experiences which havebeen rejected by our civilization or which
>it accepts only within literature. [3. Cf. The Order of Things, p.300.)
>
>Jean-Francois: Since the Renaissance?
>
>Foucault: From the beginning of Roman law - the armature of our 
>civilization
>that exists as a definition of individuality as subjected sovereignty. The
>system of private property implies this conception: the proprietor is fully
>in control of his goods; he can use or abuse them, but he must nevertheless
>submit to the laws that support his claim to property. The Roman system
>structured the government and established the basis of property. It
>controlled the will to power by fixing the "sovereign right of property" as
>the exclusive possession of those in power. Through this elegant exchance,
>humanism was institutionalized.
>
>Jean-Pierre: Society forms an organized whole. It is repressive by nature
>because its seeks to reproduce itself and perpetuate its existence. How is
>struggle possible: are we dealing with a global and indissociable organism
>which responds to a general law of conservation and evolution, or is it a
>more differentiated entity where on class tries to maintain its interest
>against another, where one class profits by maintaining order and another 
>is
>set on its destruction? The answer is far from obvious: I don't subscribe 
>to
>the first hypothesis, but the second seems too simplistic. There is, in
>fact, interdependence within the social organism which perpetuates itself.
>
>Foucault: The movement of May suggests an initial response: the individuals
>who were subjected to the educational system, to the most constraining 
>forms
>of conservatism and repetition, fought a revolutionary battle. In this
>sense, the intellectual crisis created by the events of May goes very deep.
>Society has been placed in an extremely perplexing and embarrassing 
>position
>from which it has yet to extricate itself.
>
>Jean-Pierre: But teaching is far from being the only instrument of 
>humanism,
>the only tool for social repression - there are more essential mechanisms
>that operate before we enter school or outside of school.
>
>Foucault: It has always been a problem for someone like me, someone who has
>been teaching for a long time, to decide if I should act outside or inside
>the university. Should we decide that the question was settled in May, that
>the university has broken down, and that we can now move on to other
>concerns? (This is plainly the direction of some of the groups with whom I
>am working in the struggle against repression, in the penal system, in
>pscyhiatric hospitals, and in the police or judicial systems.) Or is this
>merely a way of evading a fact that continues to embarrass me: namely, that
>the university structure remains intact and that we must continue to fight
>in this arena?
>
>Jean-Francois: Personally, I don't believe that the university was actually
>demolished. I think that the Maoists were wrong to dismiss the university -
>which might have served as a solid base - to cultivate the factory where
>their task was especially difficult and their position relatively
>artificial. The university was in the process of cracking: we should have
>widened the fissure; we should have created an irreparable rupture in the
>system that transmits knowledge. The school and the university remain
>decisive. Life doesn't end at the age of five, even if one does have an
>alcoholic father and a mother who does her ironing in the bedroom.
>
>Jean-Pierre: The revolt in the universities immediately confronted a 
>problem
>- always the same one: the revolutionaries, or those who had nothing
>practical to gain from their education, were blocked by the students who
>wanted to work and to learn a trade. What were we to do? Search for new
>models? New content?
>
>Jean-Francois: In the last analysis, this would only improve the present
>structure and train more students for the system.
>
>Philippe: That isn't so. We can learn different things and be exposed, in a
>different way, to a different knowledge without falling back into the
>system. If the university is abandoned after it's been shaken a bit, it 
>will
>continue to function and to reproduce itself through inertia - unless we 
>can
>propose concrete alternatives and gain the support of its victims.
>
>Foucault: The university stands for the institutional appratus through 
>which
>society ensures its uneventful reproduction, at the least cost to itself.
>The disorder within institutions of high learning, their imminent demise
>(whether real or apparent), does no extend to the society's will for
>conservation, identity, and repetition. You are asking what can be done to
>disrupt the system's cycle of social reproduction; and it isn't enough to
>suppress or overturn the university. Other forms of repression must be
>attacked.
>
>Jean-Pierre: Unlike Philippe, I don't hold with this idea of a "different"
>education. What would interest me, on the other hand, would be the reversal
>of the university's functions under revolutionary pressure: undoing earlier
>conditioning and destroying established values and knowledge. An increasing
>number of teachers are prepared to attempt this.
>
>Frederic: Expericnes of this sort carried to their logical conclusion are
>very rare. Only Senik comes to mind, a professor of philosophy at Bergson 
>in
>1969: he was actually able to demolish the status of the teacher and of
>knowledge in general. Of course, he was quickly isolated and excluded.
>Academic institutions still possess active mechanisms to defend themselves.
>They are still capable of integrating a great many things and of 
>eliminating
>those foreign objects they cannot assimilate. You speak as if French
>universities, before May 1968, were adapted to our industrial society. In 
>my
>opinion, they were not particularly profitable or functional, but 
>especially
>archaic. The events of May effectively fractured the old institutional
>framework of higher education. But did the ruling class suffer? It
>reconstructed the system and it is now far more functional. It preserved 
>the
>best schools, those whose primary function was the selection of 
>technocrats.
>It created a center like Dauphine, the first American-style business school
>in France. And finally, for the last three years, official opposition has
>been confined to Vincennes and to certain departments at Nanterre -
>university pockets that are irrelevant to the system, nets in which the
>small fish of the left have been trapped. The university eliminated its
>archaic structure and it effectively adapts itself to the needs of
>neocapitalism; it is now that we should return to the field of struggle.
>
>Foucault: I'm afraid I was referring to the "death of the university" in 
>the
>most superficial way. The events of May effectively ended the form of 
>higher
>education that began in the nineteenth century - the curious set of
>institutions that transformed a small proportion of the young into a social
>elite. This nevertheless leaves the full range of hidden mechanisms through
>which society conveys its knowledge and ensures its survival under the mask
>of knowledge: newspapers, television, technical schools, and the lycee 
>(even
>more than the university).
>
>Serge: Repression in the lycee continues unchecked. The educational system
>is sick, but only a minority are aware of this and dare to oppose it.
>
>Alain: And the politicized minority of two or three years ago has
>disappeared from our school.
>
>Jean-Francois: Does the fact of long hair continue to mean something?
>
>Alain: Not anymore. Fashionable students now let their hair grow.
>
>Jean-Francois: And drugs?
>
>Serge: Drug use has no meaning in itself. It largely means that a student
>has abandoned the idea of a career. The politicized students continue their
>studies; those who take drugs leave school altogether.
>
>Foucault: The campaign against drugs is a pretext for the reinforcement of
>social repression; not only through police raids, but also through the
>indirect exaltation of the normal, rational, conscientious, and
>well-adjusted individual. This prominent image can be found at every level.
>Read today's headlines in "France-Soir": fifty-three percent of the French
>population favors the dealth penalty, while only thirty-eight percent were
>supporting it a month ago.
>
>Jean-Francois: Does this stem from the revolt at Clairvaux prison?
>
>Foucault: Evidently. We emphasize the fear of criminals: we brandish the
>threat of the monstrous so as to reinforce the ideology of good and evil, 
>of
>the things that are permitted and prohibited - precisely those notions 
>which
>teachers are now somewhat embarrassed to communicate. What the professor of
>philosophy no longer dares to say in his convoluted language, the 
>journalist
>can now say in the most direct fashion. You might think that this has 
>always
>been the case, that journalists and professors always existed to say the
>same things. But journalists are now expected, if not forced, to say these
>things in a loud and persistent voice. There is an interesting story in
>this: because of Clairvaux, a week of revenge was inflicted on the prisons.
>Inmates were indicriminately beaten by the guards, especially at
>Fleury-Merogis, the prison for juveniles. The mother of an inmate came to
>see us, and I went with her to R.T.L. [4. Radio Luxembourg.] to find
>coverage for her report. A journalist agreed to see us and said: "You know,
>I'm not surprised by this; the guards are nearly as degenerate as the
>prisoners." A professor who spoke this way in a lycee would create a small
>riot and would have his ears boxed.
>
>Philippe: That's true; a teacher would never speak this way. Is it that he
>no longer can or that he would say it differently, in keeping with his 
>role?
>In your opinion, how can we fight this ideology and its mechanisms of
>repression, apart from petitions and other actions of reform?
>
>Foucault: Local actions which are well-timed can be quite effective.
>Consider the actions of the G.I.P. (Information Group on Prisons) during 
>the
>past year. The ultimate goal of its interventions was not to extend the
>visitng rights of prisoners to thirty minutes or to procure flush toilets
>for the cells, but to question the social and moral distinction between the
>innocent and the guilty. And if this goal was to be more than a
>philosophical statement or a humanist desire, it had to be pursued at the
>level of gestures, practical actions, and in relation to specific
>situations. Confronted by this penal system, the humanist would say: "The
>guilty are guilty and the innocent are innocent. Nevertheless, the convict
>is a man like any other and society must respect what is human in him:
>consequently, flush toilets!" Our action, on the contrary, isn't concerned
>with the soul or the man *behind* the convict, but it seeks to obliterate
>the deep division that lies between innocence and guilt. This was Genet's
>emphasis with relation to the judge and the poor tourist being held in the
>middle of the desert for no apparent reason. Genet, for his part, was
>saying: "But is the judge innocent and what of an American lady who can
>afford to be a tourist in this way?"
>
>Philippe: Does this mean that your primary object is to raise consciousness
>and that you can neglect, for the moment, the struggle against political 
>and
>economic institutions?
>
>Foucault: You have badly misunderstood me. If it were a question of raising
>consciousness, we could simply publish newspapers and books, or attempt to
>win over a radio or television producer. We wish to attack an institution 
>at
>the point where it culminates and reveals itself in simple and basic
>ideology, in the notions of good and evil, innocence and guilt. We wish to
>change this ideology which is experienced through those dense institutional
>layers where it has been invested, crystallized, and reproduced. More
>simply, humanism is based on the desire to change the ideological system
>without altering institutions; and reformers wish to change the institution
>without touching the ideological system. Revolutionary action, on the
>contrary, is defined as the simultaneous agitation of consciousness and
>institutions; this implies that we attack the relationships of power 
>through
>the notions and institutions that function as their instruments, armature,
>and armor. Do you think that the teaching of philosohy - and its moral code
>- would remain unchanged if the penal system collapsed?
>
>Jean-Pierre: We can also reverse the question. Could we imprison people in
>the present way if we changed the educational system? Most of all, we 
>should
>not restrict our actions to a single sector where the movement bogs down in
>individual reforms. We should move from the educational system to the
>prisons, from the prisons to the asylum. Isn't this your basic intention?
>
>Foucault: We have already started interventions in the aslyum, using 
>methods
>similar to those employed in the prisons: a kind of aggressive enquiry
>formulated, at least in part, by those who are being investigated. The
>repressive role of the aslyum is well known: people are locked up and
>subjected to treatment - chemical or psychological - over which they have 
>no
>control; or they are subjected to the nontreatment of a straitjacket. But
>the influence of psychiatry extends beyond this to the activity of social
>workers, professional guidance counsellors, school psychologists, and
>doctors who dispense psychiatric advice to their patients - all the
>psychiatric components of everyday life which form something like a third
>order of repression and policing. This infiltration is spreading throughout
>society, and this is not counting those psychiatrists who publish advice in
>the newspapers. The psychopathology of everyday life may reveal the
>unconscious facets of desire; the "psychiatrization" of everyday life, if 
>it
>were closely examined, might reveal the invisible hand of power.
>
>Jean-Francois: On what level do you plan to act? Can you address yourself 
>to
>social workers?
>
>Foucault: No. We would like to work with students in the lycee, those whose
>education has been supervised, anyone who has been subjected to
>psychological or psychiatric repression in their choice of studies, in 
>their
>relationships to their family, in their response to sexuality or drugs. We
>wish to know how they were divided, distributed, selected, and excluded in
>the name of psychiatry and of the normal individual, that is, in the name 
>of
>humanism.
>
>Jean-Francois: Aren't you interested in antipsychiatry, in working with
>psychiatrists in the asylum?
>
>Foucault: This is a task for psychiatrists, since entry into an asylum is
>restricted. We should, nevertheless, be careful that this movement directed
>against psychiatry, which opposes the idea of the asylum, does not
>ultimately serve to introduce psychiatry into the outside world by
>multiplying its interventions upon daily life.
>
>Frederic: The situation in prisons is apparently worse, because the only
>relationships they sanction center on the conflict between the victims and
>the agents of repression: no "progressive" brutes will enlist in the
>movement. In the asylum, on the other hand, the struggle is being led by
>psychiatrists and not the victims: the agents of repression are fighting
>repression. Is this really an advantage?
>
>Foucault: I'm not sure. Unlike prison revolts, it is only with great
>difficulty that a patient's rejection of the psychiatric hospital can 
>become
>a collective and political action. The problem is to know whether patients
>subjected to the segregation of the aslyum can stand against the 
>institution
>and finally denounce the very division that designates and excludes them as
>mentally ill. Basaglia, the psychiatrist, attempted some experiments of 
>this
>kind in Italy: he brought together the patients, the doctors, and the
>hospital personnel, but not to stage a sociodrama where each could expose
>his fantasies and re-enact the primal scene. Rather, he posed this 
>question:
>could the victims of the asylum initiate a political struggle against the
>social structure that denounces them as mad? These experiments were 
>savagely
>prohibited.
>
>Frederic: The distinction between the normal and the pathological is even
>stronger than that between innocence and guilt.
>
>Foucault: They reinforce each other. When a judgement cannot be framed in
>terms of good and evil, it is stated in terms of normal and abnormal. And
>when it is necessary to justify this last distinction, it is done in terms
>of what is good and bad for the individual. These are expressions that
>signal the fundamental duality of Western consciousness. In more general
>terms, this also means that we can't defeat the system through isolated
>actions; we must engage it on all fronts - the university, the prisons, and
>the domain of psychiatry - one after another since our forces are not 
>strong
>enough for a simultaneous attack. We strike and knock against the most 
>solid
>obstacles; the system cracks at another point; we persist. It seems that
>we're winning, but then the institution is rebuilt; we must start again. It
>is a long struggle; it is repetitive and seemingly incoherent. But the
>system it opposes, as well as the power exercised through the system,
>supplies its unity.
>
>Alain: This is a tiresome question, but it must be faced eventually: what
>replaces the system?
>
>Foucault: I think that to imagine another system is to extend our
>participation in the present system. This is perhaps what happened in the
>history of the Soviet Union: apparently, new institutions were in fact 
>based
>on elements taken from an earlier system - the Red Army reconstituted on 
>the
>model of the Czarist army, the return to realism in art, and the emphasis 
>on
>traditional family morality. The Soviet Union returned to the standards of
>bourgeois society in the nineteenth century, and perhaps, more as a result
>of Utopian tendencies than a concern for realities.
>
>Frederic: I don't accept that. Marxism defined itself as scientific
>socialism as opposed to Utopian socialism. It refused to declare itself on
>the possible forms of future society. Soviet society was besieged by
>concrete problems, by the problems generated by the civil war. The war must
>be won and the factories must operate: consequently, its recourse to the
>only available and immediately effective models - the military hierarchy 
>and
>the Taylor system. [5. Frederick W. Taylor, The Principles of Scientific
>Management (1911). Lenin, in a speech in 1919, advised the adoption of
>Taylor's time and study techniques.] If the Soviet Union has progressively
>assimilated the standards of bourgeois society, it is probably because they
>were the only ones available. It is not utopianism, but its absence, that 
>is
>in question. Utopianism might have a key role to play.
>
>Jean-Francois: The present movement may require a utopian model and a
>theoretical elaboration that goes beyond the sphere of partial and 
>repressed
>experiences.
>
>Foucault: Why not the opposite? Reject theory and all forms of general
>discourse. This need for theory is still part of the system we reject.
>
>Jean-Francois: You feel that the simple fact of employing a theory still
>relates to the dynamic of bourgeois knowledge?
>
>Foucault: Maybe so. I would rather oppose actual experiences than the
>possibility of a utopia. It is possible that the rought outline of a future
>society is supplied by the recent experiences with drugs, sex, communes,
>other forms of consciousness, and other forms of individuality. If
>scientific socialism emerged from the Utopias of the nineteenth century, it
>is possible that a real socialization will emerge, in the twentieth 
>century,
>from *experiences*.
>
>Jean-Francois: The events of May were, of course, the experience of a
>certain power. But this experience essentially implied utopian discourse:
>May way a discourse occupying a space.
>
>Philippe: A disourse that was inadequate. The older ideas of the Left had
>only a marginal relationship to the aspirations liberated in May. The
>movement could have gone much further if it had been supported by an
>adequate theory, a thought capable of providing it with new perspectives.
>
>Foucault: I'm not convinced of this. But Jean-Francois has reason to speak
>of the experience of power. It is of the utmost importance that thousands 
>of
>people exercised a power which did not assume the form of hierarchical
>organization. Unfortunately, since power is by definition that which the
>ruling class abandons least readily and recaptures on the first occasion, 
>it
>was impossible to maintain the experience for longer than a few weeks.
>
>Philippe: If I understand you correctly, you think it's also useless or
>premature to create parallel circuits like the free universities in the
>United States that duplicate the institutions being attacked.
>
>Foucault: If you wish to replace an official institution by another
>institution that fulfills the same function - better and differently - then
>you are already being reabsorbed by the dominant structure.
>
>Jean-Francois: I can't believe that the movement must remain at its present
>state, as this vague, unsubstantial, underground ideology that refuses to
>endorse any form of social work or community service, any action that
>requires going beyond the immediate group. It's unable to assume the
>responsibility for the whole of society, or it may be that it's incapable 
>of
>conceiving of society as a whole.
>
>Foucault: You wonder if a global society could function without general
>discourse on the basis of such divergent and dispersed experiences. I
>believe, on the contrary, that this particular idea of the "whole of
>society" derives from a utopian context. The idea arose in the Western
>world, within this highly individulized historical development that
>culminates in capitalism. To speak of the "whole of society" apart from the
>only form it has ever taken is to transform our past into a dream. We
>readily believe that the least we can expect of experiences, actions, and
>strategies is that they take into account the "whole of society." This 
>seems
>absolutely essential for their existence. But I believe that this is asking
>a great deal, that it means imposing impossible conditions on our actions
>because this notion functions in a manner that prohibits the actualization,
>success, and perpetuation of these projects. "The whole of society" is
>precisely that which should not be considered except as something to be
>destroyed. And then, we can only hope that it will never exist again.
>
>Frederic: The social forms of Western culture were universalized as a
>"social whole" that is embodied by the state, and not necessarily because 
>it
>stood as the best model, but because it has material power and superior
>efficiency. Our problem is that all successful revolts against the system
>succeeded by reinforcing similar kinds of organization - under partisan or
>state control - forms which exactly correspond to the dominant structure 
>and
>which pose the essential question of power. This includes Leninism, but 
>also
>the Maoist revolt: a popular organization and army against a bourgeois
>organization and army, dictatorship and the proletarian state. These
>instruments, initially conceived for taking power, must disappear after the
>transition stage. Of course, this is never the case as shown by the
>Bolshevik experience; and the cultural revolution in China was unable fully
>to eliminate them. As a condition for victory, they maintain their own
>dynamic which is quickly directed against the spontaneities they helped to
>liberate. Plainly a contradiction, and it may be the fundamental
>contradiction of revolutionary action.
>
>Foucault: What strikes me in your argument is that it takes the form of
>"until now." However, a revolutionary undertaking is directed not only
>against the present but against the rule of "until now."
>
>_____
>
>
>
>Kev's footnotes:
>
>_ In addition to 'Language, Counter-memory, Practice' and 'The Order of
>Things', I'd recommend the following for those interested in a better
>understanding of Foucault's ideas, as well as the part those ideas will 
>play
>in the up-coming high skool topic:
>
>Politics, Philosophy, Culture (later interviews, lectures, and essays:
>especially chapter on legislation surrounding childhood sexulity);
>
>Discipline & Punish ('genealogical' analysis of criminality: especially 
>part
>III on discipline proper, including 'panopticism');
>
>Power/Knowledge (early interviews, lectures, and essays: especially 'truth
>and power');
>
>Madness & Civilization ('archealogical' analysis of normality).
>
>_ For a few interesting cross-references of the ideas discussed above to
>American politics, see:
>
>N. Chomsky & E. Herman, Manufacturing Consent (study of media-propaganda
>system);
>
>J. W. Loewen, Lies My Teacher Told Me (study of high school history
>textbooks);
>
>b. hooks, Teaching to Transgress (narrative of life-time college 
>professor);
>
>R. Whitaker, Mad in America (history of treatment of mental illness);
>
>R. Farson, Birthrights (a 'bill of rights' for children facing adultist
>oppresion in all areas of social life)
>
>(... just off the top of my head.)
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
>http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
>http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com




From jmartin  Mon Jun 17 22:47:21 2002
From: jmartin (Josh Martin)
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 20:47:21 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] New LPW
Message-ID: <251080-22002621834721687@newwavebriefs.com>

You can find this week's Low Point Win at the usual place:
www.newwavebriefs.com/lowpointwin/lpw.html

Some items of note:

-This week's reader poll asked who you thought was the baddest mama-jama in
the debate world, "Who would win a royal rumble". The winner, the baddest,
the maddest, with a healthy 21% of the ballot was .... Joe Zompetti.
Congrats to the Big Zomp. I'm sure we'd all like to see a diamond cutter at
the next tournament or something like that.

Somehow Kristin Reid dragged all 85 of her pounds to wind up in second.
Steve Mancuso, Roger Solt and Mellisa Wade rounded up the middle finishers
to a good showing. Shawn Whalen and Sherry Hall were the predicted big
losers. Maybe they should train harder, I don't know.

-If you aren't one of the people having your sleep patters completely
scewed up by the World Cup then you need to get with the program. It is way
gas. I've found myself screaming at the television at four in the morning
with the dog looking at me like I'm crazy. Maybe so, but you should get the
fever too.

-This week's poll speculates which debate arguments we may have deluded
ourselves into believing. Have fun with that.

-Um, thanks to the staff, but I always say that. 

Have a good week.
Josh Martin




From kenedebate  Tue Jun 18 12:10:33 2002
From: kenedebate (Ken D)
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 12:10:33 -0500
Subject: Damn Germans! (Re: [eDebate] The Duck Invasion and USA Soccer)
Message-ID: <F155u23LiC1h1jYhAOy00004504@hotmail.com>

If you really wanna support Team USA, go to the BBC website (much better 
coverage anyway) go to the German Team page,  click have your say, and tick 
off german fans.  They are really irritating ;)

Even better go to the Italian website and tell em they should quit their 
"Eurowhining" and realize that the rest of the world caught up.  Congrats to 
the Koreans overcoming the Italian cheapshoters.

This global trashtalking is fun.  Join in.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport3/worldcup2002/hi/sports_talk/newsid_1921000/1921873.stm

Not that I did that or anything.

ahem

Ken



>From: "Bryan Gaston" <bgaston76 at lycos.com>
>Reply-To: bgaston76 at lycos.com
>To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: [eDebate] The Duck Invasion and USA Soccer
>Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 12:07:18 -0700
>
>
>
>  Is it possible with the emerging bio-tech advances that the Duck was 
>cloned.....and the use of his powers in the world cup is just the 
>beginning?  What's next can a Jason Kidd & Duck led Nets team win next 
>years NBA championship....all sports champions beware, Tiger Woods could be 
>next to feel the wrath of the Duck!
>
>Go USA Soccer, beat Germany!
>
>B. Gaston
>
>--
>
>On Mon, 17 Jun 2002 01:36:42
>  jbhdb8 wrote:
> >Has anyone seen the Duck lately????  I am pretty sure he just cemented 
>the US landing in the Quarters of the world cup for the first time ever.  
>Nice goal by BmcB as well.  Thank goodness Evanston could leave for Korea.
> >
> >Go USA Soccer!
> >
> >Josh
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >eDebate mailing list
> >eDebate at ndtceda.com
> >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
> >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >
>
>
>_________________________________________
>Communicate with others using Lycos Mail for FREE!
>http://mail.lycos.com/
>
>--------- End Forwarded Message ---------
>
>
>
>_________________________________________
>Communicate with others using Lycos Mail for FREE!
>http://mail.lycos.com/
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
>http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com




From stannardmatt  Tue Jun 18 14:06:27 2002
From: stannardmatt (matt stannard)
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 13:06:27 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] USAFA debater killed
Message-ID: <F17963ibJ0FnaEZY2gr00024bae@hotmail.com>

From: Brandan Whearty <bwhear at yahoo.com>
Subject: Condolences

District 9 experienced an unfortunate loss today. One
of our fellow competitors, Nate Hewitt of the United
States Air Force Academy, passed on in a fatal car
accident yesterday morning. Our condolences go out to
his friends, teammates at the academy and his family.
Further information will be forthcoming as I recieve
it and will be sent out to everyone.
Sincerely,
Mikel Steinfeld



_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From jbhdb8  Tue Jun 18 14:56:45 2002
From: jbhdb8 (jbhdb8 at earthlink.net)
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 12:56:45 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] USAFA debater killed
Message-ID: <Springmail.0994.1024430205.0.59294400@webmail.pas.earthlink.net>

While I did not know Nate I am very sad to hear of his accident and untimely death.  Please send my small leter on and I hope that it helps.

Joshua Hoe

On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 13:06:27 -0600 matt stannard <stannardmatt at hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Brandan Whearty <bwhear at yahoo.com>
Subject: Condolences

District 9 experienced an unfortunate loss today. One
of our fellow competitors, Nate Hewitt of the United
States Air Force Academy, passed on in a fatal car
accident yesterday morning. Our condolences go out to
his friends, teammates at the academy and his family.
Further information will be forthcoming as I recieve
it and will be sent out to everyone.
Sincerely,
Mikel Steinfeld



_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at ndtceda.com
To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




From kbrodabahm  Tue Jun 18 15:41:30 2002
From: kbrodabahm (Broda-Bahm, Kenneth)
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 16:41:30 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] RE: IDEA Conference 2002: Krakow, Poland
Message-ID: <39F23B1896FF0447B05AAC040D5E2713D24D5F@exchange4.towson.edu>

Hello all, 

 

Several individuals have emailed me about the possibility of late submissions to the IDEA Conference 2002 in Krakow, so I just wanted to send a brief note to everyone on the list (including those who have already sent in proposals along with those who have asked about the June 1 deadline). 

 

Our practice has been to never say ?no? to a quality proposal unless or until we absolutely have to.  We are likely to begin finalizing the program and locking in space arrangements later in the summer (August) and the IDEA governing board will complete review of applications for funding for conference attendance on August 15th (remember that getting a paper or panel accepted at the conference and getting funding from IDEA to attend the conference are two separate steps).  Within that timeframe, however, please feel free to submit a paper or a proposal for a paper or a panel, knowing of course, that the longer one waits, the greater the chance that we will run out of space.  

 

Until then, please stay in touch with details about the conference and about IDEA?s many other events by visiting the website  <http://www.idebate.org/> www.idebate.org. 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Kenneth T. Broda-Bahm, Ph.D.

Conference Organizer

IDEA Conference 2002, Krakow Poland

-----Original Message-----
From: Broda-Bahm, Kenneth 
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 1:56 PM
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Subject: IDEA Conference 2002: Krakow, Poland


 Dear all, 

 If you have attended one of the previous IDEA Conferences (in Budapest or Prague), you are well aware of the unique opportunities for learning, networking, and cultural exchange that this conference provides.  If you haven?t learned of the conference or if difficulties prevented you from attending, then here is another chance.  I am writing to invite you to propose a paper or a panel for  ?IDEA Conference 2002: Debate and Argumentation: Opening Minds, Borders & Societies to be hosted in Krakow, Poland October 4-6, 2002.  

 Panel proposals, papers, or paper proposals are due by June 1st (in English, send them to me at  <mailto:kbrodabahm at towson.edu> kbrodabahm at towson.edu; in Russian, send them to Alexei Grinbaum at  <mailto:grinbaum at libertysurf.fr> grinbaum at libertysurf.fr)   Subsequently, we will send them to committee for review and reply by August 1st.  

 Please see the details below for a more comprehensive description of this conference, or view the conference call online at  <http://www.idebate.org/> www.idebate.org.  Let me know if you have any questions, and I look forward to receiving your proposal, and ultimately to seeing you in Krakow. 

 A Few Words about Krakow, Poland

 Krakow is one  with one of the best preserved medieval city-centers in all of Europe.  Located on the banks of the Vistula river and featuring dozens of churches, monasteries and abbeys that cover nearly every architectural period, Krakow is dominated by Wawel castle, the seat of Polish Kings from the 11th to early 17th centuries, and the ?Cloth Market,? one of Europe?s most ancient trading marketplaces.  Recognized as one of nine European ?Cities of Culture? during the Millennial celebrations, Krakow is steeped in the turbulence of many eras and marked by the proximity of many of the worst reminders of the holocaust (Auschwitz), and the recent memory of one of the best indicators of Europe?s promise (the Solidarity movement). 

 Conference Goals

 This international conference of instructors and scholars will focus on the role of debate, conceived both as a social phenomenon and as an academic exercise, as a tool for promoting critical thinking, tolerance, and civic participation all over the world. Conducted in two official languages (English and Russian), the conference will include invited speakers, panels of selected papers, as well as formal and informal opportunities for interaction. 

 2002 Special Features

 The 2002 conference will run concurrently with the 2002 Debate Leadership Summit, a working meeting hosted by IDEA which will bring together the presidents and directors of national debate organizations from around the world to address common challenges and opportunities to those who teach the art of advocacy in today?s world.  In addition to the leaders of the thirty-three national organizations that make up the IDEA Network, leaders from more than twenty other national and international debate organizations have been invited. 

  In addition, the conference will feature Dr. George Ziegelmueller as keynote speaker. Co-Author of Argumentation: Inquiry and Advocacy, Dr. Ziegelmueller is a Distinguished Professor as well as the director of one of America's premier debate programs at Wayne State University. 

 Requested Themes for Submission

 Papers, paper-proposals, and panel proposals are sought broadly addressing the following questions, and similar issues: 

* How does debate respond to social controversies and crises? 

* What is the relationship between debate in education and argumentation in the larger society? How can each inform the other? 

* What does debate teach? To what extent does practical argumentation training promote critical thinking, assertiveness, tolerance of diversity, social responsibility, or other desirable traits? To what extent does debate risk undesirable traits? 

* What should debate teach? What skills does a society require and how might those skills be promoted by education in practical argument? 

* How is debate most effectively taught? What pedagogical techniques are most successful and most appropriate to the goals of debate? 

* How is an appreciation for debate and argumentation most effectively spread to new individuals and new populations? 

 Costs

 Specific information on costs and registration process will accompany acceptance letters. Costs for room and board will be $350 not including transportation. IDEA's Governing Board will consider small grant applications for individuals with special contributions and/or special financial needs. Applications may be found at  <http://www.idebate.org/about/index.html> http://www.idebate.org/about/index.html and must be received by the Board by August 15th. 

 Submission Information

 All completed papers and paper proposals should include name, position, address (including email), for all authors, a title page, and an abstract of seventy words or fewer. The abstract should provided a detailed overview of the anticipated content of the paper.  Completed papers should also include a full text of the paper, and a complete list of works cited. 

 All panel proposals should include the names, positions, addresses (including email), for all panelists, a 2-3 paragraph rationale for the panel, and paper titles and an abstract of seventy words for fewer for each panelist. At the conference each panelist will be expected to present a finished paper. 

 Submit papers, paper-proposals, and panel proposals in electronic form as an attached file to  <mailto:kbrodabahm at towson.edu> kbrodabahm at towson.edu (for papers in English) or  <mailto:grinbaum at libertysurf.fr> grinbaum at libertysurf.fr (for papers in Russian) by June 1, 2002. Notifications will be made by August 1, 2002. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020618/5f3850ea/attachment.htm 


From stannardmatt  Tue Jun 18 22:30:29 2002
From: stannardmatt (matt stannard)
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 21:30:29 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] WDC list update 6-18-02
Message-ID: <F132GiDFecDOlTh4aUz0000dc51@hotmail.com>

This indeed looks to be our biggest cooperative yet.  It's not too late to 
sign on as a coach!  Please contact me about this.

I am still waiting to get students' names from:

SMSU
Mansfield
ENMU
Weber

ENROLLMENT LIST:

Kate Kauf, Macalester
Andy Tweeten, Macalester
Lauren Raymer, Capital
Michelle Kelsey, Northern Iowa
Chris Loghry, UMKC
Rick Zeurcher, Albertson
Holly Harrington, Albertson
Jason Courville, UT-Dallas
David Cisneros, Mercer
Adam Siramarco, Colorado State
Matt Plush, Colorado State
Tiara Naputi, Emporia
Tyler Wray, Emporia
Dustin Rimmey, Emporia
Chad Woolard, Emporia
Lisa Gray, Emporia
Kelly Winfrey, Emporia
David Register, Emporia
Marty Golando, UT-San Antonio
Thomas Marples, Rochester
Brandon Berg, Lewis and Clark
Carol Barella, Wyoming
Caroline Simpson, Wyoming
Chris Hilton, Wyoming
Seth "Pinto" Ellsworth, Wyoming
Pete "Sniff" Schneider, Wyoming
Chris Crowe, Wyoming
Brian Delong, Wyoming
Aaron Ridley, Wyoming
Jared Adams, Denver
Lee Morehead, Denver
Chris Smith, Denver
Brandon Konkel, Denver
Matt Lira, Denver
Cash Parker, Denver
Chris Carpenter, North Central College
John Rief, Regis
Brian Schrader, Regis

Confirmed coaches:

D-Cram Helwich, Macalester
Ken Delaughder, Emporia
John Hansen, ENMU
Joe Schatz, SUNY Binghamton
Matt Stannard, Wyoming
Sarah Stone, Wyoming
Luke Stricker, Wyoming
Mack Sermon, Albertson
Steph Gerali, Denver (second week)
Susan Altrui, Colorado State (second week)
Kevin Cummings, Regis (second week)

Unconfirmed coaches: (we hope they confirm!)

Larry Watts, Mansfield
Sam Maurer, Emporia
Chris Burke, UT-Dallas

It's not too late to sign on as a coach!  Please contact me about this.

stannard


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com




From dedevelopment  Wed Jun 19 00:27:07 2002
From: dedevelopment (Jeremy Peterson)
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 22:27:07 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Mike LeFevre Please
Message-ID: <F4983kpy02PdZhJQVyE00020956@hotmail.com>

Can someone please provide me with the information necessary to get in 
contact with Mike, previously of Puget Sound.  Many thanx.

Jeremy Peterson

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com




From let_the_american_empire_burn  Wed Jun 19 05:00:31 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 05:00:31 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Hyperspace GGOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLs!
Message-ID: <F117c79YPclMkJTBZgX0001d4e8@hotmail.com>

Funny, in quoting this discussion, I wanted to emphasize what the high 
skoolers had to say, and here comes little Jack-o-bean to quote only what 
the grrreat Michel Foucault says ... ah well.

In this selected statement, Foucault is directly critiquing 'official 
knowledge' as the hidden curriculum, and it is still very true that, even to 
this day, most high skools present knowledge in certain insidious, 
mono-culture-mongering ways. For instance, the emphasis placed on memorizing 
the hallowed 'great men' to the detriment of grappling with the actual 
history of class struggle. James Loewen in his book, Lies My Teacher Told 
Me, does an excellent job of not merely pointing out the astounding amount 
of errors and omissions in today's american history textbooks, but also what 
bovine nationalism and other dominant interests that these discrepancies 
serve to reproduce. It remains important for those who face this repression 
everyday to hear this; but where Jack-off fucks up is ignoring that one of 
the only places that high skoolers can hear criticism like this is in 
academic debate itself.

One argument Jack-off continues to drop is the separation between Laws and 
game-rules. Why is this so important? Because a game *requires* insularity. 
When you cite Marx's work on the Paris commune, you seem to forget the 
similarities between this enclave of debate and a commune. UTNIF, for 
instance, is highly communal. And however unintentionally, debate teams and 
institutes often shelter high skoolers from repressions they would otherwise 
have to suffer. Of course, most people in this activity don't look at things 
this way, but trust me, many high skool debaters see debate as a sanctuary.

And when I kept quoting Deleuze & Guattari's advocacy of 'escape,' I was 
trying to provoke kritik coaches to think about debate itself as a space for 
escape - of course, they failed to respond. Debate can be an artificial 
false refuge or it can be a empowering group fantasy - but personally, I 
remember being so happy that debate constantly gave me an excuse for leaving 
skool. Even if there wasn't a tournament that weekend, I could still *say* 
there was and get the fuck out - no questions asked. So when SLF critiques 
the 'in-round performances,' they might as well be critiquing Marx & 
Foucault for their 'in-commune theories' - being so lost in the game-world 
himself, Jack-off has lost the capacity to see the critical space opened up 
by the game.

In fact, Jack-off blatantly mis-applies this 'card' (if you will): what is 
the 'official knowledge' of forensics?

There's no 'official knowledge' here, Jack-off, because here every claim 
needs a warrant and every argument is debatable. When truth is reduced to 
strategy, when the 'winning-ness' of every statement is scrutinized, 
suddenly speeches made anywhere, from lectures by high skool teachers to 
addresses by presidents, are questioned in a new light: who wins by 
presenting knowledge in this fashion? who benefits? and what are some 
counter-arguments? - And so, perhaps without intending it, and without ever 
having to study Foucault, academic debate arms students with a key 
analytical weapon: a theory of 'discursive practice'. Even without 'kritiks' 
per se, debate is essentially a critical activity, sparking questions in the 
minds of students that most folks just don't dare to ask, and turning 
political institutions, social relationships, pedagogical forms, etc into 
open targets for pesky questions.

Now here's what I would emphasize in your quotation of Foucault: "To take 
another example: the workers, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, 
carried out detailed investigations into their material conditions. This 
work served Marx for the bulk of his documentation; it led, in large part, 
to the political and trade-union practices of the proletariat throughout the 
nineteenth century[.]"

Marx helped immensely in our understanding of exploitation, but he did not 
help us understand power, much less how control is exercised in the present. 
Since high skoolers this year will be asked to examine 'mental health 
services', my question is this: can they *use* the game to carry out their 
own investigations into the material conditions of those our society labels 
'mentally ill'? Can they begin to direct criticism against their own skools 
for complicity in imposing discourses of 'the normal individual'? Can they 
use debate media (news-magazines like the rostrum or electronic list-servs) 
to publicly document this research and inspire others to ask similar 
questions? And yes, can they first test the persausiveness of their 
criticisms by getting judges to vote them up at tournament-contests? It 
seems quite clear to me that if a (schizo-)genealogy of American skools is 
ever written, it will be written by a high skool debater. And if high 
skoolers learn "how to conduct a general strike, how to start a riot at a 
peaceful protest, [or] how to spread computer viruses to take out elite 
communication structures," then chances are that they'll also learn these 
activist approaches (and more) while *in the process of debate*. (So 
wouldn't abandoning 'competitive kritik' be as 'self-defeating' as your 
rhetoric, Jack-off?)

Now all of the above paragraph will NOT occur because folks seek to 
'subvert' the game, but instead as more skillful ways of playing the game 
itself. The plain fact is this: a team that has has carried out their own 
original topic-research (using Foucauldian metholodies) will always, always, 
always beat a team that has cut Foucault's books into tubs of cards (but 
couldn't tell you the difference between 'disciplinary power' and 
'bio-power' if the round depedended on it). So why the fuck is 
SLF(-interest) still screaming about 'pirating debate evidence'? Every 
handbook I've seen (and I've seen many) has been a piece of shit - not 
exactly something I'd waste my time stealing. And instead of the electronic 
listserv route, you should work for a handbook company, Jack-off, and 
cross-apply these kritical positions to strategic debate itself, if you 
wish, but remember ...

The trouble is not the game itself, but the way its being played right now, 
and a very concrete example of this (that Jack-off has been slow in pointing 
out) is the fetish of 'evidence.' This is a stale notion left over from the 
scientific and judicial paradigms and it remains as out-dated as 
'hypo-testing' and 'inherency.' Every debater needs an accordian full of 
indicts to debate's deployment of 'evidence' as a discursive practice: when 
did the name of a Ph(u)d-head and a year (Foucault, 77) followed by a spew 
of barely comprehendible academic-babble become more persausive than a 
well-articulated argument? Debaters are researchers, debaters are 
journalists, debaters are social scientists - but why then are debater's 
'analyticals' given so little weight?

Additionally, the practice of 'carding' is often a very inaccurate way of 
catalouging research - one need only read a debate file and then read the 
work from which that debate file was 'cut' to understand this. Gordon 
Mitchell has written some very important debate theories in regards to 
shifting the focus from evidence-carding to advocacy-creation with special 
significance placed on original research. Now, I hope debaters read this and 
consider its implications for their everday choices in research-time 
allocation. But this activity's lack of Deleuzian 'acceleration' (that is, 
growth) does not mean competitive tournaments must be discarded in favor of 
old-style public debates, or some convention-model approach, or worse, some 
proposed 'hijacking' scenario. (From a Foucauldian ('archealogical') 
standpoint, the resource of a constantly evolving and constantly 
contemporary site for discursive analysis is absolutely invaluable - and 
that's what every tournament is; in addition to being quite addictively 
exciting as well.)

So except for embarrasing kritik coaches (since Deleuze does advocate 
'hijacking' and even admires 'Arab hijackers' in 'Anti-Oedipus'), 
SLF-serving posts like these stimulate little critical activity. Debaters 
(especially young and fresh-minded debaters) will find new ways to escape, 
first, by losing themselves in the game, but secondly, perhaps they'll 
actually talk to folks who are labelled 'mentally ill' and actually trace 
the historical influence that concepts of 'mental illness' have had on their 
skools, families, and everyday lives. As Jack alludes, debate can be a 
unique place for sociological research, but only when debaters see how 
competitive and important such a breath of fresh air is to the game.

Jack-off writes: "the sociological components of foucault's work have been 
totally ignored to the benefit of the hierarchical structures that permeate 
the activity." - Now, is it really the 'hierarchical structures' or that 
most kritik coaches just don't know what the fuck Foucault is really talking 
about? Don't look for a conspiracy where none is needed, Jack-off; coaches' 
ineptitude explains this prolongation of boredom more than any theories of 
'official knowledge' (which again, you never applied or explained).

Here's what activist-debaters should worry about: all structures of 
confinement are growing together and reinforcing one another. Skools are 
prisons, prisons are work-places, work-places are families, and families are 
skools - because all are operating with the help of a panoptic schema: 'Big 
Brother is watching you'. The professional classes, trained in modern 
universities, are being called up to fulfill the function of the police, 
whether their specific role is that of a parent, a teacher, a boss, or a 
shrink; and really, is the difference between those roles all that 
significant anymore? What does it say that even teachers who've read 
Foucault must often capitulate to doing the job of a correctional officer? 
>From your beloved NSA reading your e-mails and screening your telephone 
calls to your mom searching your room for porn to your shrink looking for 
'past childhood trauma', the modern world abounds with ordinary agents of 
surviellance. But this is the precisely why SLF's critiques are out-dated, 
because in a control society such as ours, centralized authority is becoming 
less necessary, and even less attack-able.

And yes, perhaps Deleuze is right, that 'hijacking' institutionized networks 
of information ain't so bad; perhaps calling out folks with credentials and 
pointing fingers and forcing main-streamers to listen to the voiceless works 
... sometimes. But what I'm trying to get through Jack-off's thick skull is 
that academic debate is a very unique place: its not a newspaper, not a 
think tank, not a skool system (though it shares much in common with all of 
the preceeding three). Above all and before anything else, debate is a game 
- and the function of a game, near-identical to that of a commune, is to 
*suspend* the law of the normal and unleash *free play* (or in the Baud's 
terms, seduction).

('Post-structualism'? Never met the man, but I'm sure you know him better 
than I.)

Jack-off advises kritikers to read some more kritik authors, like Bourdieu, 
Castel, Ardorno, and others (Habermas? hold on, I think I'm gonna be sick). 
But if 'cutting' Foucault didn't work to inspire the activism you desire 
from debaters, what will cutting these new folks accomplish? More 
fundamentally, what Jack-off can't realize is that even these 'serious' 
authors are playing with you: they're dressing up as 'social scientists' and 
using their academic credentials to inject new strategems into the academy 
game. Except for Habermas (a Hegel-wanna-be universalist moron), they're 
using the discourse of 'Reason' to stuff it with all the 'unreasonable' 
things it was constructed to eliminate. More important than Foucault's 
Marxist pigshit was his attempt to get previously excluded classes involved 
in French political theater: 'Here's how they've stacked the deck against 
you,' Foucault seems to say, 'and knowing this, see if you can't beat em at 
their own game.'

And as I've said before, debate isn't trapped in the 'in-round tradition' - 
you are, Jack-off. Debate has always been an activity that affects the whole 
person and all areas of their social and personal lives. This is why debate 
has produced folks like you and me, Jack; and for whatever reasons, either 
because the game wasn't ready for us or because we weren't ready for the 
game, we now sit on the margins of this activity, where some very 
interesting things can happen. We can manufacture new weapons for the 
up-coming wars (and actually help students), or we can call ourselves 
'schizophrenic' and shreak on and on about ending the war-game while sending 
angry and sad posts to e-debate. Your choice, Jack-off.

For me, however, since Abbie Hoffman (at least) we've known that 
revolutionary action is pure sex - that the game of liberation is also a 
game of love - that there's no 'co-option effect' in getting folks aroused 
because that's when ideas start exploding. At its best, debate arouses us, 
arouses intellect and body to create naughty and delightful patterns of 
utterances. The Baud would call this 'an enchanted world' and I agree. And 
here's some other patterns that arouse me
- Nada Surf's 'Hyperspace':

"we got our own brand of hyperspace

you cannot change anyone
there is no peace, there's only sun ...

there's no right and there's no wrong
there's just the balance of the things you know"    :kev



p.s. Here's some newer Gordon Mitchell (which he was kind enough to send 
me), from the preface of his Strategic Deception: Rhetoric, Science and 
Politics in Missile Defense Advocacy (Michigan State University Press, 
2000):

The world of intercollegiate policy debate is an odd and magical place,
where a spirit of keen competition drives debaters to amass voluminous
research in preparation for tournaments, and where the resulting density of 
ideas spurs speakers to cram arguments into strictly timed presentation 
periods during contest rounds. Expert judges trained in policy analysis keep 
track of such contests as they unfold at breakneck speed, with speakers 
routinely delivering intricate argumentation at over 300 words per minute. 
To the uninitiated onlooker, this style of debate reveals itself as an 
unintelligible charade, something like a movie-length Federal Express 
commercial or an auctioneering competition gone bad. But there are rich 
rewards for participants who master policy debate?s special vocabulary, 
learn its arcane rules, and acclimate themselves to the style of rapid-fire 
speaking needed to keep up with the flow of arguments. The rigorous 
dialectical method of debate analysis cultivates a panoramic style of 
critical thinking that elucidates subtle interconnections among multiple 
positions and perspectives on policy controversies. The intense pressure of
debate competition instills a relentless research ethic in participants. An 
inverted pyramid dynamic embedded in the format of contest rounds teaches 
debaters to synthesize and distill their initial positions down to the most 
cogent propositions for their final speeches. . . .

Perhaps the most strange and idiosyncratic aspect of the contemporary
intercollegiate debate community is that, by and large, it keeps to itself. 
Contrary to the populist tradition of debate as the quintessential genre of 
public discourse, contemporary intercollegiate debate is an insular and 
specialized academic activity. The research products generated by thousands 
of debaters nation-wide are generally put toward a singular end: winning 
tournament competitions. Sometimes this insularity appears absurd to those 
who stumble across a slice of the debate community for the first time. In 
the summer of 1990, Madison Laird (then captain of the Loyola University 
debate squad) was assigned the task of entertaining Earth Day organizer Bill 
Keepin during Keepin?s visit to the Loyola campus in Los Angeles, 
California. After Keepin delivered a speech on nuclear power to the student 
body, Laird led him on a campus tour that ended up in the debate squad room, 
where yards and yards of argument briefs were stowed away in filing drawers. 
When Keepin asked to see the files containing research on nuclear
power, Laird pulled open one file drawer stuffed to the gills with
high-quality research. Keepin was stunned, asking incredulously "how long 
have you folks kept this stuff locked up?!" In a small way, this vignette 
illustrates the folly associated with the intercollegiate debate community's 
insular nature. Indeed, it would not be surprising to find countless other 
Bill Keepins out there who could make tremendous use of the research and 
knowledge generated out of intercollegiate policy debate competition. To 
reach them, debaters need only to realize that they can make vital 
contributions to public arguments swirling beyond the rarefied confines of 
debate tournament sites (pp. xvi-xvii).

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com




From stannardmatt  Wed Jun 19 13:38:12 2002
From: stannardmatt (matt stannard)
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:38:12 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] great addition to WDC
Message-ID: <F170ynk4OXgXEaCTxJK00002c97@hotmail.com>

It is an honor to announce that Sam Nelson of Rochester University will be 
joining the WDC staff this August.

stannard


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From jbruschke  Wed Jun 19 13:51:03 2002
From: jbruschke (Bruschke, John)
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 11:51:03 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Two urban debate positions at CSU, Fullerton
Message-ID: <C12079793797A84CA92DF1A6805676F201030D5C@e2k1.AD.FULLERTON.EDU>

Just a heads-up to announce two job openings we have that we invite all in the forensics community to consider.  Please forward this to those not on the list if you know of job seekers.
 
The first job is a lecturer in the Department of Speech Communication.  The hiree will be a regular lecturer faculty member; the job announcement is listed below and the review of applications will begin on June 24 (not June 10, as listed below).
 
The second job is the Los Angeles co-ordinator of the Southern California Urban Debate League.  There is not yet an official job announcement, but the pay is likely to be around $28,500 plus benefits and work will start in July, so as soon as an announcement is out we are likely to hire quickly.  Parties interested in this job should contact me directly.  If you apply for the lecturer position but would like to be considered for both positions, please let me know.
 
Have a good summer!
 
Job
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Kitselman, Kurt 
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 4:25 PM
To: Bruschke, John; Congalton, K. Jeanine; Emry, Robert
Subject: CTP-SCUDL Announcement edited 05-16-02
Importance: High




College of Communications

 
Communication Theory and Process
Lecturer
Department of Speech Communication
 
 
Specialization and Statement of Duties        
                                    
Responsibilities include (1) teaching courses in essentials of argumentation,
essentials of debate, directing forensics, and other areas of speech communi-
cation and (2) providing administrative support for the Southern California
Urban Debate League (SCUDL) on the CSUF campus.
 
Qualifications 
Graduate degree in Speech Communication or related area.  Evidence of, or
strong potential for, effectiveness in teaching courses in argumentation, debate, 
individual events, and other areas of speech communication.
 
Salary, Rank, and Length of Appointment   
 
Salary commensurate with experience and qualifications.  Position begins
August 2002.  Reappointment for up to three years.
 

Application Procedures          

 
Send letter of application indicating areas of expertise, current curriculum vitae,
evidence of teaching performance, and  three letters of recom-
mendation to:
 

            Kurt Kitselman, Chair

            Department of Speech Communication
            California State University, Fullerton
            P.O. BOX 6868
            Fullerton, CA  92834-6868
 
            Deadline Date
 
Application review begins June 10, 2002, and continues until position is filled.
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020619/dc717b9f/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 6674 bytes
Desc: header.htm
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020619/dc717b9f/attachment.obj 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/png
Size: 8143 bytes
Desc: image001.png
Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020619/dc717b9f/attachment.png 


From stannardmatt  Wed Jun 19 15:11:02 2002
From: stannardmatt (matt stannard)
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 14:11:02 -0600
Subject: [eDebate] from USAFA's Rachel Woodward
Message-ID: <F188QUcFCiyTVqDfQe10000f0cd@hotmail.com>

Dear Members of the Community,

It is with great sorrow that I must communicate the loss of one of our own. 
On Monday we lost Cadet First Class Nathan Hewitt to a fatal car accident. 
Details of the accident are being reserved until a full understanding of 
what happened can be determined. From what we know Nate lost control of the 
vehicle early Monday morning and was located by the Highway Patrol shortly 
after the accident. He was taken to Grand Junction Hospital in Colorado and, 
with his family by his side, passed away Monday night. As of this posting, I 
do not yet have an address for his parents nor do I know their wishes 
regarding condolences or flowers. They are in-bound to the Academy late 
tonight, and as soon as I know when memorial services are and have a 
location to send cards or letters, I will post. Please join me in extending 
your support to Nate's family, his team members, and friends in this time of 
grieving and loss.

Rachel Woodward
Director of Forensics, USAFA


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com




From jackattack7  Thu Jun 20 07:21:52 2002
From: jackattack7 (jack stroube)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:21:52 +0000
Subject: [eDebate] Hyperspace GGOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLs!
Message-ID: <LAW2-F18bOv38lDbtAf0000f9e5@hotmail.com>

why does it take you so long to come up with this crap?

1) marx is important says sanchex.  his public participation in civil 
disobedience would have better fought the exploitation extensively 
documented if it, instead, had been channeled into an insular policy game of 
technical, professional speech codes rewarding to the participants while 
meek in its obedience.  you can spiel about foucault and the importance of 
high skoolers doing their own research but you are fucking lying to yourself 
when you say that civil disobedience would be a "natural" offshoot of 
dabait.  empirics are not on your side.

the paris-commune, DIPFUCKING SHIT liar spinmaster for the establishment, 
was fought for with weapons.  your policy dabait hyper-space was a creation 
of the establishment.  stop falling 4 da bait.  barcelona, same thing, 
dabait taken to the level of guerilla warfare.  "i don't care what you 
fascists have to say anymore and like abbie hoffmann i am going to into the 
street to conduct what he called "gandhian violence"".  burroughs makes it 
clear that post-60s the most SEDUCTIVE forms of control are those that 
deliberately stimulate SEX and DRUGS as distractions from riots and other 
forms of causing trouble.  the REFORMS were just that, tolerance of what you 
portray as subversive to the law.  stop sucking what the establishment gives 
you and calling it a commune while corporate dabait rages on there with 
obvious components of elitism and hierarchy.  sexy marketplace slogans be 
gone.

see 4f) argument below.  stop calling spaces modelled on asshole judicial 
court-rooms with judge's authority to decide the case communes.  (YOU ARE 
GOING TO GREAT EXTREMES TO DEMONSTRATE YOUR STUPID CAPITULATIONS TO 
AUTHORITY.)  this is extremely dangerous and demonstrates your unwillingness 
to play new games and your stuckness in old decrepid rotting games.  civil 
disobedience is a great fucking game that surpasses competitive dabait in 
every way as a form of critical practice, a rare angry silent discursivity 
in the face of the powers that be.  abbie hoffman knew it well in the 
streets of chicago when he got over his supposed "sex addiction" and took 
arms against the police.  "how do like this rock, judge?" "not quite, as 
soft as the one sanchex slipped you last round, huh?"

2) you say the problem is the way the people play the game and not the game 
itself.  you can't win. read jack black.  the game is rigged.  too focused 
on fucking content like a fucking idiot.  NWestern will always play the game 
like elite champion NWestern and whip out their hidden curriculum rep and 
even expert judges can be intimidated.  NWestern will always have the team 
of expert coaches drilling their team before rounds.  NWestern will always 
have the "war room" in the NDT tournament hotel.   you have narrowed down 
the concept of "knowledge production" to what takes place in the round and 
extra-curricular recreational activities after rounds.  this is dangerous.  
bet is that in 10 more years of shitty shamaham style performance critiques 
and the elite policy hierarchy is still in place with a few token critique 
teams who commend the tolerance of the policy fuckheads.

3) UTNIF is a commune that deploys selective discipline to protect its 
"escape" space that selectively sends home students and steals their $$$ but 
still gets to keep the immune from critique image of a "haven".  the 
students that broke the laws but played according to the civil obedience 
rules of the competitive dabait game and don't get sent home have such a 
nostalgia for dabait camp.  their pleasure justifies sending home the few 
rats that "jeopardize" their play-space orchestrated by the administrators.

4) skewing the piracy dabait.

a) piracy is civil disobedience, dipshit.  you can paraphrase foucault all 
you want and rag on "quoting" him but that won't help you distinguish 
between civil obedience and civil disobedience (though it would be better 
for you to quote foucault on the importance of civil disobedience instead of 
paraphrasing that out in the name of "original high skool thinking") (which 
is not a "right to deceive").  it is a difficult concept in foucault's work 
and dabait academic punks demonstrate little ability in this political field 
of action.  you are  going for ignis fatuus like oppositional safe haven in 
professionally coded speech acts at tournaments away from home where rollins 
can discipline you if he doesn't like you.  the lack of civil disobedience 
in competitive kritik dabait is our link to the commodification of foucault 
and others.  you just keep feeding the links by making civil obedience 
sexier with a spurious disobedience spin-off claim with no evidence to back 
it up.  no wonder you refute evidence.  you would prefer to fake it like you 
got it and make claims that demand evidence with no evidence.  your latest 
joke reads: "And if high skoolers learn "how to conduct a general strike, 
how to start a riot at a peaceful protest, [or] how to spread computer 
viruses to take out elite communication structures," then chances are that 
they'll also learn these activist approaches (and more) while *in the 
process of debate*."

you don't even have a time-frame.  better get a prayer.

b) chapter 7 harvard dabait and knock-out an elite policy establishment 
team.  maybe phallus jerkins eats you off in the closet like he does 
shamaham.  better to make friends with the assholes running the policy game 
than put them under because you can fake like a pirate in a performance.  
you can go on and on about evidence but you are too chickenshit to do 
anything to put out of business the ones who give it "market-value" via 
principles of scarcity, secrecy, copyright and fraud.  if the handbooks all 
suck, then why do people pay fucks like phallus jerkins market value for 
them?  better to run policy friends of shamaham out of business then remain 
with sanchex's stupid arguments for competition in the dabait marketplace 
with his hidden curriculum trick to retain the economic value of evidence 
with a performative dismissal of its educational value.   i can not believe 
how many fucking kritik idiots have concurred on the utter embicility of 
this "kritik" of piracy.  again, dismissing disobedience to dress up 
obedience like its sexy.

c) too heideggerish.  stuck in the anti-enlightenment blackmail that 
foucault warns against.  he prefers habermas and the dialectic of 
enlightenment.  "What is Enlightenment?" might help you with your 
"irrational" strategy of playing into the hands of the neo-conservatives.  
anti-science.  anti-social science.  therefore, anti-evidence.  you drift 
into the hyper-lyrical.  you gotta deal with Capital and its citation of 
evidential facts and figures drafted by the workers and discipline and 
punish the same.  you are deliberately trying to weaken possible links with 
marginalized peoples by blanketly taking the ability to produce evidence out 
of their hands.  you will teach them bogus performances of civil obedience 
dressed up as "subversive" and why these are not stuck in rationality like 
collecting evidence to oppose power with intention of taking across the 
threshold of civil obedience to the level of civil disobedience risking 
one's "normal, non-criminal status" instead of cowardly celebrating a bogus 
escape safe-haven of insular academic bullshit.

d) habermas and foucault knew well that anti-enlightenment blackmails 
short-circuit certain strategies of immanent critique that allow one to hold 
"democratic" societies to principles they are supposedly based on.  foucault 
blanketly says that unlike those who misinterpret him into an 
anti-enlightenment blackmail and therefore have trouble with habermas like 
sanchex, "we do not need to dispense with human rights".  already a new 
right is being developed by struggling peoples that is not encased in the 
western philosophical subject.  a sub-component of that right is for private 
citizens to intervene in policy affairs with civil disobedience.  i am sure 
you remember that statement from focault well.  does not fit so well with 
your fraudulent spanosian heideggerian blanket rejection of the 
enlightenment, science, and even evidence.  the right to civil disobedience 
is clearly recognized by foucault as an element of the enlightenment that it 
is dangerous to question since it plays right into the hands of active 
neo-conservative strategies to confine resistance to symbolic actions and 
performances like those you find at competitive dabait tournaments.  the 
obvious problem with these blackmails is that they are too easy and avoid 
thinking.

e) the knee-jerk for the novice is to point of a performative contradiction 
in slf strategy since it blanketly rejects the competitive format of dabait. 
  look closer and you will see that we are placing in contradiction 
anti-enlightenment market forces that commodify speech with democratic 
principles of free and open discussion.  unlike shamaham religious followers 
who reject truth, democracy, justice, reason, science, enlightenment out of 
hand but somehow hold onto a concept of debate as a liberating activity, we 
acknowledge a dialectic at the heart of the enlightenment.  we recognize the 
connection between debate, science, truth, etc, but recognize how 
commodification tracing back to lukacs and korsch extends to culture and 
formalizes art as much as science and argument.  you fucks create dramatic 
and false either-ors between reason and unreason and fail to see how 
micro-political processses like commodification go back and forth across 
both sides.  whuppdy kritik shit with your performative celebration obedient 
impotence because you know how to fuck and take drugs where it's safe and 
you feel good about your moronic pathetic selves in your cozy magical 
community of all talk and no walk.

f) grant.  evidence is a judicial remnant.  conclusion is the elimination of 
the affirmative and negative sides.  also, the JUDGE.  the Reason For 
Decision.  the whole ritual formality of submission to dominant 
representations of the judicial system learning respect for judges, to talk 
in their codes, and the nobility of persuasion over disobedience.  GET THE 
FUCK RID OF IT.  your judicial paradigm indict fucking blows up in your 
face, idiot.

g) staged attacks.  piracy leads to transparency movement to end secret 
practices that render advantages inevitably but fortunately to the elite 
powerhouses like NWestern with empirics on our side.  secret information is 
a cornerstone of fascist corporate culture at the flawed fundamental base of 
competitive sell-out dabait.  transparency movement opens the door to public 
interfacing and breakdown of romantic escape oasis in the tournament sky, 
fuck.

5) always be suspicious when an official apologist declares that there is NO 
"official knowledge" here in competitive dabait especially when he cites 
competition as the reason why.  great circular non-answer.  sanchex, the 
great hyper-optimistic non-critiquer of competitive dabait, romantic 
charlatab being bought by the academy cause they'll let 'em fuck and smoke 
pot tolerant like they were to jerry rubin when he bought into niche 
capitalism on wall street post chicago '68.

duh, "competitive dabait is not official knowledge because it is 
competitive" is bullshit.  official knowledge is not just content.  
commodified form predominates.  NWestern changing the content of their 
speech acts to say what jarius tells them to does nothing to change official 
knowledge.  rather it shows that official knowledge can absorb an infinite 
number of revolutionary theses via commodification practices like walter 
benjamin showed in his essay "Author as Producer".  NWestern gets to say it. 
  not the insane.  not the "indians.  not the shitty teams but NWestern as 
they cruise through the out-rounds.  well, we do have a few choices in this 
dabait supermarket.  maybe emory, texas, ft. haze (a couple niche flavors 
that fly on the market), dartmouth, wake forrest, redlands, the traditional 
champions at the heart of the hidden curriculum who got the $$$ and 
everything it buy and love shamaham because he falls 4 da bait of changing 
the content while keeping the form because the programs continue to 
consolidate speech capital more and more but just get to make look like they 
are providing a service.

yeah, the best argument wins because the elite team made it or even stole it 
from a loser team or an indian or a mentally person because you fuckers are 
swank with your anarchist facades.

6) gordon mitchell blew it when he failed to link debate as "preparatory 
pedagogy" with the commodification of argument.  better to force gordon to 
reconsider his endorsement of competitive dabait based upon habermas's 
critique of commodified forms of argument than to without an argument 
dismiss habermas out of hand like you do with this phrase "Except for 
Habermas (a Hegel-wanna-be universalist moron)."  clever spinmaster knows 
how to lie.  again, an anti-enlightenment blackmail followed by leveraging 
with gordon mitchell without noting the tremendous influence of his teacher, 
jurgen habermas, backfires.  we use immanent critique and engage gordon with 
concepts from the thinker he continually draws from.  see his forthcoming 
article in argumentation and advocacy which broaches habermas's concept of a 
"counter-public sphere".  we don't make flippant comments about habermas and 
retreat into some easy, comfortable and accepted post-structuralist 
totalizing critique of rationality and freedom based on the irrelevant 
western philosophical subject like a heidegger fanatic.  we understand 
gordon mitchell's work much better than you because we engage at the level 
of a dialectic of enlightenment.  we just disagree with gordon about the 
best ways to exploit existing contradictions in the social system via 
immanent critique.  one could even venture to say that the complementarity 
of our approaches is much more effective than just quoting gordon to 
reaffirm that competitive dabait is OK.   there is a huge question as to 
whether competitive dabait will ever become the promised engine of a public 
dabaiting movement.  so far no good.  empirics on the side of the slf.  the 
set up of advocate, judge, and decision has reified dominant representations 
in the minds and bodies of dabaiters so that the "democratic" value of their 
expertise is placed beyond question such that they feel no need to 
reconsider how the set up continues to produce a public of consumers of 
professional discussion on television seeing that dabait is a relay in the 
production of speech professionals and almost never produces the 
counter-public spheres that so intrigue gordon mitchell as an alternative.\

slf




>From: "Kevin Sanchez" <let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: moksha23 at earthlink.net
>To: edebate at ndtceda.com
>Subject: [eDebate] Hyperspace GGOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLs!
>Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 05:00:31 -0500
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Originating-IP: [209.99.126.185]
>Received: from hotmail.com ([65.54.236.13]) by hotmail.com with Microsoft 
>SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Wed, 19 Jun 2002 03:04:39 -0700
>Received: from www.cross-x.com ([64.27.93.90]) by hotmail.com with 
>Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Wed, 19 Jun 2002 03:02:47 -0700
>Received: from fiat.cross-x.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])by 
>www.cross-x.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g5J346Z21035;Tue, 18 Jun 2002 
>23:04:06 -0400
>Received: from hotmail.com (f117.sea1.hotmail.com [207.68.163.117])by 
>www.cross-x.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g5J32kZ20954for 
><edebate at ndtceda.com>; Tue, 18 Jun 2002 23:02:46 -0400
>Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; 
>Wed, 19 Jun 2002 03:00:31 -0700
>Received: from 209.99.126.185 by sea1fd.sea1.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;Wed, 
>19 Jun 2002 10:00:31 GMT
>Message-ID: <F117c79YPclMkJTBZgX0001d4e8 at hotmail.com>
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2002 10:00:31.0941 (UTC) 
>FILETIME=[25EA1F50:01C21778]
>Sender: edebate-admin at ndtceda.com
>Errors-To: edebate-admin at ndtceda.com
>X-BeenThere: edebate at ndtceda.com
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
>Precedence: bulk
>List-Help: <mailto:edebate-request at ndtceda.com?subject=help>
>List-Post: <mailto:edebate at ndtceda.com>
>List-Subscribe: 
><http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate>,<mailto:edebate-request at ndtceda.com?subject=subscribe>
>List-Id: NDT/CEDA debate discussion list. <edebate.ndtceda.com>
>List-Unsubscribe: 
><http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate>,<mailto:edebate-request at ndtceda.com?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/>
>Return-Path: edebate-admin at ndtceda.com
>
>Funny, in quoting this discussion, I wanted to emphasize what the high 
>skoolers had to say, and here comes little Jack-o-bean to quote only what 
>the grrreat Michel Foucault says ... ah well.
>
>In this selected statement, Foucault is directly critiquing 'official 
>knowledge' as the hidden curriculum, and it is still very true that, even 
>to this day, most high skools present knowledge in certain insidious, 
>mono-culture-mongering ways. For instance, the emphasis placed on 
>memorizing the hallowed 'great men' to the detriment of grappling with the 
>actual history of class struggle. James Loewen in his book, Lies My Teacher 
>Told Me, does an excellent job of not merely pointing out the astounding 
>amount of errors and omissions in today's american history textbooks, but 
>also what bovine nationalism and other dominant interests that these 
>discrepancies serve to reproduce. It remains important for those who face 
>this repression everyday to hear this; but where Jack-off fucks up is 
>ignoring that one of the only places that high skoolers can hear criticism 
>like this is in academic debate itself.
>
>One argument Jack-off continues to drop is the separation between Laws and 
>game-rules. Why is this so important? Because a game *requires* insularity. 
>When you cite Marx's work on the Paris commune, you seem to forget the 
>similarities between this enclave of debate and a commune. UTNIF, for 
>instance, is highly communal. And however unintentionally, debate teams and 
>institutes often shelter high skoolers from repressions they would 
>otherwise have to suffer. Of course, most people in this activity don't 
>look at things this way, but trust me, many high skool debaters see debate 
>as a sanctuary.
>
>And when I kept quoting Deleuze & Guattari's advocacy of 'escape,' I was 
>trying to provoke kritik coaches to think about debate itself as a space 
>for escape - of course, they failed to respond. Debate can be an artificial 
>false refuge or it can be a empowering group fantasy - but personally, I 
>remember being so happy that debate constantly gave me an excuse for 
>leaving skool. Even if there wasn't a tournament that weekend, I could 
>still *say* there was and get the fuck out - no questions asked. So when 
>SLF critiques the 'in-round performances,' they might as well be critiquing 
>Marx & Foucault for their 'in-commune theories' - being so lost in the 
>game-world himself, Jack-off has lost the capacity to see the critical 
>space opened up by the game.
>
>In fact, Jack-off blatantly mis-applies this 'card' (if you will): what is 
>the 'official knowledge' of forensics?
>
>There's no 'official knowledge' here, Jack-off, because here every claim 
>needs a warrant and every argument is debatable. When truth is reduced to 
>strategy, when the 'winning-ness' of every statement is scrutinized, 
>suddenly speeches made anywhere, from lectures by high skool teachers to 
>addresses by presidents, are questioned in a new light: who wins by 
>presenting knowledge in this fashion? who benefits? and what are some 
>counter-arguments? - And so, perhaps without intending it, and without ever 
>having to study Foucault, academic debate arms students with a key 
>analytical weapon: a theory of 'discursive practice'. Even without 
>'kritiks' per se, debate is essentially a critical activity, sparking 
>questions in the minds of students that most folks just don't dare to ask, 
>and turning political institutions, social relationships, pedagogical 
>forms, etc into open targets for pesky questions.
>
>Now here's what I would emphasize in your quotation of Foucault: "To take 
>another example: the workers, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, 
>carried out detailed investigations into their material conditions. This 
>work served Marx for the bulk of his documentation; it led, in large part, 
>to the political and trade-union practices of the proletariat throughout 
>the nineteenth century[.]"
>
>Marx helped immensely in our understanding of exploitation, but he did not 
>help us understand power, much less how control is exercised in the 
>present. Since high skoolers this year will be asked to examine 'mental 
>health services', my question is this: can they *use* the game to carry out 
>their own investigations into the material conditions of those our society 
>labels 'mentally ill'? Can they begin to direct criticism against their own 
>skools for complicity in imposing discourses of 'the normal individual'? 
>Can they use debate media (news-magazines like the rostrum or electronic 
>list-servs) to publicly document this research and inspire others to ask 
>similar questions? And yes, can they first test the persausiveness of their 
>criticisms by getting judges to vote them up at tournament-contests? It 
>seems quite clear to me that if a (schizo-)genealogy of American skools is 
>ever written, it will be written by a high skool debater. And if high 
>skoolers learn "how to conduct a general strike, how to start a riot at a 
>peaceful protest, [or] how to spread computer viruses to take out elite 
>communication structures," then chances are that they'll also learn these 
>activist approaches (and more) while *in the process of debate*. (So 
>wouldn't abandoning 'competitive kritik' be as 'self-defeating' as your 
>rhetoric, Jack-off?)
>
>Now all of the above paragraph will NOT occur because folks seek to 
>'subvert' the game, but instead as more skillful ways of playing the game 
>itself. The plain fact is this: a team that has has carried out their own 
>original topic-research (using Foucauldian metholodies) will always, 
>always, always beat a team that has cut Foucault's books into tubs of cards 
>(but couldn't tell you the difference between 'disciplinary power' and 
>'bio-power' if the round depedended on it). So why the fuck is 
>SLF(-interest) still screaming about 'pirating debate evidence'? Every 
>handbook I've seen (and I've seen many) has been a piece of shit - not 
>exactly something I'd waste my time stealing. And instead of the electronic 
>listserv route, you should work for a handbook company, Jack-off, and 
>cross-apply these kritical positions to strategic debate itself, if you 
>wish, but remember ...
>
>The trouble is not the game itself, but the way its being played right now, 
>and a very concrete example of this (that Jack-off has been slow in 
>pointing out) is the fetish of 'evidence.' This is a stale notion left over 
>from the scientific and judicial paradigms and it remains as out-dated as 
>'hypo-testing' and 'inherency.' Every debater needs an accordian full of 
>indicts to debate's deployment of 'evidence' as a discursive practice: when 
>did the name of a Ph(u)d-head and a year (Foucault, 77) followed by a spew 
>of barely comprehendible academic-babble become more persausive than a 
>well-articulated argument? Debaters are researchers, debaters are 
>journalists, debaters are social scientists - but why then are debater's 
>'analyticals' given so little weight?
>
>Additionally, the practice of 'carding' is often a very inaccurate way of 
>catalouging research - one need only read a debate file and then read the 
>work from which that debate file was 'cut' to understand this. Gordon 
>Mitchell has written some very important debate theories in regards to 
>shifting the focus from evidence-carding to advocacy-creation with special 
>significance placed on original research. Now, I hope debaters read this 
>and consider its implications for their everday choices in research-time 
>allocation. But this activity's lack of Deleuzian 'acceleration' (that is, 
>growth) does not mean competitive tournaments must be discarded in favor of 
>old-style public debates, or some convention-model approach, or worse, some 
>proposed 'hijacking' scenario. (From a Foucauldian ('archealogical') 
>standpoint, the resource of a constantly evolving and constantly 
>contemporary site for discursive analysis is absolutely invaluable - and 
>that's what every tournament is; in addition to being quite addictively 
>exciting as well.)
>
>So except for embarrasing kritik coaches (since Deleuze does advocate 
>'hijacking' and even admires 'Arab hijackers' in 'Anti-Oedipus'), 
>SLF-serving posts like these stimulate little critical activity. Debaters 
>(especially young and fresh-minded debaters) will find new ways to escape, 
>first, by losing themselves in the game, but secondly, perhaps they'll 
>actually talk to folks who are labelled 'mentally ill' and actually trace 
>the historical influence that concepts of 'mental illness' have had on 
>their skools, families, and everyday lives. As Jack alludes, debate can be 
>a unique place for sociological research, but only when debaters see how 
>competitive and important such a breath of fresh air is to the game.
>
>Jack-off writes: "the sociological components of foucault's work have been 
>totally ignored to the benefit of the hierarchical structures that permeate 
>the activity." - Now, is it really the 'hierarchical structures' or that 
>most kritik coaches just don't know what the fuck Foucault is really 
>talking about? Don't look for a conspiracy where none is needed, Jack-off; 
>coaches' ineptitude explains this prolongation of boredom more than any 
>theories of 'official knowledge' (which again, you never applied or 
>explained).
>
>Here's what activist-debaters should worry about: all structures of 
>confinement are growing together and reinforcing one another. Skools are 
>prisons, prisons are work-places, work-places are families, and families 
>are skools - because all are operating with the help of a panoptic schema: 
>'Big Brother is watching you'. The professional classes, trained in modern 
>universities, are being called up to fulfill the function of the police, 
>whether their specific role is that of a parent, a teacher, a boss, or a 
>shrink; and really, is the difference between those roles all that 
>significant anymore? What does it say that even teachers who've read 
>Foucault must often capitulate to doing the job of a correctional officer? 
>From your beloved NSA reading your e-mails and screening your telephone 
>calls to your mom searching your room for porn to your shrink looking for 
>'past childhood trauma', the modern world abounds with ordinary agents of 
>surviellance. But this is the precisely why SLF's critiques are out-dated, 
>because in a control society such as ours, centralized authority is 
>becoming less necessary, and even less attack-able.
>
>And yes, perhaps Deleuze is right, that 'hijacking' institutionized 
>networks of information ain't so bad; perhaps calling out folks with 
>credentials and pointing fingers and forcing main-streamers to listen to 
>the voiceless works ... sometimes. But what I'm trying to get through 
>Jack-off's thick skull is that academic debate is a very unique place: its 
>not a newspaper, not a think tank, not a skool system (though it shares 
>much in common with all of the preceeding three). Above all and before 
>anything else, debate is a game - and the function of a game, 
>near-identical to that of a commune, is to *suspend* the law of the normal 
>and unleash *free play* (or in the Baud's terms, seduction).
>
>('Post-structualism'? Never met the man, but I'm sure you know him better 
>than I.)
>
>Jack-off advises kritikers to read some more kritik authors, like Bourdieu, 
>Castel, Ardorno, and others (Habermas? hold on, I think I'm gonna be sick). 
>But if 'cutting' Foucault didn't work to inspire the activism you desire 
>from debaters, what will cutting these new folks accomplish? More 
>fundamentally, what Jack-off can't realize is that even these 'serious' 
>authors are playing with you: they're dressing up as 'social scientists' 
>and using their academic credentials to inject new strategems into the 
>academy game. Except for Habermas (a Hegel-wanna-be universalist moron), 
>they're using the discourse of 'Reason' to stuff it with all the 
>'unreasonable' things it was constructed to eliminate. More important than 
>Foucault's Marxist pigshit was his attempt to get previously excluded 
>classes involved in French political theater: 'Here's how they've stacked 
>the deck against you,' Foucault seems to say, 'and knowing this, see if you 
>can't beat em at their own game.'
>
>And as I've said before, debate isn't trapped in the 'in-round tradition' - 
>you are, Jack-off. Debate has always been an activity that affects the 
>whole person and all areas of their social and personal lives. This is why 
>debate has produced folks like you and me, Jack; and for whatever reasons, 
>either because the game wasn't ready for us or because we weren't ready for 
>the game, we now sit on the margins of this activity, where some very 
>interesting things can happen. We can manufacture new weapons for the 
>up-coming wars (and actually help students), or we can call ourselves 
>'schizophrenic' and shreak on and on about ending the war-game while 
>sending angry and sad posts to e-debate. Your choice, Jack-off.
>
>For me, however, since Abbie Hoffman (at least) we've known that 
>revolutionary action is pure sex - that the game of liberation is also a 
>game of love - that there's no 'co-option effect' in getting folks aroused 
>because that's when ideas start exploding. At its best, debate arouses us, 
>arouses intellect and body to create naughty and delightful patterns of 
>utterances. The Baud would call this 'an enchanted world' and I agree. And 
>here's some other patterns that arouse me
>- Nada Surf's 'Hyperspace':
>
>"we got our own brand of hyperspace
>
>you cannot change anyone
>there is no peace, there's only sun ...
>
>there's no right and there's no wrong
>there's just the balance of the things you know"    :kev
>
>
>
>p.s. Here's some newer Gordon Mitchell (which he was kind enough to send 
>me), from the preface of his Strategic Deception: Rhetoric, Science and 
>Politics in Missile Defense Advocacy (Michigan State University Press, 
>2000):
>
>The world of intercollegiate policy debate is an odd and magical place,
>where a spirit of keen competition drives debaters to amass voluminous
>research in preparation for tournaments, and where the resulting density of 
>ideas spurs speakers to cram arguments into strictly timed presentation 
>periods during contest rounds. Expert judges trained in policy analysis 
>keep track of such contests as they unfold at breakneck speed, with 
>speakers routinely delivering intricate argumentation at over 300 words per 
>minute. To the uninitiated onlooker, this style of debate reveals itself as 
>an unintelligible charade, something like a movie-length Federal Express 
>commercial or an auctioneering competition gone bad. But there are rich 
>rewards for participants who master policy debate?s special vocabulary, 
>learn its arcane rules, and acclimate themselves to the style of rapid-fire 
>speaking needed to keep up with the flow of arguments. The rigorous 
>dialectical method of debate analysis cultivates a panoramic style of 
>critical thinking that elucidates subtle interconnections among multiple 
>positions and perspectives on policy controversies. The intense pressure of
>debate competition instills a relentless research ethic in participants. An 
>inverted pyramid dynamic embedded in the format of contest rounds teaches 
>debaters to synthesize and distill their initial positions down to the most 
>cogent propositions for their final speeches. . . .
>
>Perhaps the most strange and idiosyncratic aspect of the contemporary
>intercollegiate debate community is that, by and large, it keeps to itself. 
>Contrary to the populist tradition of debate as the quintessential genre of 
>public discourse, contemporary intercollegiate debate is an insular and 
>specialized academic activity. The research products generated by thousands 
>of debaters nation-wide are generally put toward a singular end: winning 
>tournament competitions. Sometimes this insularity appears absurd to those 
>who stumble across a slice of the debate community for the first time. In 
>the summer of 1990, Madison Laird (then captain of the Loyola University 
>debate squad) was assigned the task of entertaining Earth Day organizer 
>Bill Keepin during Keepin?s visit to the Loyola campus in Los Angeles, 
>California. After Keepin delivered a speech on nuclear power to the student 
>body, Laird led him on a campus tour that ended up in the debate squad 
>room, where yards and yards of argument briefs were stowed away in filing 
>drawers. When Keepin asked to see the files containing research on nuclear
>power, Laird pulled open one file drawer stuffed to the gills with
>high-quality research. Keepin was stunned, asking incredulously "how long 
>have you folks kept this stuff locked up?!" In a small way, this vignette 
>illustrates the folly associated with the intercollegiate debate 
>community's insular nature. Indeed, it would not be surprising to find 
>countless other Bill Keepins out there who could make tremendous use of the 
>research and knowledge generated out of intercollegiate policy debate 
>competition. To reach them, debaters need only to realize that they can 
>make vital contributions to public arguments swirling beyond the rarefied 
>confines of debate tournament sites (pp. xvi-xvii).
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
>http://www.hotmail.com
>
>_______________________________________________
>eDebate mailing list
>eDebate at ndtceda.com
>To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
>http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From jtedebate  Thu Jun 20 14:14:00 2002
From: jtedebate (J T)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 12:14:00 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] test...please delete
Message-ID: <20020620191400.67566.qmail@web20102.mail.yahoo.com>

just a test


---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020620/ad549f0c/attachment.htm 


From iriamenzo  Thu Jun 20 14:40:16 2002
From: iriamenzo (Phillip Samuels)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:40:16 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] debates in the news--thanks for the laughs
Message-ID: <LAW2-F67td4gmSknvh700002d47@hotmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020620/2baa75e7/attachment.html 


From iriamenzo  Thu Jun 20 18:33:19 2002
From: iriamenzo (Phillip Samuels)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 18:33:19 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] second try debates in the news--thanks for the laughs
Message-ID: <LAW2-F42Inqw1XXPf1H000034a5@hotmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020620/8e808552/attachment.htm 
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Phillip Samuels" <iriamenzo at hotmail.com>
Subject: [eDebate] debates in the news--thanks for the laughs
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:40:16 -0500
Size: 2527
Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020620/8e808552/attachment.mht 


From jason  Thu Jun 20 21:38:42 2002
From: jason (Jason Regnier)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 21:38:42 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] second try debates in the news--thanks for the laughs
References: <LAW2-F42Inqw1XXPf1H000034a5@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <001801c218cc$c2947760$313a71a4@fhsu.edu>

here is the followup article that was published today in the hays daily.

http://wire.dailynews.net/hays/HDnews/news/shanahan062002.html
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Phillip Samuels 
  To: edebate at ndtceda.com 
  Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 6:33 PM
  Subject: [eDebate] second try debates in the news--thanks for the laughs



  btw this also made it into USA Today in the Across the USA section news from every state


  http://www.cjonline.com/stories/062002/kan_debate.shtml

  >From: "Phillip Samuels" 
  >To: edebate at ndtceda.com 
  >Subject: [eDebate] debates in the news--thanks for the laughs 
  >Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 14:40:16 -0500 
  > 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: Click Here

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020620/2b43c103/attachment.htm 


From asnider  Thu Jun 20 22:23:53 2002
From: asnider (asnider at zoo.uvm.edu)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 23:23:53 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [eDebate] USA NFL NATIONALS WEBCAST FRIDAY 6-21-2002
Message-ID: <1024629833.3d129c4921845@webmail.uvm.edu>

LIVE FROM THE NATIONAL FORENSIC LEAGUE FINALS
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA, USA

GO TO HTTP://DEBATE.UVM.EDU AND CHOOSE "DEBATE THEATER."
                                                                                                    
BROUGHT TO YOU BY DEBATE CENTRAL, THE NATIONAL FORENSIC LEAGUE, AND THE WORLD 
DEBATE ORGANIZATION

SCHEDULE FOR JUNE 21, 2002 -- ALL TIMES EASTERN USA
9:30 AM - International Extemporaneous Speaking Finals
11 AM - Lincoln-Douglas Debate Finals
12 NOON - Policy Debate Finals
2 PM - US Extemporaneous Speaking Finals
3:30 PM - Barbara Jordan Debate Finals
5 PM - Orginal Oratory Finals
6:45 PM - NFL National Tournament Awards

If you are having difficulty viewing this broadcast using a web browser, try 
this: 

    1.Open QuickTime Player (version 4 or 5!) 
    2.Choose Open URL from the File menu 
    3.enter this URL: rtsp://quicktime.uvm.edu:1554/debate/debate_theater 

YOU MUST HAVE QUICKTIME 4.0 OR HIGHER INSTALLED. IF YOU NEED IT, GO TO QUICKTIME.
http://www.apple.com/




From elliottdarren  Thu Jun 20 23:24:29 2002
From: elliottdarren (DARREN ELLIOTT)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 23:24:29 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] NFL Final Round-2 fine coaches
Message-ID: <F218mRXf2LTrpwACkWH00001f56@hotmail.com>


I understand that tomorrow at noon eastern in Charlotte, NC the NFL National 
Title will be on the line.  The two teams debating are coached by Tara Tate 
and on the other side coached by Tim Mahoney.  Two of the finest and hardest 
working coaches in the country will have a shot at the National Title.  I am 
excited to see such hard work pay off for two coaches relatively new to the 
high school ranks but certainly not new to rigorous debate!  I know of few 
others who work as hard day in and day out as Tara and Tim and I am 
fortunate to consider them both my friend!  Best of luck to both of you!

Chief

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.




From elliottdarren  Fri Jun 21 00:57:07 2002
From: elliottdarren (DARREN ELLIOTT)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 00:57:07 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] Paging Hajir Ardebili
Message-ID: <F67f3ednHM3SOlbpH710000de64@hotmail.com>


If you are him, bc me please.  If you know how to contact him let me know.  
The email address I have for him is obviously out of date.

Thanks,
Chief

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com




From gerrybushnell  Fri Jun 21 03:11:30 2002
From: gerrybushnell (Gerold Bushnell)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 03:11:30 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] some interesting news.
Message-ID: <20020621081130.47541.qmail@mail.com>

Here is a case some of you may want to follow, these girls are warriors of justice and may need some support...

                         The Daily News of Los Angeles

                     June  18, 2002 Tuesday, Valley Edition

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. N3

LENGTH: 284 words

HEADLINE: VANDALS TURN DREAM HOUSE INTO NIGHTMARE

BYLINE: Ryan Oliver, Staff Writer

 BODY:
    TUJUNGA  - Three middle-school girls who didn't want "rich people" moving
into their neighborhood broke into a $500,000 dream house being built by two
immigrants and caused thousands of dollars in damage, authorities said.

    The girls - ages 11, 12 and 13 - trashed the inside of the 5,000-
square-foot Valmont Street home, then painted their names and their school,
Mount Gleason Elementary, on the walls, officials said.

    "She said, 'We hate rich people, and we don't want them to move in here,"'
said Gary Avetisyan, who managed to grab one of the girls as she ran from the
scene about 7 p.m. June 10. "I couldn't believe it. She's 11 or 12 years old.
How does she know who's rich and who's poor?"

    Because the damage was so extensive, juvenile detectives are recommending
that the girls be charged with felony vandalism. If the girls are convicted in
Juvenile Court, officials said, they likely would receive probation and be
ordered to pay restitution.

    "They just unleashed all of their anger upon that house," said Detective
David Escoto.

    Authorities said the vandals pried open a back door, then smashed through a 
locked, interior door into an area where paint, cement and tile grout were
stored. Those materials were splashed and smeared on walls, floors and ceilings 
throughout the two-story home.

    In the master bathroom, Italian tiles were destroyed, and electrical outlets
were covered with cement, officials said. A hammer was used to punch holes
through the sheet rock.

    Avetisyan and his brother-in-law, both plumbers, are building their dream
home in a working-class neighborhood of compact, ranch homes. He said he never
had any previous problems with his neighbors.

GRAPHIC: Photo:
(1 -- 2) A hammer is struck in the wall, above, of the $500,000 dream home being
built by Gary Avetisyan in  Tujunga.  At left, Avetisyan walks outside the
nearly 5,000-square-foot home on Valmont Street home after vandals attacked the 
property. Officials said three girls are suspects in the home attack.
Tom Mendoza/Staff Photographer

LOAD-DATE: June 18, 2002

-- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Save up to $160 by signing up for NetZero Platinum Internet service.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=N2P0602NEP8




From dabaitjd  Fri Jun 21 09:41:01 2002
From: dabaitjd (Former Debater)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 07:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] some interesting news.
In-Reply-To: <20020621081130.47541.qmail@mail.com>
Message-ID: <20020621144101.68372.qmail@web21506.mail.yahoo.com>


 I'm sorry, I missed the warrant for why think we should support these "warriors of justice."
  Gerold Bushnell <gerrybushnell at consultant.com> wrote: Here is a case some of you may want to follow, these girls are warriors of justice and may need some support...

The Daily News of Los Angeles

June 18, 2002 Tuesday, Valley Edition

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. N3

LENGTH: 284 words

HEADLINE: VANDALS TURN DREAM HOUSE INTO NIGHTMARE

BYLINE: Ryan Oliver, Staff Writer

BODY:
TUJUNGA - Three middle-school girls who didn't want "rich people" moving
into their neighborhood broke into a $500,000 dream house being built by two
immigrants and caused thousands of dollars in damage, authorities said.

The girls - ages 11, 12 and 13 - trashed the inside of the 5,000-
square-foot Valmont Street home, then painted their names and their school,
Mount Gleason Elementary, on the walls, officials said.

"She said, 'We hate rich people, and we don't want them to move in here,"'
said Gary Avetisyan, who managed to grab one of the girls as she ran from the
scene about 7 p.m. June 10. "I couldn't believe it. She's 11 or 12 years old.
How does she know who's rich and who's poor?"

Because the damage was so extensive, juvenile detectives are recommending
that the girls be charged with felony vandalism. If the girls are convicted in
Juvenile Court, officials said, they likely would receive probation and be
ordered to pay restitution.

"They just unleashed all of their anger upon that house," said Detective
David Escoto.

Authorities said the vandals pried open a back door, then smashed through a 
locked, interior door into an area where paint, cement and tile grout were
stored. Those materials were splashed and smeared on walls, floors and ceilings 
throughout the two-story home.

In the master bathroom, Italian tiles were destroyed, and electrical outlets
were covered with cement, officials said. A hammer was used to punch holes
through the sheet rock.

Avetisyan and his brother-in-law, both plumbers, are building their dream
home in a working-class neighborhood of compact, ranch homes. He said he never
had any previous problems with his neighbors.

GRAPHIC: Photo:
(1 -- 2) A hammer is struck in the wall, above, of the $500,000 dream home being
built by Gary Avetisyan in Tujunga. At left, Avetisyan walks outside the
nearly 5,000-square-foot home on Valmont Street home after vandals attacked the 
property. Officials said three girls are suspects in the home attack.
Tom Mendoza/Staff Photographer

LOAD-DATE: June 18, 2002

-- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Save up to $160 by signing up for NetZero Platinum Internet service.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=N2P0602NEP8

_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at ndtceda.com
To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate


---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020621/805a6e72/attachment.html 


From mmk_savant  Fri Jun 21 10:17:23 2002
From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:17:23 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] ans Bushnell
Message-ID: <OE56oVEmK3xvp6fiPcQ000008bf@hotmail.com>

hmmm...  through the looking glass again...

well those 3 were obviously angling to become future Maury Povitch boot-camp for teenage girls superstars ( http://www.uni-television.com/maury/ ).  and the way the justice system is going, the judge will probably have a round of golf with the prosecutor and the fix will be in:  the three poor but noble warriors of justice will have to make restitution!  that's right, the frikkin crapitalist system at work:  justice the pouty-lipped hand-maiden of privilege. how are 3 twelve-year-old girls going to get that kind of money?  in Los Angeles?  that's right, they will have to shoplift from those swanky Hollywoodland stores and when they get caught, will THEY get the national spotlight like Winona - ( http://www.absolutely.net/ryder/ ) - of course not, because those 3 proto-womyns aren't fortunate enough to be the pampered offspring of hippies and oppression in this society of oppressions is multifarious and multi-layered just like THAT. and the only end-result?  that's right, feeding the perpetual cycle of poverty-crime-talk show appearances. ( http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/html/2002/05/02/13464.php )

i feel that i must at this point direct your attention to a covert oppressionalization contained in that media-phallo-corporate "report" pretending to journalistic objectivity.  no less than 3 times, the term "vandal" ( http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0850419.html ) was used to describe the activities of the three proto-womyns.  although the use of the term "vandal" (  http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/V/Vandals.asp ) is no doubt, a semi-conscious piece of hate-mongering (oh WHY doesn't this insidious piece of softpowerware from the Microsoft Corporation allow me to X that hated word?). the Vandals ( http://garbtheworld.knownworldweb.com/vandals.html ) have, for 1500 years now, been the targets of this ethnic smear, one, no doubt, easier to make because the culture and ways of living of the "barbarians" ( http://print.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0850419.html ) has been systematically exterminated.  and the descendants of those "civilized" perpetrators of extermination can, apparently without discomfort or pause, spew calumnies. 

okay, back to the three proto-womyns.  that they trashed a "dream house" being built by a couple of immigrant Armenian brothers who were plumbers makes no sense to me.  those who "hate the rich" (and thus are imminent warriors for justice and right) have many many many many better targets in the Greater Los Angeles Area than a house which represents the ultimate achievement of a couple of guys who fix plumbing.  may i suggest The Getty?  ( http://www.getty.edu/ ).  if there is a more ostentatious display of conspicuous wealth and disparate privilege than that in the West, i dunno what it is.  also, our grrrlllzzzz, er i mean proto-womyns, seem to have a predilection for slopping paint on walls and what better place for it than there?  the Italy on the Grand Tour exhibition ( http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/grand_tour/index.html ) would be a great place to Vandalize - performance art at its best, a symbolic resacking of Rome.  also, what better target if you hate the rich than the art collection of J. Paul Getty, the richest men in the world of the previous generation?  if you're gonna hate the rich, then dammit hate the RICH. true, Getty wasn't a Nazi supporter like Joseph Kennedy but he did say "If you can count your money, you don't have a billion dollars." and he did author a book titled "How to be Rich."

Michael Korcok
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020621/4d719370/attachment.htm 


From privethedge  Fri Jun 21 10:26:44 2002
From: privethedge (Duane Hyland)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 08:26:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] some interesting news.
In-Reply-To: <20020621081130.47541.qmail@mail.com>
Message-ID: <20020621152644.34669.qmail@web10005.mail.yahoo.com>

Oh, is that what we are calling common vandals these days, "Warriors for Justice?" I see. So.....we should all take up the cause of justice and start destroying houses? Or should we advance justice by destroying the homes of hard working imigrants ? Should we all sell our houses and live in shanty towns? Do I favor injustice because one day I hope to own my own home? I'm confused, please, point me in the right direction - should we now renounce housing? Are the rich not entitled to housing commesurate to a level of what they can afford? This is all new to me - see, back in the day we called people that trashed houses "CRIMINALS," and we usually sent them off to, let's see..how to put this, ah, yes, state sponsored housing that didn't encourage, or permit, egress for a fixed period of years. Times have changed. Duane 


Idioten Kaufen Einfach Alles.
 


 



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020621/ff6f8909/attachment.html 


From dan  Fri Jun 21 11:05:26 2002
From: dan (Daniel Bloomingdale)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 09:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] some interesting news.
In-Reply-To: <20020621152644.34669.qmail@web10005.mail.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20020621160526.13207.qmail@web14103.mail.yahoo.com>

I'm also reluctant to join the crusade.   But I'm not
sure these people are criminals either. 

Maybe I'm overly cautious but it doesn't seem wise to
make these kinds of judgments on the basis of a single
news report.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com




From wishfull  Fri Jun 21 11:48:03 2002
From: wishfull (Michael Roston )
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 12:48:03 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] ans Bushnell
Message-ID: <BJPHHDPNEMIEBAAA@shared1-mail.whowhere.com>

Jeezus, Korcok - why are you trying to pass off the writing of The Onion's Jackie Harvey as your own?  That's really low.

---
Michael Roston
-enemy of freedom

"At least with liquor, I don't lose motivation."
                    -President Richard Nixon, May 18, 1971



Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com




From QuasiComic  Fri Jun 21 13:36:45 2002
From: QuasiComic (QuasiComic at aol.com)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 14:36:45 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] UNSUSCRIBE
Message-ID: <6DF0EA6A.2524E843.0CBC527A@aol.com>

please unsubscribe me or tell me how to unsubscribe.

Evans




From gp3  Fri Jun 21 15:02:50 2002
From: gp3 (glenn prince)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 20:02:50 +0000
Subject: [eDebate] Stephanie Budge
Message-ID: <LAW2-F41NzW3l1GM3h300000d35@hotmail.com>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020621/2023460b/attachment.htm 


From gerrybushnell  Fri Jun 21 15:28:35 2002
From: gerrybushnell (Gerold Bushnell)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 15:28:35 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] ans korcok.
Message-ID: <20020621202835.92647.qmail@mail.com>

okay, back to the three proto-womyns.  that they trashed a "dream house" being built by a couple of immigrant Armenian brothers who were plumbers makes no sense to me. 

****************
Well its pretty simple the brothers house might as well be a west bank settlement or an oklahoma homestead, sorta of...Surely the brothers have made the choice to have the richest house in a poor neighboorhood, why probabloy because the land was cheaper, and surely as other bario settlers see that they too can speand less money for land in tejunga then the property values of the neighboorhood will go up, this will begin the gentrification process, rents will go up, current tejunga citizens and their families will eventualy be priced out of the market, and as this process goes on further and further it is likely that the luxury houses in the poor neighborhood will require police to debarioize the areas around the house, this continues that cyle of crime and poverty that you talk about, and brings the force of the police to bear on a whole nother set of immigrant workers who the brothers decide decrease their property value...Now of course people will think twice about gentrifying tejunga.


******
 those who "hate the rich" (and thus are imminent warriors for justice and right) have many many many many better targets in the Greater Los Angeles Area than a house which represents the ultimate achievement of a couple of guys who fix plumbing.  may i suggest The Getty?  ( http://www.getty.edu/ ).  if there is a more ostentatious display of conspicuous wealth and disparate privilege than that in the West, i dunno what it is.  
*****

While the getty is a good target its not really in the warriors neighboorhood and thus a much better target for armcahir anarchists but not a real target for defenders of community justice, http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?do=rer&2pn=The%20Getty%20Center&1g=D3f1cEMxNe9v1uJX4CbcpA%3d%3d&1y=US&2a=1200%20Getty%20Center%20Dr%20%23%20100&2s=CA&2c=Los%20Angeles&1l=MOLUhHqRqvY%3d&2ex=1&2g=bhaTZM%2b2aQRRfjxI4sGsdQ%3d%3d&did=1024690500&un=m&2y=US&2z=90049%2d1657&1s=CA&1c=Tujunga&2l=uS8sRRo%2fTaE%3d&2pl=T&go=1&ct=NA&r=s will show you that its well over an hour by car from tujunga to the getty, of course since the "proto womyn" as korcok calls them would likely have had a hard time getting a car, they would have had to take the bus

this would have been a two and half hour journey, http://mtaweb6.mta.net/scripts/esrimap.dll?name=trip&format=TABLETEXT&fromplace=valmont+street+%2F+foothill+blvd&toplace=getty&day=SUN&hour=&min=&ampm=P&timecrit=AR&fare=RG&evaluateButton=Submit.

So while the getty is clearly a target, its just a distraction, the 5000 square foot 500,000$ house, looks alot like the getty in a working class immigrant neighboorhood of small ranch style hooms. In their neighboorhood equals good target.


*********
also, our grrrlllzzzz, er i mean proto-womyns, seem to have a predilection for slopping paint on walls and what better place for it than there?  the Italy on the Grand Tour exhibition ( http://www.getty.edu/art/exhibitions/grand_tour/index.html ) would be a great place to Vandalize - performance art at its best, a symbolic resacking of Rome.  also, what better target if you hate the rich than the art collection of J. Paul Getty, the richest men in the world of the previous generation?  if you're gonna hate the rich, then dammit hate the RICH.
********

The immigrant plumber brothers where the rich in tujunga, they bought cheaper land, speant half a million dollars and put up a house that screams the real rich. Now how difficult would it have been for them to avaoid the gentrifying behavior of ghetto settlement and take that money and build a house somewhere that the house would not have such a gentrifying polarizing effect.

Gerry



 true, Getty wasn't a Nazi supporter like Joseph Kennedy but he did say "If you can count your money, you don't have a billion dollars." and he did author a book titled "How to be Rich."
-- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Save up to $160 by signing up for NetZero Platinum Internet service.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=N2P0602NEP8




From tejinder  Fri Jun 21 17:10:01 2002
From: tejinder (Tejinder Singh)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 15:10:01 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Re: some interesting news
Message-ID: <3D5085A7@bearmail.berkeley.edu>

The defense of what these girls did has to be the most asinine set of claims 
I've ever seen advanced on this listserv, including all of the really stupid 
statements that the debate about the validity of the competitive format has 
spawned. And on top of that, I've had a lousy enough day that I'm compelled to 
respond to this drivel.

First off, two immigrant plumbers who have managed to get enough cash together 
to build a house that they would be comfortable living in hardly seems like 
the evil face of capitalism. I don't understand why it's legit to defend the 
interests of poor immigrants but ignore the interests of immigants who have 
been successful. It's not the plumber's fault that they're doing well. And 
there isn't anything inherently evil about being wealthy. They're just 
different from their neighbors, and difference shouldn't really be sufficient 
cause for violent protest. The logic that you're using to make your argument 
has been used before, by people who say that their neighborhood has a nice, 
homogenous racial makeup, and therefore it's ok to terrorize a black family 
that moves in by carving a swastika into their garage door or spray painting 
their dog or something. That makes me almost physically sick. Furthermore, two 
Armenian immigrants settling in a barrio hardly transforms it into a 
gentrified, soul-less suburb, which means that you're punishing them for MAYBE 
increasing property prices, which in turn will MAYBE price some people out of 
the market, which will then MAYBE attract more rich people. Potential abuse, 
not a voting issue. Never has been, never will be.

Second, destroying the fruits of somebody's labor is a disgusting thing to do. 
It's tantamount to appropriating the time that those people spent toiling in 
the toilet in order to realize their dream. Maybe those two brothers really, 
really like plumbing, but I somehow have my doubts that it's their dream job 
(that's purely speculative, of course, I know it's not my dream job, and I 
know nobody who aspires to a career as a plumber, so I'm just playing the 
odds). That means that these guys have endured hardship to get where they are, 
and to advocate the destruction of their rewards is the equivalent of saying 
that they endured all that for nothing except the satisfaction of cleaning 
shit out of your drain. I don't think it's right to advocate the erasure of 
people's lives that way, and I think I'm probably with the majority of 
intelligent people on this one.

Third, do you really think that some vandalism will make an iota of difference 
as to whether that neighborhood is eventually gentrified or not? The rich/poor 
gap is RAPIDLY expanding, and I think it's reasonable to say that with the 
current pace of immigration, population growht, and projected expansion in the 
job market, most barrios are going to be turned into shopping malls or 
apartment complexes in relatively short order. I'm not saying that's a good 
thing, but I am saying that nothing about violent protest in the form of 
vandalism alters the economic realities that promote the appropriation of land 
by the wealthy. I think poorer people should have a place to live, but 
spraypainting isn't the best way to arouse sympathy for the cause. As I think 
almost every debater has probably figured out, persuasion is important, and 
you persuade people by making them empathize and want to help you, not by 
antagonizing them until they throw you in jail.

Fourth, and in a somewhat related fashion, you say that these guys should have 
just taken their money and built their house elsewhere, because then at least 
they wouldn't be participating in gentrification. Do you know what kind of 
house a half million dollars buys you in Beverly Hills? It buys you an 
outhouse. And it certainly doesn't get you a plot of land and leave you cash 
left over to build anything on it. These guys are not Microsoft or something, 
they're not exactly bling-blingin', in the standards of the richer parts of 
the greater LA area. Which means that even if they're a convenient target in 
that neighborhood, they're not an appropriate one.

OK, I've vented enough frustration to go back to work now. I would implore you 
to stop pursuing this moronic line of argument. It just really isn't good for 
you. Just post something that says you were being ironic...that seems to work 
for most losing arguments...





From privethedge  Fri Jun 21 17:39:57 2002
From: privethedge (Duane Hyland)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 15:39:57 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] ans korcok.
In-Reply-To: <20020621202835.92647.qmail@mail.com>
Message-ID: <20020621223957.89080.qmail@web10007.mail.yahoo.com>


 But why are we assuming that rich=justice? Does poor=justice? I'm not sure that it does, anymore than saying that if someone is rich, they are automatically unjust.

I'm not sure if anyone on this list knows what it's like to be a plumber. The closest I've come to it is actually calling one when my sewer line backed up, this man (not meant to be deragatory, he was just male) came to my house at 10pm at night, and spent the next two hours working in raw sewage to get the block fixed. He billed me a prince's ransom for the work, and I happily paid it. GIven the choice between sanitary living conditions, and raw sewage overload, it was an easy choice to make. THe thing I remember about it was he came in shirt and tie...not because it was some upscale plumbing company, but because he had been out to dinner with his wife, celebrating their anniversary when he got the call - I was doubly impressed that he was willing to show up at all.

Someone said that those brothers worked in the toilet to buy the house, they did - and now some punk ass children have destroyed it. Those kids weren't warriors, they were vandals, and hoodlums. How would they have liked it if someone destroyed their house? The things they hold precious? Probally, not so much. But to hold them out as anything more than punks is wrong.

What has become of our society, when we no longer call vandals, vandals, but ascribe higher purpose to the crimes they commit? Heck, I saw an article the other day where a director of a writing center at a major university said that copying others work, and handing it in as your own isn't worthy of punishment, that it's a cry for help. Are we really sinking that far, are we so far gone, and so irresponsible.....

Used to be that when you destroyed the neighbors house you didn't worry about the police coming to get you, or the other homeowner, you worried about how you going to surive what mom and dad were going to do you. God, life has changed.

Duane



Idioten Kaufen Einfach Alles.
 


 



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020621/8c175f38/attachment.html 


From tejinder  Fri Jun 21 19:41:52 2002
From: tejinder (Tejinder Singh)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 17:41:52 -0700
Subject: [eDebate] Oh, and another thing
Message-ID: <3D1468A0@bearmail.berkeley.edu>

If I were living in poverty and owned property in a neighborhood where 
property values were low, I would LOVE for somebody rich to move in and raise 
the value of my place. If you need a historical example of this, Nathan 
Haratani reminded me of East Palo Alto, where a lot of people who were dead 
broke are now living ghetto fabulous because the township next door (Palo Alto 
proper) is saturated with development and more and more people want to move 
in. Any homeowner who has a little ranch him will suddenly find him or herself 
rich if enough other people take in interest in that area.





From gerrybushnell  Fri Jun 21 20:18:07 2002
From: gerrybushnell (Gerold Bushnell)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 20:18:07 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] if Debate is da bait how do we de-bait
Message-ID: <20020622011807.93545.qmail@mail.com>

So some questions for Slf and da bait community.

1)what can debaters who want to infiltrate the debate community do within contest rounds in order to sabotage the functioning of da bait.

2)How bout tournament preperation?

3)what would bombing the suburbs look like in a da bait context?

4) is it an inward turn or an outward turn?
Both Which First?
Together How?

5)can debate be the engine?

6)How can activists de-bait?

Gerry
-- 
__________________________________________________________
Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

Save up to $160 by signing up for NetZero Platinum Internet service.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=N2P0602NEP8




From Christopher_M_Lavigne  Fri Jun 21 21:43:54 2002
From: Christopher_M_Lavigne (Chris LaVigne)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 21:43:54 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] some interesting news.
References: <20020621081130.47541.qmail@mail.com>
Message-ID: <006901c21996$a97fa9a0$48d797ac@hppav>

Clown.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerold Bushnell" <gerrybushnell at consultant.com>
To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 3:11 AM
Subject: [eDebate] some interesting news.


> Here is a case some of you may want to follow, these girls are warriors of
justice and may need some support...
>
>                          The Daily News of Los Angeles
>
>                      June  18, 2002 Tuesday, Valley Edition
>
> SECTION: NEWS; Pg. N3
>
> LENGTH: 284 words
>
> HEADLINE: VANDALS TURN DREAM HOUSE INTO NIGHTMARE
>
> BYLINE: Ryan Oliver, Staff Writer
>
>  BODY:
>     TUJUNGA  - Three middle-school girls who didn't want "rich people"
moving
> into their neighborhood broke into a $500,000 dream house being built by
two
> immigrants and caused thousands of dollars in damage, authorities said.
>
>     The girls - ages 11, 12 and 13 - trashed the inside of the 5,000-
> square-foot Valmont Street home, then painted their names and their
school,
> Mount Gleason Elementary, on the walls, officials said.
>
>     "She said, 'We hate rich people, and we don't want them to move in
here,"'
> said Gary Avetisyan, who managed to grab one of the girls as she ran from
the
> scene about 7 p.m. June 10. "I couldn't believe it. She's 11 or 12 years
old.
> How does she know who's rich and who's poor?"
>
>     Because the damage was so extensive, juvenile detectives are
recommending
> that the girls be charged with felony vandalism. If the girls are
convicted in
> Juvenile Court, officials said, they likely would receive probation and be
> ordered to pay restitution.
>
>     "They just unleashed all of their anger upon that house," said
Detective
> David Escoto.
>
>     Authorities said the vandals pried open a back door, then smashed
through a
> locked, interior door into an area where paint, cement and tile grout were
> stored. Those materials were splashed and smeared on walls, floors and
ceilings
> throughout the two-story home.
>
>     In the master bathroom, Italian tiles were destroyed, and electrical
outlets
> were covered with cement, officials said. A hammer was used to punch holes
> through the sheet rock.
>
>     Avetisyan and his brother-in-law, both plumbers, are building their
dream
> home in a working-class neighborhood of compact, ranch homes. He said he
never
> had any previous problems with his neighbors.
>
> GRAPHIC: Photo:
> (1 -- 2) A hammer is struck in the wall, above, of the $500,000 dream home
being
> built by Gary Avetisyan in  Tujunga.  At left, Avetisyan walks outside the
> nearly 5,000-square-foot home on Valmont Street home after vandals
attacked the
> property. Officials said three girls are suspects in the home attack.
> Tom Mendoza/Staff Photographer
>
> LOAD-DATE: June 18, 2002
>
> --
> __________________________________________________________
> Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
> http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup
>
> Save up to $160 by signing up for NetZero Platinum Internet service.
> http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=N2P0602NEP8
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




From pookey_26  Fri Jun 21 21:48:03 2002
From: pookey_26 (Benjamin Sovacool)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 22:48:03 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] Seeking Jeff Jarman
Message-ID: <F47qXItMcx4vvsGOkev00005cf9@hotmail.com>

Hope I spelled that right :) Could someone please backchannel me his email 
address?  Make sure to include the [edebate] subject in your email or it 
wont get filtered to my inbox.

Thanks,

Ben


_____

Benjamin Sovacool
Graduate Research Assistant
College of Fine, Performing, and Communication Arts
Suite 524 Alex Manoogian Hall, Wayne State University
Detroit, MI 48202
(313) 577.4163
_____

"An injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere,"

- Martin Luther King


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From nc27655  Tue Jun 18 20:06:33 2002
From: nc27655 (Nicole Colston)
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 21:06:33 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [eDebate] finding topic paper?
Message-ID: <15028201.1024448793935.JavaMail.nc27655@iplm2.appstate.edu>

Where can I find a copy of the topic paper?  Thanks, Nicole




From observer  Wed Jun 19 09:22:18 2002
From: observer (observer at hotmail.com)
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 07:22:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Women's treaty gets burst of energy in U.S.
Message-ID: <16376227.1024496538745.JavaMail.turbine@ti091.mtvwca1-dc1.genuity.net>

From: topic observer



--------------------
Women's treaty gets burst of energy in U.S. 
--------------------

By Connie Lauerman
Tribune staff reporter

June 19, 2002

Inaction on a global Treaty for the Rights of Women has put the United States in the company of countries like Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan and Somalia. But last week the U.S. moved one step closer to joining 169 other nations that have ratified it since 1979.

The treaty, officially called the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), has languished in this country since 1995, blocked by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

But the treaty has been gaining momentum in light of increased awareness of the abuses suffered by women under Taliban rule in Afghanistan.

"We know now what it means to be suffocating under a burqa," said longtime supporter Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the sole woman on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Charges of hypocrisy also give ratification a push.

"We often make statements to other countries about their treatment of women, and we have very little credibility," Boxer said.

"The first thing you hear back from the diplomatic people is 'Wait a minute. You're critical of us, but you haven't even ratified the treaty.' So I think it gives us the moral authority that we frankly deserve to have because [even though] we still have our issues--I won't be happy until we have an ERA [Equal Rights Amendment]--compared to the rest of the world we certainly are way, way ahead."

Boxer was chairwoman of a committee hearing to discuss the treaty Thursday. A favorable vote by the committee would send the treaty to the Senate floor for possible ratification. It was not known whether the measure will come up for a vote prior to the July 4 congressional recess.

A House vote is not required for ratification, and President George W. Bush's signature is a formality.

Little known by the general public, the women's treaty, often described as an international "Bill of Rights" for women, defines what constitutes discrimination against women in such areas as education, employment, marriage and family relations, health care, reproductive health, politics, finance and law.

Working with women's groups, the current Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), has brought the treaty to the fore again.

Terms of the treaty require regular reports from ratifying countries about what measures have been taken to improve the lot of women. But it does not include an enforcement provision. That is left to individual governments.

Despite that lack of teeth, Boxer, in a telephone news conference the day before the hearing, said the treaty still is significant and ratification is imperative.

Linda Tarr-Whelan, a former U.S. representative to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women, said the treaty puts forth "an international set of benchmarks or standards that countries should rise up to. It then gives women and like-minded men in those countries who care about women's human rights a way to press their own governments forward.

"Even in the last five or six years, there have been very dramatic changes. For example, in Pakistan, girls traditionally have not been educated. Only about 10 percent of girls were educated beyond the 3rd grade. It's certainly no nirvana for girls in Pakistan, but in meeting conditions of the treaty, they are educating girls in almost double and triple the number they were a few years ago."

The treaty has spurred reform in many nations, according to UN reports.

Zambia ratified the treaty in 1985 and six years later extended its Bill of Rights to cover sex discrimination.

In Colombia, the courts ruled in 1992 that the absence of legal recourse then available to female victims of domestic violence violated their human right to life and personal security.

The government of Australia cited its treaty obligations in passing national legislation against sexual harassment in the workplace.

Jennifer Jackman, director of policy and research for the Feminist Majority, which has pushed for five years to end oppression of women in Afghanistan, noted that treaties are not like laws. "They set standards," she said. "They set processes that enable advocates of women's rights to hold governments accountable. I think CEDAW is very strong in that regard."

In a letter to Boxer, the day before the Senate committee hearing, Sima Samar, minister of women's affairs in Afghanistan, called ratification of the treaty by the U.S. "an urgent first step" that would help to make sure that Afghanistan's new government guarantees "full human rights for women."


Copyright (c) 2002, Chicago Tribune


--------------------
Improved archives! 

Searching Chicagotribune.com archives back to 1985 is cheaper and easier than ever. New prices for multiple articles can bring your cost down to as low as 30 cents an article: http://chicagotribune.com/archives




From jr3407  Wed Jun 19 14:18:17 2002
From: jr3407 (Sawyer, R. CPT    SOCSCI)
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 15:18:17 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] USAFA debater killed
Message-ID: <21C10221747AD3118E9D00E0293851AA07D0E355@exmail20.usma.army.mil>

All - 

Below is a note that I received from Rachael Woodward, USAFA's DOF, in
regards to the death of Nate.  She and the rest of USAFA's team are very
appreciative of your comments in this forum.

Reid, thank you for your condolences. I am not subscribed to e-debate
currently so have not seen this message. I include a copy of the message I
am posting to the Willamette server so that you have accurate information.
You are welcome to post this from me if you like. Also, if you could send me
the e-debate message I can make sure it is accurate and that we have a
record of postings. Thank you for your concern at what is a very difficult
time for us, Rachel Woodward
Dear Members of the Community,
It is with great sorrow that I must communicate the loss of one of our own.
On Monday we lost Cadet First Class Nathan Hewitt to a fatal car accident.
Details of the accident are being reserved until a full understanding of
what happened can be determined. From what we know Nate lost control of the
vehicle early Monday morning and was located by the Highway Patrol shortly
after the accident. He was taken to Grand Junction Hospital in Colorado and,
with his family by his side, passed away Monday night. As of this posting, I
do not yet have an address for his parents nor do I know their wishes
regarding condolences or flowers. They are in-bound to the Academy late
tonight, and as soon as I know when memorial services are and have a
location to send cards or letters, I will post. Please join me in extending
your support to Nate's family, his team members, and friends in this time of
grieving and loss.
Rachel Woodward
Director of Forensics, USAFA


___________________________
Reid Sawyer
CPT, MI
Department of Social Sciences
United States Military Academy

845.938.3247
Lincoln Hall 118

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020619/6f597f4c/attachment.htm 


From heymnf  Thu Jun 20 21:37:18 2002
From: heymnf (mfraser)
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2002 19:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [eDebate] Congrats to new Stanford Policy coach Robert Thomas
Message-ID: <20020621023718.86676.qmail@web20601.mail.yahoo.com>

I am pleased to announce that Robert Thomas, currently
of Tulsa, OK, has accepted the offer from the Stanford
Debate Society of Stanford University to become our
new Head Coach of Debate for our policy debate
program.

Robert is originally from Atlanta, and debated at
Emory University in the 1980's.  Since 1993 he has
served as the managing partner and Vice President of
Education Unlimited, and will continue in that
capacity.  He has served as the associate director and
academic dean of the Stanford National Forensic
Institute since 1991, and will continue to work with
Stanford Debate in that capacity as well.  Robert has
coached high school debate at Bainbridge High School
in Washington State, and he has also on occasion
assisted with the debate program of the Head-Royce
School of California over the past decade.  Robert is
renowned on the West Coast for his intellect, his
dedication, his insight, and his deep sense of
campassion and humanity.

Following on the fine work of Randy Luskey over this
past year, Robert will take over the leadership of
this growing element of the Stanford team immediately.
 The heartfelt congratulations and appreciation of the
Stanford debate team are cordially extended to Robert,
and I hope you will join me in welcoming Robert back
to the college debate community.  We are thrilled that
Robert will be joining us in this new capacity!

Robert can be reached directly at
rthomas at educationunlimited.com

Matthew Fraser
Director of Forensics
Stanford Debate Society
mfraser at educationunlimited.com
ph: 650-723-9086

=====
responses should be sent to mfraser at educationunlimited.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com




From chilburn  Fri Jun 21 10:02:31 2002
From: chilburn (Cliff Hilburn)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 10:02:31 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] USA NFL NATIONALS WEBCAST FRIDAY 6-21-2002
Message-ID: <1B54FA3A2709D51195C800508BF9386A040858B4@zrc2c000.us.nortel.com>

Anyone else able to access this? I've tried three computers (dsl,cable,lan)
and get it. Keeps timing out.

Thanks,

Cliff Hilburn 
Nortel Networks
Scientific Staff OAM, Wireless Internet 
*	Phone: 	(972) 685-0585
*	ESN:	445-0585
 *	Fax:	(972) 685-3249
*	E-Mail:	chilburn at nortelnetworks.com


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20020621/13d2da70/attachment.html 


From bowdenj  Sat Jun 22 09:23:25 2002
From: bowdenj (Joe Bowden)
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 10:23:25 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] some interesting news.
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020622101437.00a04400@mail4.bc.edu>

It's difficult to justify destruction of property as a means to the end of 
achieving social equality and justice.  It doesn't seem a method that would 
galvanize the masses who support and acknowledge the plight of the 
poor.  Rather, it turns people off and diminishes support for the 
movement.  Just wait until Fox News picks up on this story and decides to 
run some feature on the affordable housing / social justice movement.  Then 
people nationwide will never hear the majority voice of reason (nonviolent 
protest), seeing the whole movement painted as common criminals who destroy 
peoples' houses.  It's unfortunate, but that's how people may see it.

Joe Bowden




From whitmore_wb  Sat Jun 22 13:24:52 2002
From: whitmore_wb (whitmore_wb at ACADMN.MERCER.EDU)
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 14:24:52 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [eDebate] some interesting news.
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020622101437.00a04400@mail4.bc.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.PMDF.3.95.1020622141844.19079A-100000@ACADMN.MERCER.EDU>

This reminds me of that episode of south park where token and his family
move in. Then there is a mass movement to get "rich" people out of south
park. What makes it interesting is that all the "rich" people in south
park are black. The comparison seems to fit especially since the "rich"
people from the real events are immigrants. Perhaps these girls saw this
episode of south park, and are using class to covertly express their
racism. If it's true, it's sad to see south park's social comentary
twisted for evil purposes.

Whit-






On Sat, 22 Jun 2002, Joe Bowden wrote:

> It's difficult to justify destruction of property as a means to the end of 
> achieving social equality and justice.  It doesn't seem a method that would 
> galvanize the masses who support and acknowledge the plight of the 
> poor.  Rather, it turns people off and diminishes support for the 
> movement.  Just wait until Fox News picks up on this story and decides to 
> run some feature on the affordable housing / social justice movement.  Then 
> people nationwide will never hear the majority voice of reason (nonviolent 
> protest), seeing the whole movement painted as common criminals who destroy 
> peoples' houses.  It's unfortunate, but that's how people may see it.
> 
> Joe Bowden
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> 





From let_the_american_empire_burn  Sun Jun 23 01:48:17 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 01:48:17 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] vandals
Message-ID: <F1080wVgJC6vZS4skpq00021bae@hotmail.com>

'the pumps don't work, cuz the vandals took the handles'
- dylan, subterranian homesick blues


uh i think all you idiots are taking this thing way too seriously. if you 
want to talk about capitalism, there's major issue of social justice, but 
more importantly, issues regarding the distribution of wealth and power, to 
be discussed, without zooming-in on three kids who were having some innocent 
fun. but notice the language you all are using; notice how you immediately 
take the position of the court: three criminals on trial, defense and 
prosecution. foreign plumbers who don't buy vandalism insurance get fucked 
like anyone else in the american capitalist system: and since i'm willing to 
bet they'll be able to build an even bigger 'dream house', who is getting 
hurt here? who except 3 young ladies with a healthy bit of class rage? 
remember kiddos, to be happy and sane in a cruel and insane society is also 
cruel and insane. i just wish they would have made a nice video of their 
ecstatic destruction (at least to pay for their court costs). anyway, 
capitalism is only a game, right? so why all the fuss?   :kev

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com




From let_the_american_empire_burn  Sun Jun 23 02:08:31 2002
From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez)
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 02:08:31 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] oh, and another thing
Message-ID: <F130JSi6asjw5leScxT000215be@hotmail.com>

why does all ostacism of rich folk have to be about 'equality' or 'justice'? 
why can't it just be about seeing a brick fly through an expensive window 
pane? what's wrong with a moment of desire? its just stuff, after all - not 
like poor folk are cutting the rich folks heads off anymore, and even that 
had its place and time. 'but, kevin, these hard-working plumbers ...' ahh 
whatever - i say, let them eat cake.

and what about the three poor prositutes who'll get raped tonight by rich 
pricks? where's their story? ah, i guess, regular occurences aren't news - 
whereas young vandals, psycho-analyzed as schizos, can be mocked ad nauseum: 
'here's your modern justice-seekers' they say, 'here's the idiots who think 
capitalism is evil.' ironically, another anti-youth media scare campaign 
ain't news (to me).

an army general murdered his family one night in the late 70s. genius that 
he was, he sought to blame the crime on young hippies, and so using the 
victims' blood, he wrote on a wall: 'acid is groovy'.

tragic? funny? profound? relevant? - i don't fucking know. but people living 
in glass houses should not be first in line to cast stones.

:kev

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx




From Christopher_M_Lavigne  Sun Jun 23 15:13:06 2002
From: Christopher_M_Lavigne (Chris LaVigne)
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 15:13:06 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] vandals
References: <F1080wVgJC6vZS4skpq00021bae@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <002201c21af2$641e2460$c99188ac@hppav>

"kids having some innocent fun"---Clown

"i'm willing to bet they'll be able to build an even bigger 'dream house',
who is getting hurt here?"---Clown

"who except 3 young ladies with a healthy bit of class rage?"--Clown

"i just wish they would have made a nice video of their ecstatic
destruction"--Clown

"Kevin Sanchez"---Clown


----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Sanchez" <let_the_american_empire_burn at hotmail.com>
To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 1:48 AM
Subject: [eDebate] vandals


> 'the pumps don't work, cuz the vandals took the handles'
> - dylan, subterranian homesick blues
>
>
> uh i think all you idiots are taking this thing way too seriously. if you
> want to talk about capitalism, there's major issue of social justice, but
> more importantly, issues regarding the distribution of wealth and power,
to
> be discussed, without zooming-in on three kids who were having some
innocent
> fun. but notice the language you all are using; notice how you immediately
> take the position of the court: three criminals on trial, defense and
> prosecution. foreign plumbers who don't buy vandalism insurance get fucked
> like anyone else in the american capitalist system: and since i'm willing
to
> bet they'll be able to build an even bigger 'dream house', who is getting
> hurt here? who except 3 young ladies with a healthy bit of class rage?
> remember kiddos, to be happy and sane in a cruel and insane society is
also
> cruel and insane. i just wish they would have made a nice video of their
> ecstatic destruction (at least to pay for their court costs). anyway,
> capitalism is only a game, right? so why all the fuss?   :kev
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at ndtceda.com
> To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here:
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate




From schizoliberation  Sun Jun 23 17:03:15 2002
From: schizoliberation (Schizo Liberation Front)
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 18:03:15 -0400
Subject: [eDebate] ans bushnell on de-baiting...
Message-ID: <F18qIfQdmEB4HGXAwxX0000052a@hotmail.com>

interesting slew of questions from a former-da-baiter who obviously travels 
alot.

we will begin our reply with long-term goals and then proceed onto 
short-term tactical considerations in the face of those long-term goals.

1) no more HARVARD, no more NWESTERN, no more EMORY, no more DARTMOUTH, no 
more TEXAS.  fill in the blanks for other elite team names at the basis of 
the hidden curriculum of competitive dabait that are not so hidden.  tejas 
and wgeorgia and co. can whine all they want about how they are not as 
elitist as the big boys but the problem is that they CO-EXIST w the big 
boys, i.e. no TEJAS w/o HARVARD.  the niche teams promote tolerance of a 
"diversity" of dabaiting styles and this is intolerable given the ELITIST 
NATURE of competitive policy dabait.  the advantages of the elite teams have 
been won via unfair capitalist communication practices and these advantages 
must be reversed.

2) clarification.  "no more HARVARD SIZE BUDGETS".  the accumulation of 
speech capital is what is in dispute more than anything.  w/o da $$$, these 
teams would not be elite teams.  band-aid philanthropy projects like UDL's 
do not solve elitism and serve the explicit purpose of masking hierarchical 
power dynamics normalized in the community.  trickle down is a master's joke 
on the poor.  these budgets are protected by the laws of capitalism but we 
wonder if they are not in contradiction with the principles of democracy.  
so far the only team we know that is vulnerable to budgetary attacks is 
harvard and their corporation called PlanetDabait whose evidence will be 
pirated in India.  we are sure you have heard of the "domino theory".

3) shift from tournament competition to mobilization of a public de-baiting 
movement of citizen participation.  competitive dabait has been hailed as 
the prospective and promised ENGINE of such a movement with almost no 
existing results to corroborate the claims as the critical community remains 
more enthralled than ever with expert "performativity" led by FUCKING IDIOTS 
like krik and jarius.  public de-baiting does not mean experts shifting 
location to public performances.  public de-baiting does not mean drawing 
the public into tournament games.  public de-baiting means de-coding 
professional dabait so that the conditions for participation do not involve 
rigorous conformity to established norms of dabaiting.  the workers of the 
19th century knew how to de-bait and they didn't learn it from the UTNIF.  
their impact was "do what we say or we're gonna strike right fucking now big 
BOSSMAN and put a major fucking dent in your asshole profits."  in the old 
days of the enlightenment, de-bait and civil disobedience went hand in hand.

4) previously this turn-out was conceived by gordon mitchell as a 
"de-emphasis of the competitive FOCUS" such that competition would remain 
intact to some degree while dabaiters became more involved in bolstering 
de-bait as a democratic practice.  again, we believe that the empirical 
evidence points in the direction of cooption of public de-baiting movements. 
  this is why we have suggested an "activist TURN-IN" including elements of 
sabotage.  we believe that the competitive elites will not take serious 
measures to de-bait the activity until they have been held hostage and face 
uncompromising demands.  we are not interested in an infinite process of 
REFORM to appease activists and incorporate their demands into commodified 
tourney args.

5) the NDT is vulnerable to sabotage.  judges can refuse to render a 
decision with the reason 4 action being the elitist nature of competition.  
such an action is in violation of NDT rules and eliminates the team 4 who 
the judge is contracted from any future NDT competition.  it would be great 
if a defector contracted with NWestern 4 the NDT and then refused to vote in 
the Texas-Ft. Haze double-octos round cancelling elite NWestern from any 
future participation in the BIG DICK TOURNAMENT of dabait.  the slf will 
award $20,000 to any such  suicide bombers and their families.  already the 
2002 NDT demonstrated this weakness in dabait law in the dartmouth-UNT 
round.  in the end, we agree with sanchex.  play the game.  however, play 
the game by pushing the buttons within the rules to self-destruct the 
activity.   there are many contradictions within the rules of the game that 
can be exploited by saboteurs to achieve their political goals of 
short-circuiting fundamental elitism at the base of competitive tournament 
dabait.  in the slow-going but "will happen" "Parhessia" free speech section 
of the DIG web-site we will examine various loopholes and contradictions 
within the rules of competitive dabait to determine the most vulnerable 
areas and how best to exploit them so that tournaments cease functioning 
just like EDABAIT appeared to at the beginning of the summer and fucking 
idiots like TUNA called in the police dogs to censor.

6) turn students against not just "policy talk" but the think-tank engines 
of "policy talk".  show them the futility of sparring with prospective 
think-tank trainees on their home turf.  demand that they take the battle to 
the streets and the internet and begin to foil think-tank plans to stifle 
democratic discussion. again, this will be an important component of what 
will be going on on the DIG parhessia website.  springer publishing house 
1968 is the model.

these are preliminary answers in the form of problems and we would love to 
develop this into an ongoing thread on the masters' list.

slf



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.




From fharriso  Sun Jun 23 17:02:20 2002
From: fharriso (Harrison, Frank)
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 17:02:20 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] ADA tournaments
Message-ID: <DE5C4C959C282E4099AD4C3A56CE8C1601A303F8@tucc15.tucc.trinity.edu>

Dear Colleague:

I am writing to remind you of an amendment to the ADA Constitution which was
approved by mail ballot late last summer. In pertinent part, it provides
(II.2) that: 

		For a tournament to be sanctioned by the ADA and to count
for ADA Sweepstakes points, the tournament director must submit a request to
be sanctioned to the President of the ADA by August 1 before the season of
competition for which that tournament wishes to be sanctioned. That
tournament director agrees in submitting such a request to announce in the
tournament invitation that the tournament will be conducted in accordance
with the American Debate Association rules, to enforce the ADA rules as the
tournament director, and to submit tournament results to the Vice-President
for Records within two weeks after the conclusion of the tournament.  The
President of the ADA in consultation with the ADA Executive Committee will
approve a tournament's request by August 15 before the season of competition
for which a tournament is seeking sanctioning. ...  Tournament directors
should make their request to the President of the ADA in written form or via
e-mail. (emphasis supplied)

This requirement applies to all tournaments, including those previously
listed as "ADA sanctioned." (I have already received such requests from John
Carroll University, King's College, Liberty University, the University of
Richmond and Wayne State University.) Once sanctioning has been approved for
the 2002-03 academic year, it will not be necessary for those tournaments to
re-apply in future years.

Requests for sanctioning should be sent to me, on or before August 1st,
either by regular mail to Department of Speech & Drama, Trinity University,
San Antonio, TX 78212 or, by email, to fharriso at Trinity.edu
<mailto:fharriso at Trinity.edu>. I will forward these requests to the
Executive Committee and will advise of sanctioning no later than August
15th. In the meantime, please feel free to contact me with any questions. I
will be out of town for all of July, but will check my office voicemail,
210/999-8582, pretty much on a daily.

With best wishes for the summer,


FRANK HARRISON
ADA President




From fharriso  Sun Jun 23 17:17:56 2002
From: fharriso (Harrison, Frank)
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 17:17:56 -0500
Subject: [eDebate] ADA tournaments
Message-ID: <DE5C4C959C282E4099AD4C3A56CE8C1601A303FA@tucc15.tucc.trinity.edu>

Dear Colleague:

I have also received a sanctioning request from West Virginia University.

If any school has sent a request which was not acknowledged in my previous
posting, please let me know. Thanks,

Frank Harrison
ADA President




From bdurham  Sun Jun 23 19:17:41 2002
From: bdurham (bdurham at mail.utexas.edu)
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 19:17:41 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [eDebate] ACritiqueOfSLFstactics
In-Reply-To: <F69mrPqJq5ib5aPqR140002250f@hotmail.com>
References: <F69mrPqJq5ib5aPqR140002250f@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <1024877861.3d166525e8736@webmailapp2.cc.utexas.edu>

Sorry for the delay in responding...I have a life outside of checking my 
email. AND i was helping to create some cronies for the think-tank world at 
NFL nationals.

Jack-

    I am rather disappointed in you man.  My reference to Sanchez being in 
your shadow is specific to his reappropriation of your tactics without saying 
as much- besides the fact his presumptions about the subject are wrong.  I am 
not going to even stoop (or maybe its accell) to your level- I am not going to 
or calling anyone names.  .  And yes I am angry.  And yes, I sat by when 
others were arrested.  AND I am not denying ANY of your  criticisms of the 
UTNIF- I never have- I was only responding in the context of competition and 
making a specific application as to how debate can be beneficial outside of 
the competition (showing myself as an example), which drives people to want to 
know more which in turn causes people to take action- which I know no authors 
who speak of or answers Gordan Mitchell in this manner (if you know some, 
please push me in the right direction).  To be honest, I follow your posts 
with great interests...maybe I am hungry to reappropriate your arguments to 
make sure that as a "spinmaster fuck" when I make my "comeback" from which I 
never left- I can read your arguments (I had other priorities that if you put 
down your meth pipe and stopped reading and went outside you would realize why 
I had a small departure.  But thats not the concern...Don't use your lyrical 
shit against me- I have done nothing to you- and I have gone out of my way to 
make sure that my convictions are consistent with the critical arguments that 
I make in debate rounds.)  Wouldn't that be the perfect way for me to 
terrorize you- and the martyrdom you are searching for- to bastardize your 
arguments with my "emotional ANGST ridden" style?

  You need to open your heart man, EMBRACE the LOVE of this community-- I know 
you are a smart person and I know you have the best intentions--but your 
tactics fucking suck.  Was your temper why you were kicked out when you did 
your religious studies with the Dalai Lama (if I am not mistaken...or was it 
someone else held in very high-esteem)?  Or maybe that's why your credibility 
was nill at the AROC meetings that I attended...OR maybe it has to do more 
with your inability to speak with people and the fact that your too busy 
staring at the bleeding walls that have resulted from your abuse of LSD and 
other drugs?  I have no issue with what you are saying- I have a huge issue 
with how you say it.  If you want people to listen to you, you don't attack 
them- and you shouldn't use attacking other people as a springboard to make 
your point.  You speak and are critical of my ANGST- thank you for that- I 
know its true, and more people should tell each other when that happens.  I am 
not a happy person, some of has to do with debate and some has to do with 
other elements of my life. And yes, I am quite aware that it is my weak button 
in debate rounds. But don't you even fucking think that you have the right to 
call me out on it without taking yourself into regards.  You are not in the 
alone- stop acting like you could be the captain of the ship...you aren't 
Abbie Hoffman, but you are just as crazy.   I try  to stay off of this fucking 
list and just watch you in action- I think its sad that you are so engaged in 
this listserv and not in the real world.  Do you have a job yet Jack?  Or are 
you still living off your trust fund? Speaking of that, I assume that's where 
the money would come from if someone did take you up on your $20,000 offer to 
not render a decision in the outrounds of the NDT.  You need to go back and 
reread all the race lit YOU taught me...particularly the whiteness section.  
WE- YOU AND I- are VERY privileged people.  It is something I have to confront 
and deal with every day (while I attend at University that is paid for out of 
MY trustfund),  and I hope you do the same- but by the looks of it you are 
not.  Can you not see how in so many instances of your argumentation that you 
go out of your way to criticize people for the inconsistancies in their words 
and their actions, yet you cannot fucking accept the fact that those same 
inconsistencies exist for yourself...

Come back out to the real world man...

Your attempts at culture jamming aren't effective for a majority of the 
reading populous on this listserv because your initial tactics destroyed your 
credibility.  Everyone on here knows your smart, but they don't want to listen 
to you when you approach everything with such angst and targeting a group of 
people to prove your point.  Go ahead and call me fucking names...make fun of 
my "lyrical" posts (but why should I be held hostage to the author, Jack?) 
Besides, I have a fucking life and it doesn't involve living in fear of your 
posts- or changing my sleeping patterns to fit your schedule- OR cutting cards 
to type up in an email to read against a has-been.  I respect the work that 
you do on here- I read it very meticulously and actually have all of your 
posts saved on my computer. I have read some of the text you speak of, but I 
have more interests in other areas of study. <--This is an example of how your 
tactics worked on someone who respected you BEFORE you made your attacks last 
summer, someone who thinks you have credibility.  But I seriously doubt there 
are many who actually read a majority of your posts anymore because they don't 
like how you present it.  

As far as civil disobedience at camp is concerned. I have a question:  what is 
it?  If the rules say smoking pot it illicit and it was done, isn't that 
civilly disobedient?  Do you legitimate your smoking pot with me at camp as 
being civilly-disobedient, Breaking the teacher/student relationship?  Is that 
how you privilege your actions over others- how you deny your own 
inconsistencies?  How could I have been civilly disobedient after those people 
got kicked out, only for myself to get kicked out and end up having to deal 
with a conservative beaureucrat for a father.  yes that is thinking of myself 
first...and yes its selfish...but I believe that you have to choose your 
battles and at that time I was not about to do something like that.  Besides, 
I wasn't really into social activism until your lab, which was my LAST 
affirmative lab at the UTNIF where NO one was kicked out- people got the boot 
first session.  I can't turn back time, and neither can you. so why are you 
focusing on what could have been done back then instead of looking at how back 
then has created a situation that needs to be changed and then making a 
recommendation.  You keep talking about revolution at camps and shit, but what 
do you mean?  Provide examples, give people tactics, etc.  stop being half-
assed and shallow-minded about it because you look just like the activists on 
our campus who are eager to protest something but do not have a plan on how it 
should go down.


I think it is very sad some people live in fear of you.  I see how you think 
it is beneficial for you to be mean and angry, because it deters people from 
wanting to get to know who you are so they don't see your internal 
contradictions- I do that a lot too. BUT you should never forget that there 
are people out there who do know you (I would NOT consider myself one) and 
they know your kinks, and maybe they have attempted to tell you about them. 
Most likely you got angry and threw a fit just like you did to your parents 
when you did not get whatever you wanted when you attended St. Marks, right?  
So many of us are so the same...its rather sad.

Jack: Don't forget where you came from, where you are going, and who you are 
taking with you.  You are a product of this machine you are SO critical of, 
and in some ways, I am a product of your teachings.  If anything take away 
from this that you helped create this "cronyist" subject.  Or would it be 
better to point out that you were a coach of Mike and Josh at St. Marks their 
freshman and sophomore year, who coincedentally, just won NFL Nats (sponsored 
by the Strategic Nuclear Initiative and having Ted Turner speak at)- only 
dropping 1 ballot until the final round AND placing first and second speaker.  
That's another one of your creations-- an example of how you are just as 
guilty of being a crony producing think-tank .  Congratulations for projecting 
those insecurities onto others without recognizing the role it plays in your 
own life.  I think some people call that denial.


If you want to have a productive discussion, I am down. If you want to teach 
me overtly- to show my how you think I could put into practice some of your 
arguments against UTNIF or against the way the squad runs- I will listen and 
deploy those which I feel are consistent with my beliefs. If you want to call 
me names, come to Austin and do it to my face over a cup of coffee at Spider-
House- and if you want it to revert t