[eDebate] SAT--enough is enough

[jbhdb8 at earthlink.net]

Now Ede,

You will notice I wrote a lengthy response to your first post after I answered
your "its a long post"  dont think I dropped anything.

On the question of competitive disadvatages we are pretty open with what we do
despite that we have two debaters and two coaches.  Maybe we are masochists we
even try to keep up researching all the cases including yours.  Should I just
start hiding what we do until tournaments even in a general sense.  I mean you
have alot more debaters and probably more resources than we do honestly Ede.

Finally, I am probably done with this until after Wake.  I will indeed come
listen to you because the difference between what the case list and my team
tells me that you do and what you do seem to be large given your responses.

Josh



On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 11:51:46 -0500 Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote:

> Normal
>   Clean
>   Clean
>   DocumentEmail
>   
>   
>    
>    
>    
>    
>   
>   MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
>  
> 
> 
> st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  /* Style Definitions */ 
>  table.MsoNormalTable
> 	{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
> 	mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
> 	mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
> 	mso-style-noshow:yes;
> 	mso-style-parent:"";
> 	mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
> 	mso-para-margin:0in;
> 	mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
> 	mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
> 	font-size:10.0pt;
> 	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now who is not answering posts and
> arguments?? There is a detailed
> discussion of representation that is ignored.
> 
> ?
> 
> ----Original Message-----
> From: jbhdb8 at earthlink.net
> [mailto:jbhdb8 at earthlink.net] 
> Sent: Wednesday,
>  November 13, 2002 11:20 AM
> To: e0warn01
> Cc: edebate; Martlno4 at aol.com
> Subject: RE: [eDebate] SAT--enough is enough
> 
> ?
> 
> Your answer seems to me to be this on the
> whole:
> 
> ?
> 
> There is underrepresentation in debate
> 
> ?
> 
> The reasons for underrepresentation pervade all
> parts of debate
> 
> ?
> 
> Therfore we should change all parts of debate
> 
> Changing how fiat operates is not changing
> ALL parts, albeit a major one.? Our
> position that you can change this part and
> still have debate.
> 
> ?
> 
> Finally, what if your solution is worse.?
> What if more people leave because
> 
> affirmatives start to resemble a
> "NO-DEBATE CHORUS."? Oh hold on,
> that is what
> 
> is happening.....Used to be there was a topic
> that made teams at least
> defend
> 
> central questions....
> 
> Where??
> Have you left?? Who has
> left?? If anything it seems you are
> just fighting? ?Best I can tell is
> that folks wanting to change the fiat equation
> have gotten better at defending
> their position and have become more
> successful?having to successful do so
> in front of judges not inclined to vote for
> them.? Don?t like it, fine.?
> Saying it destroys debate without any
> justification?problematic.
> 
> ?
> 
> ?
> 
> Now you say its not race-neutral so its got to
> go but you
> 
> have no even suggestion of why your solution is
> better or even that it
> appeals
> 
> to a larger segment of the population - you
> just assert all that.? 
> 
> ?
> 
> My program empirically demonstrates all of
> the claims you say I just assert.? 
> 
> ?
> 
> PS- remember I dont care what method you use to
> defend your topical
> case.? I
> 
> have no problem with rap as a method.? 
> 
> ?
> 
> PPS - will your teams defend aboloshing the
> death penalty when
> confronted with
> 
> case specific questions?? 
> 
> ?
> 
> Why do you continue to think that I have a
> responsibility
> to continue to answer your questions outside
> debates?Do you recognize nor
> care that this puts my debaters at a HUGE
> competitive disadvantage?Although
> I?ll concede, non-unique.? As
> Easy-E sayz, ?no more
> questions?.? If you want to know
> what we do, read the
> caselist or if you are so inclined, come watch
> us
> debate.
> 
> ?
> 
> ?
> 
> Josh
> 
> ?
> 
> On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 09:29:30 -0500 e0warn01
> <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote:
> 
> ?
> 
> > AVOIDANCE, AVOIDANCE, AVOIDANCE...The
> larger
> 
> > question may be true, but doesn't 
> 
> > not invalidate the systemic question I
> ask, is
> 
> > there a cultural bias?
> 
> > 
> 
> > >===== Original Message From
> Martlno4 at aol.com
> 
> > ====
> 
> > >Here is a larger issue with the
> SAT....
> 
> > >
> 
> > >Our society has decided to evaluate
> many on
> 
> > the basis of a test, this is bias
> 
> > >to many more beyond their skin or
> gender.
> 
> > >
> 
> > >If our colleges really want to recruit
> the
> 
> > best students, with drive,
> 
> > >intellect and common sense, shouldn't
> they
> 
> > take the time to find another form
> 
> > >of evaluation that doesn't hinge on
> how well
> 
> > one takes a test. I did quite
> 
> > >well on the SAT and the LSAT, but I
> know at
> 
> > least a couple of people who I
> 
> > >consider much more intelligent than I
> am whos
> 
> > scores are mediocre. The
> 
> > >empirical data shows us time and time
> again
> 
> > that our greatest leaders,
> 
> > >business people and philosophers are
> not those
> 
> > who know how to do a logic
> 
> > >game. The most successful often are
> those who
> 
> > have moderate GPA and average
> 
> > >test scores.
> 
> > >
> 
> > >NM
> 
> > 
> 
> > Associate Professor/Director of Debate
> 
> > Department of Communication
> 
> > Website:?
> communication.louisville.edu/~debate
> 
> > 502-852-7126
> 
> > fax 502-852-8166
> 
> > 
> 
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 
> > eDebate mailing list
> 
> > eDebate at ndtceda.com
> 
> > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the
> 
> > subscriber list, go here:
> 
> >
> http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> 
> > 
> 
> ?