From smithr Mon Feb 10 15:30:16 2003 From: smithr (Ross Smith) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:30:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] operation bluestar 1AC posted on planetdebate Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030210162809.033a6410@pop.wfu.edu> Just a message to answer Andy Ellis's request and to commend the Cal folks for being so up front about what they are arguing. Just go to www.planetdebate.com caselist. Ross Smith WFU Debate Coach 336-758-5268 (o) From govnt_man Sat Feb 1 07:19:48 2003 From: govnt_man (The Drake) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 08:19:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ans Drake Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030201/72d6ff6e/attachment.html From Mikedavis13 Sat Feb 1 10:46:41 2003 From: Mikedavis13 (Mikedavis13 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 11:46:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Superbowl Update - Round Three Message-ID: <7AFFAA3C.665B40AD.3C1F2675@aol.com> Here are the updated standings for the Superbowl of debate. For those of you not attending you are missing a great time and some of the best trophies ever. And a special congrats to Ede Warner for winning the Gamecube football tournament last night. NFC East Record H/L pts Total Pts WGA TB Rams 3-0 55.5 167.5 UGA KW Cowboys 1-2 56.5 168.5 Mercer TW Redskins 1-2 55.5 169.5 Emory LT Eagles 1-2 55.5 168.5 NFC South GA CK Falcons 3-0 57 169 GSU MS Bucs 2-1 55.5 166 Mercer BC 49ers 1-2 55 167.5 Alabama WE Saints 0-3 54 162 AFC North Louisville Titans 3-0 57 171 WGA CH Colts 2-1 55.5 166 Emory FD Ravens 1-2 56.5 168.5 WVA EH Steelers 0-3 55.5 167 AFC West Emory WG Jets 3-0 57 171 UGA CS Raiders 2-1 55 164 Mercer TeWr Chefs 1-2 54 166 WGA AL Broncos 0-3 55 164.5 JV/Novice AFC Emory TM Browns 3-0 53.75 161.25 Miami FR Jags 2-1 54 162.5 Miami TR Dolphins 2-1 54 160.5 Louisville Bengals 1-2 54 162.5 WVA BA Steelers 1-2 50.5 151.5 GSU CJ Raiders 0-3 54.5 163.5 NFC Miami YG Panthers 3-0 54.25 162.75 Miami MP Bucs 3-0 54 163 GSU CK Falcons 1-2 55 164.5 Louisville BK Bears 1-2 53.5 163.5 Miami CZ Saints 1-2 52 158 From tshuman Sat Feb 1 14:06:06 2003 From: tshuman (Terrance Shuman) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 14:06:06 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] A favor from my collegiate colleagues... Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030201131301.00a31180@mail.magiccablepc.com> De-cloaking again, briefly... I am preparing an article for publication which will endeavor to analyze changes that have occurred in policy debate over the past half-century or so. I have been comparing high-quality debates from various eras in order to draw some conclusions about debate's evolution over that time. To this point, I have transcripts of the 1957 NDT Final (Augustana over West Point), the 1965 NDT Final (Carson-Newman over Northeastern State), the 1969 NDT Final (Harvard over Houston), the 1976 NDT Final (Kansas over Georgetown), the 1979 NDT Final (Harvard over Northwestern), the 1983 NDT Final (Kansas over Dartmouth), the 1984 NDT Final (Dartmouth over Louisville), the 1990 NDT FInal (Harvard over Redlands), and the 1990 CEDA Final (Central State over Southwest Missouri State). I have been trying to locate transcripts of NDT and CEDA final rounds since 1990 (and pre-1990 CEDA final rounds as well), but without much success. I would be very grateful if anyone in the community could point me to resources that would assist in this endeavor. Backchannel messages are fine, unless someone thinks the list's readership at large might desire the same information I seek. Thanks in advance... Terrance Shuman Bishop LeBlond Memorial High School St. Joseph, Missouri From Christopher_M_Lavigne Sat Feb 1 14:18:06 2003 From: Christopher_M_Lavigne (Chris LaVigne) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 14:18:06 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Ron Stevenson, Will Repko, Biza Repko, Joe Zompetti, Kelly Dunbar, Message-ID: <002801c2ca2f$07e33680$210110ac@gateway.2wire.net> Can y'all please backchannel us with current addresses and phone numbers. Our contact info melted down with our hard drive. Sorry for the clutter. Chris LaVigne -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030201/41f75fb7/attachment.htm From bobjordan Sat Feb 1 14:36:06 2003 From: bobjordan (Bob Jordan) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 14:36:06 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] A favor from my collegiate colleagues... In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030201131301.00a31180@mail.magiccablepc.com> Message-ID: <000001c2ca31$8beeb380$6401a8c0@seachange> The NDT and CEDA final rounds for 1986-1990 are in: 1986 Championship Debates and Speeches 1987 Championship Debates and Speeches 1988 Championship Debates and Speeches 1989 Championship Debates and Speeches 1990 Championship Debates and Speeches ISSN #0890-5371 The 89 edition also has the NFL team and L-D final rounds. These were copyright AFA, but were actually sold through SCA (now NCA). A few of these exist after 1990, but not many. Jim Brey of Florida State was involved in transcribing some CEDA championship rounds. Some of these might be on Tuna's Debate Central site. I think the loss of final round transcripts is a real shame. As a small town high school kid, I learned a lot about debate by pouring over the final round transcripts that used to be published in JAFA before this publication's short run. Bob Jordan -----Original Message----- From: edebate-admin at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-admin at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Terrance Shuman Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2003 2:06 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] A favor from my collegiate colleagues... De-cloaking again, briefly... I am preparing an article for publication which will endeavor to analyze changes that have occurred in policy debate over the past half-century or so. I have been comparing high-quality debates from various eras in order to draw some conclusions about debate's evolution over that time. To this point, I have transcripts of the 1957 NDT Final (Augustana over West Point), the 1965 NDT Final (Carson-Newman over Northeastern State), the 1969 NDT Final (Harvard over Houston), the 1976 NDT Final (Kansas over Georgetown), the 1979 NDT Final (Harvard over Northwestern), the 1983 NDT Final (Kansas over Dartmouth), the 1984 NDT Final (Dartmouth over Louisville), the 1990 NDT FInal (Harvard over Redlands), and the 1990 CEDA Final (Central State over Southwest Missouri State). I have been trying to locate transcripts of NDT and CEDA final rounds since 1990 (and pre-1990 CEDA final rounds as well), but without much success. I would be very grateful if anyone in the community could point me to resources that would assist in this endeavor. Backchannel messages are fine, unless someone thinks the list's readership at large might desire the same information I seek. Thanks in advance... Terrance Shuman Bishop LeBlond Memorial High School St. Joseph, Missouri _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From Martlno4 Sat Feb 1 15:37:57 2003 From: Martlno4 (Martlno4 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 16:37:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Mandela Message-ID: <0D10BEB6.1C7E949F.0079B799@aol.com> Let me just say this and then I am done with this ridicuouls thread. 1) Drake my argumentation skills are vastly superior to yours, so blow me. 2) Mandela was wrong, period. He should apoligize to those who suufer from racism everyday for discrediting their struggle by using racism as a political tool. Ciao, NM From Catherine.Palczewski Sat Feb 1 16:24:45 2003 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 16:24:45 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] eligibility: Feb 1, Feb 8 Message-ID: <3E3C492D.A10B026@uni.edu> Greetings all, There have been a few amusing comments about the: as of Feb 1 in good standing, due Feb 8 eligibility letters. The requirement that letters be due by Feb 8, and they they indicate "in good standing" as of Feb 1 has been the rule since the eligibility requirement was adopted. This should not be new news to anyone. If any of you have serious concerns with this rule, I suggest you propose a change in the wording. There will be the regular NDT meeting at NU this year, and if you want to propose a change, please get me new wording for the rule by thursday of next week. I will put it on the agenda. The NDT standing rules can be located at: http://www.wfu.edu/organizations/NDT/Documents/ndtrules.html You will want to look at rule II A 1 g. Cate Palczewski NDT Committee chair From Catherine.Palczewski Sat Feb 1 16:55:19 2003 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 16:55:19 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] NDT newsletter -- IMPORTANT INFORMATION Message-ID: <3E3C5057.D37A9351@uni.edu> Greetings all, Attached is the NDT Tournament Director's newsletter from Dr. Parson. This document contains important information about the NDT, as well as 1st and 2nd round application forms and addresses for the NDT committee. If you have trouble opening the attachment, you will be able to access a web based version of the document at the following web location: http://www.uni.edu/palczews/ndtnewsletter2003.htm (the formatting will not be as nice as the attachment). Should that fail, email me and I will email it as a text version or fax you a copy. Enjoy the reading, Cate Palczewski NDT Committee chair -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ndt-newslettert 2003 Type: application/msword Size: 186880 bytes Desc: Unknown Document Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030201/1bc17496/attachment.dot From sharris Sun Feb 2 01:03:01 2003 From: sharris (Harris, Scott L) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 01:03:01 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Two "Serious" proposals: Feb 1st and 3rd teams Message-ID: <06EB4CB0225B3F498418311D9D6A28AA01FF1CFB@bluebird.mail.ku.edu> Professor Palczewski, I'm pleased that you find my comments "amusing" but I thought I was expressing a "serious concern". The present wording creates serious problems because it is difficult to comply with without the person in charge deciding that the Feb 8th date in the rule as currently written is meaningful but that the Feb 1st date is an arbitrary guideline. The "appropriate representative" at the University of Kansas requests two weeks to process requests to assess the "standing" of students. Timing this request to coincide with the "as of Feb 1" requirement is a real problem. In practice, in order to comply with the Feb 8 requirement most of us must submit our requests well in advance of Feb 1. (I'm still waiting on word that our request has been completed this year). I am well aware that it "has been the rule since the eligibility requirement was adopted". It has been an annoyance every year since the rule has been passed. I believe that this is the first year that people who are in compliance with the rule were posted prior to the 1st signaling that its inclusion in the rule is arbitrary and insignificant. If it serves no purpose other than to create confusion it should be taken out. Here is a serious proposal for the NDT Committee. I propose that the phrase "as of February 1st immediately preceding" in rule II A 1 g be replaced with something like, "during the time block of" or "during the semester/quarter of". I also think Feb 8 is too early a date but understand the desire to leave time for people to appeal if the NDT ever decided to take this rule seriously and actually enforce it against students who aren't really in good standing at the University they are representing. I also think its time for the community to reevaluate the rule allowing up to 6 schools to have a third team at the NDT. This rule was passed at a time when we were having trouble filling slots at the NDT and it was supported based on the claim that it wasn't actually denying schools the opportunity to be represented at the NDT. That is no longer the case. There are schools being denied the opportunity to have any team at the NDT while the "no more than 6" has been an automatic 6 slots given for third teams from those schools with the most resources. I don't think there is any more elitist rule in the standing rules of the NDT than the provision allowing a handful of rich programs to have 3 teams. While I represent a school that has had 3 teams at the NDT I think it is a terrible rule. Any year that any school can't compete at NDT despite qualifying to apply for a second round while 6 schools get a 3rd team is a shame. Dr. Harris -----Original Message----- From: Catherine Palczewski To: edebate Sent: 2/1/2003 4:24 PM Subject: [eDebate] eligibility: Feb 1, Feb 8 Greetings all, There have been a few amusing comments about the: as of Feb 1 in good standing, due Feb 8 eligibility letters. The requirement that letters be due by Feb 8, and they they indicate "in good standing" as of Feb 1 has been the rule since the eligibility requirement was adopted. This should not be new news to anyone. If any of you have serious concerns with this rule, I suggest you propose a change in the wording. There will be the regular NDT meeting at NU this year, and if you want to propose a change, please get me new wording for the rule by thursday of next week. I will put it on the agenda. The NDT standing rules can be located at: http://www.wfu.edu/organizations/NDT/Documents/ndtrules.html You will want to look at rule II A 1 g. Cate Palczewski NDT Committee chair _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From miamidebate Sun Feb 2 11:05:21 2003 From: miamidebate (Miami Debate Team) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 09:05:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern registration Message-ID: <20030202170521.25290.qmail@web13807.mail.yahoo.com> could someone repost the url for the northwestern registration website (if it has already been posted) i have not seen it but i assumed i just deleted it by accident. if it has not been posted yet, when is it going to be posted? thanks Richard Tews Miami Debate --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030202/903777d5/attachment.htm From privethedge Sun Feb 2 13:07:15 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 11:07:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] ans Drake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030202190715.1379.qmail@web10006.mail.yahoo.com> Drake's thought process: "I know, i'll just mumble some kritick type mumbo jumbo and I'll ignore that W. has assembled the most diverse cabinet in the history of the United States. I'll just ignore the fact that the Democractic party is lining up to oppose and scuttle Sharpton's bid for the Oval Office in ';04, even using another African American (Donna Brazille) to do it. I'll just ignore that the NAACP wouldn't stop a song in Florida that deliberately mocked Conda Leeza Rice as some sort of "House Mammy. (but oh my God, imagine the outrage if a song portraying Jesse Jackson as a Step and Fetch it, were played" I'll just ignore all these facts because I feel some sort of insufferable white guilt, and can't imagine that Bush isn't anything other than a card carrying member of the KKK." Sorry Drake. YOu can couch your citicism in any type of mumbo-jumbo you want, but in the end your protests don't square with the facts. Powell and Rice are the first African Americans to hold their positions. Clinton's cabinet was no where near as diverse as the Bush cabinet. I guess to you it's not possible that Bush simply picked the right people for the job regardless of race. and nobody has yet explained why the Democrats are the more enlightened party on race, having brought us slavery, Jim Crowe, and the current mistreatment of Sharpton by the party. Just remember, in 2008 the first African American canidates with a realistic shot at the Oval office will be the same people that you just condemed. I wonder what you'l say in 2008 if it's a Rice v. Clinton race? An African American woman going for the Oval Office against a white woman. Who do you vote for, Drake? Don't answer - I already know....for all your talk you'll vote for Hillary, and then turn around and say the GOP is racist. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030202/4892b989/attachment.html From paulj567 Sun Feb 2 18:41:53 2003 From: paulj567 (Paul Johnson) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 16:41:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Steven C from Emory Message-ID: <20030203004153.77918.qmail@web11204.mail.yahoo.com> Chadouin, or however the hell you spell that freaking last name, could you drop me a backchannel.? -paul johnson Pitt __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From phallusjerkins Sun Feb 2 15:51:36 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 16:51:36 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] line x line ans pony blix Message-ID: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,883818,00.html _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From cpwiii Sun Feb 2 01:45:32 2003 From: cpwiii (charles woodbury) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 01:45:32 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] DIVERSITY Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030202/6b479d1b/attachment.htm From phallusjerkins Sun Feb 2 16:09:01 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 17:09:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] revoke carter's peace prize Message-ID: http://www-cgi.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/31/sprj.irq.carter/ there's too much dinosaur juice in the middle east to honestly assess the threat...notify the scandinavians of their other brazen recalcitrance... _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From aogletree Sat Feb 1 20:55:51 2003 From: aogletree (Aaron Ogletree) Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 02:55:51 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Mandela Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030202/7bf389e7/attachment.html From pjm1 Sun Feb 2 20:13:48 2003 From: pjm1 (Patrick McKenzie) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:13:48 +0900 Subject: [eDebate] Re: Mandela/Iraq/etc Message-ID: <002c01c2cb29$e4af5a30$c98a89d2@wad.stanfordjc.or.jp> Alright, to briefly addresst the original controversy : Mandela does categorically not deserve the secular canonization he is usually accorded, any more than MLK Jr. should be immune to criticism for his adultery, or Steven Hawkings be seen as an authority on the human genome. I see no reason why their justifiable fame in one area should transfer into all others. That said, the "he should still be in prison" comment is poor taste. Mandela's comment apropos Annan are just, well, inane. Anyone seriously think George W and company would have an ounce more respect for the UN if its pathetically-weak-willed-leader was a Good Ol' Boy? We (those of us for the war) aren't particularly concerned with roughling their feathers either, or else the Pope and "Old Europe" would have much more weight in this discussion than they do currently. As a previous poster pointed out, the anti-war movement (whose policy proposal is being rejected) is a racially and ethnically diverse bunch. ;) Now, on to Drake's comment. Call me crazy, but I'm guessing you don't really want an Iraqi/person-of-Middle-Eastern-descent in a position to pontificate on the war in Iraq. You want someone WHO AGREES WITH YOU in that position. If Condi were hypothetically an oppressed Afghan Taliban survivor who was still in pro-war mode, she'd still get the same Belafonte-esque treatment. The liberal orthodoxy of identity politics means that you're identity isn't correct unless it is matched to your proper politics -- i.e., you're liberal. The theory of masking you describe, by the way, is a crock. In critical lingo, it allows post-colonial Orientalists the ability to reinscribe their dominant world-views upon the subaltern, thus reifying the existing structure of domination by the normatively superior white thinker, while stamping out discursive spaces which challenge the hegemony of the self-appointed protector's politics. In English : assuming that the only way to be is to support is racist. Patrick McKenzie P.S. Wish the pro-war Iraqi groups who counter-protested the peace marches would get some more media coverage. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/d004a464/attachment.htm From BERCHNORTO Sun Feb 2 21:30:28 2003 From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 22:30:28 EST Subject: [eDebate] double thank yous Message-ID: <15e.1b1f3d27.2b6f3c54@aol.com> On behalf of the West Virginia University Debate Team, I want to thank Ede Warner and the University of Louisville debaters AND Jethro Hayman and the Cornell University debaters for two fantastic tournament experiences. We consider ourselves fortunate to be placed geographically so that we could point one van 400 miles to the northeast and point another van 400 miles to the southwest and attend two excellent tournaments for the price of one on the same weekend. Our teams had a fantastic time, and we salute both of our hosts! --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030202/1200a569/attachment.html From BERCHNORTO Sun Feb 2 21:33:36 2003 From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 22:33:36 EST Subject: [eDebate] WVU entry deadline approaching! Message-ID: <183.163c6117.2b6f3d10@aol.com> Hi, everyone! Deadline for entries for the 3rd Annual John A. Jacobsohn Mountaineer Classic Debates is Tuesday afternoon. Below, you will find our latest entry list. Current expectations are semis or partial quarters in varsity, partial-to-pretty full octas in JV and novice. Please get those entries in! --Neil Berch West Virginia University Richmond Varsity: Katie Albrecht & Grant Christensen JV: Nick Sciullo and Andrew Ryan N: Brent Sullivan and Casey Seidel Judges: Kuswa, Hanson Case Western Novice -- Shu-han Zhu/Willson Freeman JV -- Mark Tolles/Dave Beilek Judges: Ian Kimbrell and Aaron Kimbrell Catholic University Varsity: Lauren Baillie/Steve Sawyer JV: Zach Johnson/Steve Martano Novice: Carly Shoupe/Meghan O'Brien Dori Leonard/Kerri Allen Judges: Sarah Snider (Full - 6 Rounds) Rich Sampson (Full - 6 Rounds) Liberty Varsity Elisha Nix and Jeremy Samek JV Josh Autry and Justin Dewberry Andrew Burnham and David Klinedist Brian Aurelio and Jess Surratt Grace Burns and Melissa Hurter Novice Kelly Azevedo and Lindsey Hoban Jared Isham and Andrew Lindblom Matt Case and Dana Foglesong Judges Heather Hall John Ross Rebekah Tilley Michael Tilley Other estimates: Marist 2 or 3 teams Capital 4-6 teams Clarion 1 jv, 2-3 novice Towson 4 teams Rochester 6 teams Pitt 1 team (JV?) Binghamton 1 novice, 1 jv Methodist 1 novice Western Illinois 3 novice Others reporting they will attend or reserving rooms at hotel: Mary Washington George Mason John Carroll Miami (OH) Navy Allegheny Penn State? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030202/1927f565/attachment.htm From db8coach Sun Feb 2 21:52:05 2003 From: db8coach (db8coach) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 19:52:05 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] JV RR Message-ID: <021101c2cb37$9ee89e40$32717942@D2T0PV11> Anybody care to post any results from the JVRR???? Help a poor bed ridden guy out please. Bob Lechtreck BC From cwick Sun Feb 2 23:09:29 2003 From: cwick (cwick) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 21:09:29 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern GL please Message-ID: <3E44E4B0@bearmail.berkeley.edu> Hey, Can you backchannel me your cites for the link/internal link cards you read on your China DA against the death penalty? Thanks a lot ~Craig Wickersham UC Berkeley From haharr Sun Feb 2 16:59:00 2003 From: haharr (haharr at srv.net) Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 22:59 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] ASU coach please Message-ID: Could the ASU coach please backchannel me? Thanks, Holly Harrington haharrington at albertson.edu From govnt_man Mon Feb 3 06:42:58 2003 From: govnt_man (The Drake) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 07:42:58 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ans Drake Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/ff0c48e3/attachment.html From govnt_man Mon Feb 3 06:58:03 2003 From: govnt_man (The Drake) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 07:58:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Re: Mandela/Iraq/etc Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/aa03bc05/attachment.htm From privethedge Mon Feb 3 07:56:00 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 05:56:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Re: Mandela/Iraq/etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030203135600.53057.qmail@web10004.mail.yahoo.com> If you wish to consider me stupid, that's your business. I'm not going to try to engage you here, because you'll never see past the myth of Bush as the oppressor that you've created. If you wish to think that Bush only gave the jobs to Rice and Powell because he wanted some tokens on his cabinet, that's your right to think that. Of course it dismisses their qualifications for the job altogether, but that's OK. Your original argument assumes that because a person is white, that they are: A) Dominant, and B) bent on oppression. I can guarantee you that I am neither. You also assume that Bush put them on the cabinet so as to be perceived as less oppressive. However, you still can't answer two questions: 1) The shameful treatment of Sharpton by the Democrats, even using Donna Brazzile to oppose him (talk about meeting your K). 2) The eventual outcome of a Rice v. Clinton race in 2008. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/89e985ac/attachment.html From govnt_man Mon Feb 3 08:14:52 2003 From: govnt_man (The Drake) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 09:14:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Re: Mandela/Iraq/etc Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/ca77e303/attachment.htm From ccooper Mon Feb 3 09:06:08 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:06:08 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] ans Drake Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370710C9A10@exm01w.apac.planning.org> I don't want to get into the specifics of this debate. Drake's won it already anyway. However, I do want to address one thing Duane says in charaterizing Drake's argument: "I know, i'll just mumble some kritick type mumbo jumbo and I'll ignore that W. has assembled the most diverse cabinet in the history of the United States." I used to think very similarly...this kritik stuff is so much mumbo jumbo (and some of it is). But...characterizing it and then dismissing it as such often assumes that there is a "common sense" or "layman's language" that helps determine truth. More often than not, however, "common" sense is no more than shiny packaging for otherwise patently racist concepts that defer to the status quo. Of course anything that strains the "sense" of the status quo will sound like "mumbo jumbo" to those who embrace the current way of thinking. But like dubya's "folksy" mispronunciation of "NU-cu-ler," labeling something with real substantive value as "mumbo jumbo" is a way of keeping the majority fooled into thinking they are always right, a way of helping them dismiss as "just crazy talk" the cognitive dissonance always associated with change and growth. Seriously, Duane....surely you can see the fallacy in your "add blacks and stir" solution to the "diversity" of the White House. COOP -----Original Message----- From: Duane Hyland [mailto:privethedge at yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 2:07 PM To: The Drake; mmk_savant at hotmail.com; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] ans Drake Drake's thought process: "I know, i'll just mumble some kritick type mumbo jumbo and I'll ignore that W. has assembled the most diverse cabinet in the history of the United States. I'll just ignore the fact that the Democractic party is lining up to oppose and scuttle Sharpton's bid for the Oval Office in ';04, even using another African American (Donna Brazille) to do it. I'll just ignore that the NAACP wouldn't stop a song in Florida that deliberately mocked Conda Leeza Rice as some sort of "House Mammy. (but oh my God, imagine the outrage if a song portraying Jesse Jackson as a Step and Fetch it, were played" I'll just ignore all these facts because I feel some sort of insufferable white guilt, and can't imagine that Bush isn't anything other than a card carrying member of the KKK." Sorry Drake. YOu can couch your citicism in any type of mumbo-jumbo you want, but in the end your protests don't square with the facts. Powell and Rice are the first African Americans to hold their positions. Clinton's cabinet was no where near as diverse as the Bush cabinet. I guess to you it's not possible that Bush simply picked the right people for the job regardless of race. and nobody has yet explained why the Democrats are the more enlightened party on race, having brought us slavery, Jim Crowe, and the current mistreatment of Sharpton by the party. Just remember, in 2008 the first African American canidates with a realistic shot at the Oval office will be the same people that you just condemed. I wonder what you'l say in 2008 if it's a Rice v. Clinton race? An African American woman going for the Oval Office against a white woman. Who do you vote for, Drake? Don't answer - I already know....for all your talk you'll vote for Hillary, and then turn around and say the GOP is racist. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." _____ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/8af67b0c/attachment.html From Gary.N.Larson Mon Feb 3 09:09:50 2003 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary N. Larson) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:09:50 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern pref sheets Message-ID: <000401c2cb96$4c8717d0$100c18ac@bl2471> I have downloaded the info from Northwestern's website concerning the current state of tournament entries. It is critical that you check your entry there to make certain that it is correct. By NOON tomorrow morning, I anticipate releasing the online pref forms. It is imperative that the judging pool be absolutely clear at that point. If you make changes to any of your info, please verify it by sending me an e-mail, copied to Deatherage as well. I would also appreciate it if ALL schools entered would send me an e-mail from the individual that you would like me to give the username and password to for my site. I will use that e-mail address tomorrow to send the info concerning completing the online form. Thanks GARY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/24e86bbf/attachment.htm From privethedge Mon Feb 3 09:10:20 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 07:10:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Re: Mandela/Iraq/etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030203151020.63684.qmail@web10003.mail.yahoo.com> << never called you stupid. Nor do I think that you are stupid. In fact, every time I see you post something on the list that is purely ideological it often disappoints me because I think you are too smart for that level of political engagement. Minds are like parachutes . . . >> If you called me stupid, or if you didn't, it matters not to me. << As for Bush not being an oppressor, you have to provide some evidence to the contrary.>> Uhm...no..the status quo, e.g.: Bush is not an oppressor, is considered sane and rational until you provide evidence to the contrary. Please name 5 policies by which we could name Bush an oppressor. << For God's sake, listen to my argument. The qualifications of the people are irrelevant to my argument. It is a fact, that I documented in my e-mail to Patrick McKenzie, that the Bush Administration engages in a political rhetorical strategy that relies upon holding up the appointments of African-Americans to shield themselves from racial criticism. This returns me to the criticism that you just can't "add minorities and stir." That does not change the system and it permits people to mask racist policies. >> Good, fine. Neither then can we just add minorities to << insert college name of your choice >> and expect all the harms of the past to be corrected. Whoever would have thought that you and I would be on the same side of the Affirmative Action debate. << In no way do I assume that because people are white do they seek to oppress. Being a white-hetero-guy, I know I am the dominant in American society and it is important to recognize that. The Bush Administration might recognize this, but they think that's just the way it is and they shouldn't act to change it. I disagree with that. Bent on oppression? No, just at ease with the fact that oppression exists and they don't really want to change it. Why? Because the Bush Administration likes to be powerful. >> What administration doesn't want to be powerful? And while we're on the subject of oppression..let's talk about Clinton's record: 1) Harshest welfare reform program in history, 2) standing idly by while Rwandans slaughtered each other,and those are just the two that come to mind. But again, your argument assumes that Bush is an oppressor, or that he engages in oppressive politics. Again, so I might know how you make these claims, let me know the 5 policies you consider to be oppressive. You want answers? I'll give you answers. But I maintain they have nothing to do with the argument I have articulated. 1) << I don't know enough about the events your speaking of to have a comment. >> After Sharpton announced, Brazzile gave an interview to CNN where she told CNN that the Democratic strategy, that she was going to implement re: Sharpton, would be to recruit "native son" candiates, that is African American canidates, in all the key primary states to suck off votes from Sharpton. She virtually said that with this strategy Sharpton didn't stand a chance. I find this shameful and oppressive. << 2) My guess would be Rice. >> Mine also. --Drake ----Original Message Follows---- "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/aed8c695/attachment.html From govnt_man Mon Feb 3 09:45:14 2003 From: govnt_man (The Drake) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 10:45:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Re: Mandela/Iraq/etc Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/f4d1c15f/attachment.htm From Martlno4 Mon Feb 3 10:04:59 2003 From: Martlno4 (Martlno4 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:04:59 EST Subject: [eDebate] Re: Mandela/Iraq/etc Message-ID: <14a.1b3d7f69.2b6fed2b@aol.com> In a message dated 2/3/2003 10:47:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, govnt_man at hotmail.com writes: > 5 policies? Too easy- > > 1. War on Terrorism I would like some specific examples, not just "War on Terrorism". Bush' policies on the the War haven't been effective in my opinion and therfore could hardly be called oppressive. > > 2. The Homeland Security archtecture As any Democrat will tell you, this is their policy except the union provision. > > 3. Iraq II: Daddy Needs Lower Gas Prices What was Clintons excuse then? Is Bush Senior his daddy as well? GW is doing something that not many leaders do, Rep or Dem, he is enforcing international law. Remember Iraq is in material breach, and they have also violated 17 treaties since the Gulf War. > > 4. Religious (read: Christians only please) support programs Um, I don't know if you like to fabricate facts, but the faith based intiative program can be utilized by all religions and faiths. > > 5. Re-newed Cold War nuclear policies (new uranium mining, new nuclear > testing, etc.) Deterrence is a valid defense policy, period. It always has been and will continue to be. Remember also the brain child and one of the strongest proponents of deterrence was a democrat. > > (Sensing new debate emerging) > > --Drake > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/f915ac87/attachment.html From privethedge Mon Feb 3 10:05:43 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 08:05:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Re: Mandela/Iraq/etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030203160544.74178.qmail@web10004.mail.yahoo.com> Hmmm...I love it, examples without warrants..You meet my request, for that I thank you, yet provide 0 reasoning as to why these are oppresive: 5 policies? Too easy- << 1. War on Terrorism >> Ok, how have we oppressed anyone? We've liberated Afghanistan from Taliban rule, we've restored a democratic process there, we've seen the government shift from one of 12th century religious dictates, to a moderate, progressive one under Kharzi. People are free to worship how they choose. People are able to go back to school, how are we oppressive? Unless of course you think that any attempt to defend us against terrorism is wrong. <, 2. The Homeland Security archtecture >> How so? What area? Shouldn't we increase security? Or do you favor a repeat of September 11th? Which policies are oppresive? << 3. Iraq II: Daddy Needs Lower Gas Prices >> There have been numerous articles in recent weeks debunking this myth. I find it hard to believe that an educated person such as yourself would continue trumpeting this. << 4. Religious (read: Christians only please) support programs >> Odd. Some of the places that Bush has spoken about this program have been synagouges (the last I looked Judaism and Christianity are not the same), Bhuddist temples (again, no connection), and Sikh temples (perhaps not temples, I really don't know what Sikhs call their places of worship and wish to offend no one of the Sikh persuasion. If I have, please let me know what you call your places of worship). I know for a fact that Bush has, on serveral occassions praised mosques as unique hedges against drug abuse - so I'm not sure why you think it's "jesus freaks" only who benefit from this. Unless you think it's all interchangable. << 5. Re-newed Cold War nuclear policies (new uranium mining, new nuclear testing, etc.) >> How does this oppress? And who'm does it oppress? Why is modernizing our forces oppressive? And aren't there still nuclear powers in the world that we have to be prepared to face eventually? Doesn't a nuclear armed China and North Korea terrify you? Shouldn't we be prepared to face them, if need be? Overall...I see you have hashed up a lot of leftist trash - but I see no warrants for your arguments. (Sensing new debate emerging (Sensing new debate emerging "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/16ef2d19/attachment.htm From govnt_man Mon Feb 3 10:27:43 2003 From: govnt_man (The Drake) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 11:27:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Re: Mandela/Iraq/etc Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/210898f4/attachment.html From Martlno4 Mon Feb 3 10:48:23 2003 From: Martlno4 (Martlno4 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 11:48:23 EST Subject: [eDebate] Re: Mandela/Iraq/etc Message-ID: <39.334fbf4c.2b6ff757@aol.com> None of those responses even warrant a response they are so absurd!!!!!!!!!!! Drake, for the love of God ( Christian or otherwise ), open your mind. NM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/2c50b072/attachment.htm From Squiz Mon Feb 3 11:24:06 2003 From: Squiz (Squiz at aol.com) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 12:24:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Someone from Berkeley please Message-ID: <4688BAAD.6B325393.00010FC4@aol.com> Could someone from Berkeley please write me back at this email address? Interested in judging at the HS tournament next week... Pam Bowman Texas From stu30916 Mon Feb 3 11:49:16 2003 From: stu30916 (stu30916) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 12:49:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] looking for paul mabrey Message-ID: <3E20E1DE@cliff.westga.edu> i already tried pem6751 at hotmail.com - can someone help me out? james thomas From privethedge Mon Feb 3 11:49:47 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:49:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Re: Mandela/Iraq/etc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030203174947.99834.qmail@web10001.mail.yahoo.com> All these issues have been debated at length on this list and others. I will respond, but I tire of the ideological war o' words. So the response is brief. << 1. WOT- Policy = anti-Arab. >> Right, on face, anti-arab. Come on, Drake. It wasn't the Swiss that pulled off September 11th. Besides, the regs apply to all those who support and carry out terror missions. Next, the Iraqis and Iranians would probally not like you for confusing them with Arabs. Neither would the people in Pakistan like being called Arabs, or the Al Queda supporters in the Phillippines. And how is it anti-arab? Our allie, or at least of one our so called allies, in this is Saudi Arabia - the epi-center of Islam. << 2. DHS- Could quite possibly evolve into the largest, most invasive system of surveillence known to human-kind. >> Forgive me for saying it, but the enemy is hear and among us. We need to know what's up, so that something that makes 9/11 look like a walk in the park never happens. Besides, anyone who isn't saying anything illegal, or not plotting crime, has nothing to worry about under these regs. << 3. Iraq II- We're about to kill 100s of 1000s because the sanctions weren't enough. >> Again, several articles have been written to the contrary. Stop spouting the propoganda. << 4. Religious initiative- Interesting aspect of this policy is that it favors mainstream Christianity and requires all of the faiths to be "certified" by the Federal government as "real religions." >> Considering the US military recognizes santanism and wicca as approved, official religions, and has to make space for their worship services, I'm really not worried about any religion being left out. << 5. Nukes- Native Americans are severely impacted by the testing and mining policies of the Administration. >> How so? And are you, perhaps, confusing a good 1AC with real life? But even if there is some trade-off in health, I think the benefit of a mission ready nuclear deterence outweighs. --Drake "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/6df7edb6/attachment.html From hansonjb Mon Feb 3 11:50:12 2003 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:50:12 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] ndt 2004, ceda 2004 Message-ID: <001601c2cbac$b46ad970$0a1d480c@whitman.edu> what are the dates for ndt 2004 and ceda 2004? locations would be cool too. jim hanson :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From jeffrey.jarman Mon Feb 3 11:59:13 2003 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 11:59:13 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] ndt 2004, ceda 2004 In-Reply-To: <001601c2cbac$b46ad970$0a1d480c@whitman.edu> Message-ID: <003901c2cbae$10a2d4d0$24a11a9c@gatewaycompute> CEDA Nationals 2004 Location: Univ of Louisville Dates: March 19 - 22 Jeff -----Original Message----- From: edebate-admin at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-admin at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Jim Hanson Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 11:50 AM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] ndt 2004, ceda 2004 what are the dates for ndt 2004 and ceda 2004? locations would be cool too. jim hanson :) hansonjb at whitman.edu _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From bodonnel Mon Feb 3 12:23:20 2003 From: bodonnel (O'Donnell, Brett M.) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 13:23:20 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NDT Fees-Coorected from Parson's Newsletter Message-ID: Fees for the NDT will be structured into three tiers. First, each team qualifying for the NDT will be charged a per team fee to cover administrative and non-food operational costs of the tournament. Second, each debater and judge (up to 1.5 judges per team from each school) will pay a participant fee to cover food costs not covered by the host. Third, all other individuals wishing to attend the NDT and eat meals on-site must pay an observer fee to cover all meals at the tournament (this would include extra judges beyond the 1.5 per team and team "workers"). Each person attending the NDT as either a participant or observer will be required to display a photo NDT Badge supplied by the host at all times while at the tournament location (or supply a banquet ticket depending on the option the host decides since the host is providing only one meal). > Fees for this year: > > Team fee: $225.00 > Participant fee: $40.00 > Observer Fee: $65.00 > Guest Registration: free > > So, if you qualify one team, your fees will be: > Team fee: $225.00 > Participant Fee: $160.00 (2 debaters and 2 judges=4x$40.00) > Total= $385.00 > > Two Teams > Team Fee: $450.00 > Participant Fee: $280.00 (4 debaters and 3 judges) > Total= $730.00 > > Three Teams > Team Fee= $675.00 > Participant Fee: $440.00 (6 debaters and 5 judges) > Total=1115.00 > No separate banquet, lunch or meal tickets will be sold apart from the observer ticket that covers all meals, except in the case of special guests that are attending the tournament only during the banquets. Anyone caught eating a meal without a photo badge will immediately be assessed the cost of an observer badge ($65.00) collectable through their institution. Remember fees are only payable in "cash, travelers checks, cashiers checks, certified checks, or approved credit cards" according to the NDT Standing Rules and you must be a subscribing member of the NDT to participate in the tournament (I will post a list and will keep updating it as the tournament approaches). Brett O'Donnell Treasurer, NDT Board. Liberty University Debate > From ALennon Mon Feb 3 12:27:14 2003 From: ALennon (Alexander Lennon) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 13:27:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Call for Taylor Internship applications Message-ID: The 7th Annual William J. Taylor internship recognizes the outstanding training intercollegiate debate gives students by reserving one paid internship annually at CSIS, exclusively for a college debater. Eligibility: Applications are due February 28, 2003. Candidates for the award must currently be undergraduate (including seniors graduating this year) policy debaters. Major field(s) of study should be related to international affairs. Applicants are expected to have strong writing skills, an exemplary debate record, an interest in international affairs, strong communications skills, as well as demonstrated leadership potential and maturity. Application: Simply submit a cover letter and resume (which would include some indication of your debate record, specifically whether you expect to receive a first-round or not) by February 28 to: Alex LennonEditor-in-Chief, The Washington QuarterlyCSIS 1800 K St., NWWashington DC 20006E-mail applications will be accepted at alennon at csis.org Recommendations from coaches and short (no more than 3 page) writing samples are welcome but not required. About Dr. Taylor: Dr. WIlliam J. Taylor was the senior vice president for international security affairs at CSIS until 1999. Dr. Taylor was a professor and director of national security studies as well as the director of debate at West Point. He is the author, coauthor, or coeditor of 16 books and more than 300 articles on international security affairs. He has been responsible for bringing many debaters to CSIS--including Mike Mazarr, the 1986 NDT finalist from Georgetown and former editor of The Washington Quarterly; and Alex Lennon, 1990 NDT champion from Harvard and current editor-in-chief of TWQ. Previous recipients of the award include: 2002 Austin Carson, Michigan State University2001 Andrew Peterson, University of Iowa2000 Mike Horowitz, Emory University1999 Chris McIntosh, University of Georgia1998 Corey Stoughton, University of Michigan1997 Kelly Dunbar, Baylor University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/4ae9664d/attachment.htm From grindy22 Mon Feb 3 12:29:15 2003 From: grindy22 (matt grindy) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 18:29:15 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Louisville Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/d85774fb/attachment.html From Catherine.Palczewski Mon Feb 3 12:30:02 2003 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 12:30:02 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] NDT newsletter correction Message-ID: <3E3EB529.C71121F3@uni.edu> Greetings all, There was an error in the NDT newsletter concerning fees. The fees ARE 225.00 per team and 40.00 per participant (or 385.00 per team if you bring 1 team and two judges--there are no half judge fees anymore). The webversion (http://www.uni.edu/palczews/ndtnewsletter2003.htm) will be corrected to reflect this, and the newsletter with the corrected fees is attached again to this email. Sorry about any confusion, Cate -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ndt-newslettert 2003 Type: application/msword Size: 321024 bytes Desc: Unknown Document Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/c8d62474/attachment.dot From jeffrey.jarman Mon Feb 3 12:44:09 2003 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 12:44:09 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Exec Report, Feb 2003 Message-ID: <003e01c2cbb4$57f522b0$24a11a9c@gatewaycompute> 2001-2002 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION Executive Secretary Report February 2003 Hello Everyone: There are several important items in this report. Please read all of the information and let me know if you have any questions. * CEDA Nationals. The invitation is available online. I am not sending it with this report since it is so long, but you can easily print it from the website. Go to http://cedadebate.org and follow the link for National Tournament. If you have any problems with the site, please let me know. * Tournament results. Please send prelim and elim results to me as soon as you can. My fax number is 316-978-3006. I will continuously update the totals so check the site regularly to see how you are ranked. If a tournament is not counted and you have results, please send them to me. * National rankings. They are available online. Go to http://esc.wichita.edu/ceda/exec-sect.htm and follow the link for national rankings. All tournaments prior to this weekend (except GSL & Air Force) have been counted. Please let me know if there are any errors or problems. * Ineligible debaters. I have heard from several people. If you have not contacted me regarding debaters that should not earn points for your school, please send that information to me immediately. This includes academic ineligibility or transfer students. * Amendments. Any member may suggest changes to the constitution and bylaws. Please send me those no later than February 18th. I will distribute proposed amendments with the March report so they can be discussed at the business meeting held at CEDA Nationals. * Membership. An updated list is available online. If you have not paid your dues, please do so. While the list is current, it may not reflect recent payments to AFA that have not been sent to me as of yet. You must pay your dues to attend the national tournament and to be eligible to receive awards. In addition, you can pre-pay next year's membership with your national tournament entry. Look for that on the entry form. Jeffrey W. Jarman, Ph.D. Executive Secretary, Cross Examination Debate Association Elliott School of Communication 1845 Fairmount Wichita, KS 67260-0031 (O): 316 978-6075 (H): 316 686-6274 (F): 316 978-3006 Jeffrey.Jarman at wichita.edu Jeffrey.Jarman at esc.wichita.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/cf4ca5dd/attachment.html From Ceda2vp Mon Feb 3 13:12:56 2003 From: Ceda2vp (Ceda2vp at cs.com) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 14:12:56 EST Subject: [eDebate] JOIN THE MOVEMENT, CHANGE IN CEDA IS POSSIBLE IF YOU'RE GAME Message-ID: <116.1e51ae3d.2b701938@cs.com> Students, coaches and alumni have completed the CEDA Passion Surveys and provided comments that provide a great deal of hope for our future. Some ideas are rough, others are well-developed. Here's a sampling of the innovative ideas: 1-QUALITY OF LIFE--Internet Debating at Tournaments--We can make tournaments shorter without sacrificing the number of rounds of db8 by releasing pairings for Rd 1 ( or 1 & 2) earilier in the week and experimenting with internet debating. Two teams would pick a time, reach out to a judge they both like and hold the a debate over the internet. The tech is dirt cheap, available at most schools and reports higher reliability than in the past past. Since you could call on any judge in the country, the debaters get a better pool in places with limits on hired judging creating the first national preferencing system. It would expand the flexibility of the judging pool for later rounds and connect programs in new ways. Tournaments might even be able to let people out for real lunches in the middle of the day and quality dinners before all of the restaurants close. 2-COMPETITIVE EQUITY-Laptop standards--What happens if someone crashes right before their last rebuttal or teams read evidence off a computer but can't print it out? What would be reasonable to expect. Assisting others in developing standards for the increasing computer use would assist in developing equitable practices for all. 3-COMMUNITY BETTERMENT--Eliminate the system of regional reps and subcommittees in favor of identifying what people care about which initiatives and inviting them to engage in those activities on a regional level as a collective. We need leaders for change not committees for stagnation. 4-IMPROVING THE NATIONAL TOURNAMENT--Run a multi-division tournament at CEDA Nationals--For those teams that focus on younger debaters, don't want to get smacked around but want to be part of the community, hold a TOC type event at CEDA Nats where the top 32 novice teams and jv teams compete against each other (perhaps based on performance at the existing nov and jv national events). Offer zero CEDA points to encourage people to make the best educational choice for their debaters not simply treat it as a sweepstakes point grab. 5-PUBLIC DEBATE--Bring back local scrimmages. Use debate as a pr tool by encouraging students to set up more public debates on campus or even do tours to build awareness about debate and connect to the community. If top debaters didn't feel they had time, attract non-debaters from campus who get juiced by existing issues. Not sure if any of these and practical or workable or even the right way to go. I am sure that we are better by the unique contributions we get through brainstorming just as we do on topics. They are some of the dozens of good ideas people have put forward. We don't have to wait for the results to create action. If you have answers to the questions by typing them out is too much of a bother, you can now call a tollfree number 1-866-4DEBATE between 8pm and 12am EST any night of the week and leave your answers as a voice mail. Please state your name and institution when you call. We will have someone in the IMPACT office, listen to your message and transcribe the call. Final Appeal to Tournament Directors--As administrator extraordinare Shannon Feldman would say, "For the love of God" make it easy for people. Don't know if Neil Berch, Scott D. or Scott H. have made a decision about this but it would be great if tournament directors could place copies of the Passion Survey at the registration table and other forums at their tournaments so people could fill out and return hard copies. Representatives of NYU will be at Northwestern, Heart, Towson, and East Regionals to collect them personally and we will make arrangements to collect them from other sites as well. I'll include another copy below to make it simpler. The deadline for returning the survey is March 18th in case people want to discuss ideas for improving regional debate during their upcoming regional championships and district qualifiers. We need everyone's voice to be heard. Thanks for your help. CEDA PASSION SURVEY It is time for us to be strategic, intentional and directed in our approach to organizational governance and identifying our passions. My term does not start untl June, but there is no reason to delay the discovery of member's desires, passions, dreams and thoughts. We have an amazing organization and can accomplish amazing deeds if we focus and cooperation. Kristina, ML and I are discussing ways to develop a coordinated plan that will entail a larger vision of where and what we can be. Already several directors have responded with wonderful ideas and a rich devotion to the activity. Thank you for taking five minutes to complete this survey. E-mail your answers to ceda2vp at cs.com, or fax responses to 212-471-8664. It is brief because we respect your time. It is essential because your feedback will frame a new direction for the organization and activity to which you devote time and energy. If you wish to provide longer answers, those will be appreciated. Students should submit their own copies, alumni should share it with former CEDA participants that you still e-mail regularly and send it to others on campus who may have ideas (deans, presidents, dept chairs, student activities administrators). One important suggestion: DON"T WAIT. We procrastinate, miss opportunities and fail to provide insights and inputs that are desparately needed. THERE ARE ONLY SEVEN QUESTIONS! Please do the right thing and make the time now. Peace & Justice, Will Baker CEO IMPACT Coalition 1-Provide three words or phrases that describe what CEDA means to you (feel free to describe CEDA as an organization, an activity or as a national tournament host). 2-What makes you passionate about debate? 3-Name an area where CEDA could better serve your needs and/or the needs of your students? 4-How would a fully functional CEDA Executive Council communicate its effectiveness? 5-If CEDA had a $1 million/year budget, what would be on your wish list of activities and services? 6-What contributions (service, dollars, and/or expertise) could you give to CEDA if you were called upon to support its work more actively? 7-What is your best idea for the debate community that no one has proposed as yet? From bodonnel Mon Feb 3 13:14:36 2003 From: bodonnel (O'Donnell, Brett M.) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 14:14:36 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 2002-03 Subscriber List Message-ID: Below is the current list of NDT subscribers. To participate in the NDT or be ranked in the final NDT rankings, you must be a subscriber. To pay your NDT dues you can contact Jim Pratt at the American Forensic Association at 1-800-228-5424 or send a check for $30.00 made payable to the National Debate Tournament to: Brett O'Donnell Liberty University Debate 1971 University Blvd Lynchburg, VA 24502 NDT Subscribers 2002-03 Albertson College of Idaho Angelo State University Arizona State University Augustana College Boston College Fulton Debating Soc California Poly State University - San Luis Obispo California State University Fullerton California State University Long Beach California State University Northridge Capital University Clarion University Concordia College Cornell University Dartmouth College DePaul University Eastern New Mexico University Emory University Fordham University Franklin Pierce College Fresno State University Georgia Military College Harvard University Illinois College James Madison University Lewis & Clark College Liberty University Marist College Mercer University Miami University Northwest College Pepperdine University Sacramento State University Samford University San Diego State University Southern Illinois University Southern Utah University St. Mary's College of California Trinity University University of Central Oklahoma University of Georgia University of Kentucky University of Michigan University of Missouri-Kansas City University of Northern Iowa University of Oregon University of Pittsburgh University of Redlands University of Richmond University of Rochester University of South Carolina University of Texas University of Texas at Dallas Wake Forest University Washington State University Wayne State University Webster University Western Washington University West Virginia University Whitman College Wichita State University William Jewell College From miaminicki Mon Feb 3 13:53:06 2003 From: miaminicki (Nicole Colston) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 19:53:06 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Thanks Louisville Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/2af79263/attachment.htm From delliott Mon Feb 3 15:42:03 2003 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 15:42:03 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Help Please Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030203154203.00be7180@kckcc.toto.net> This Thursday I have to attend a budget hearing to request/justify funds from our Student Senate. This budget will be in addition to my dept. budget line. What I would like to know is which programs get budgets from a Dept. and Student Govt/Student fees etc. If you could b/c me and tell me if you get a budget from an account similar to this and if you are willing to share what that amount is I would appreciate it. Not needing to know Dept. budgets but budget numbers from Student Fees/Govt/Organization. Any help in the next two days will be appreciated! Thanks in advance, Chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate Kansas City Kansas Community College From gsudebate Mon Feb 3 15:59:05 2003 From: gsudebate (Joe Bellon) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 16:59:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Thanks to Louisville Message-ID: On behalf of the Georgia State University debaters, I would like to thank Ede Warner and the entire Louisville squad for hosting one of coolest, friendliest, and most enjoyable tournaments we've been to in a long time. The food was great, the format was lots of fun, and the love was palpable. We'll be back next year, and we hope more of y'all will join us. -Joe Bellon Director of Debate Georgia State University -- From ericcole2784 Mon Feb 3 16:20:46 2003 From: ericcole2784 (Eric Cole) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 17:20:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Alex Foster from Emory Only Message-ID: Alex, Could you backchannel me please. I need to get some cites from ya. Thanks. Eric Cole UWG Debate _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From Ryan.Sullivan Mon Feb 3 18:15:43 2003 From: Ryan.Sullivan (Sullivan, Ryan x62188h4) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 19:15:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] New World Order - Rochester or others Message-ID: <7C7E990CEED54A499C1A2A3DF7D362E70CB5C659@exmailml02> Hey, Can someone from Rochester or any other college with the Nayer (New World Order) sites please backchannel me with them? Thanks, Ryan Sullivan Army Debate "O God, that men should put an enemy in their mouths to steal away their brains!" - Cassio [from Othello] From BERCHNORTO Mon Feb 3 18:30:49 2003 From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 19:30:49 EST Subject: [eDebate] WVU entry update Message-ID: <55.37ed9089.2b7063b9@aol.com> Entries close on Tuesday. Here's what we have as of 6pm on Monday: Richmond Varsity: Katie Albrecht & Grant Christensen JV: Nick Sciullo and Andrew Ryan N: Brent Sullivan and Casey Seidel Judges: Kuswa, Hanson Case Western Novice -- Shu-han Zhu/Willson Freeman JV -- Mark Tolles/Dave Beilek Judges: Ian Kimbrell and Aaron Kimbrell Catholic University Varsity: Lauren Baillie/Steve Sawyer JV: Zach Johnson/Steve Martano Novice: Carly Shoupe/Meghan O'Brien Dori Leonard/Kerri Allen Judges: Sarah Snider (Full - 6 Rounds) Rich Sampson (Full - 6 Rounds) Liberty Varsity Elisha Nix and Jeremy Samek JV Josh Autry and Justin Dewberry Andrew Burnham and David Klinedist Brian Aurelio and Jess Surratt Grace Burns and Melissa Hurter Novice Kelly Azevedo and Lindsey Hoban Jared Isham and Andrew Lindblom Matt Case and Dana Foglesong Judges Heather Hall John Ross Rebekah Tilley Michael Tilley Clarion JV: Carli Bober - Ann Godfrey Novice: Nancy Nelson - Erin Witner Kim Kelly - Rob Noerr George Mason Novice: Jeannine Mohler and Sharon Lee Judge: James Kimble Capital JV Chris Piazza/ John Swords Angie Naugle/ Mike Jones Novice Elycia Taylor/ Pam Moore Julie Barnhill/ Jen Mooney Judges Dave Miller Jeff Lohr University of Pittsburgh Varsity: Allison Hahn and Darinka Maldonado Junior Varsity Peter Cancro and Michael Hughes Judge: Eric English Mary Washington College JV Jenn Golladay and Joe Packer Adrianne Barnett and Ali Samantar Karla Rood and Rachel Kimble Novice Raya Drew and Leslie Wyatt Rebecca Sklepovich and Jennifer Rollman Judge - Chris Devault Other estimates: Marist 2 or 3 teams Towson 4 teams Rochester 6 teams Binghamton 1 novice, 1 jv Western Illinois 3 novice Others reporting they will attend or reserving rooms at hotel: John Carroll Miami (OH) Navy Allegheny Penn State? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/b61ae1b8/attachment.html From Kelly.McDonald Mon Feb 3 18:40:21 2003 From: Kelly.McDonald (Kelly McDonald) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 17:40:21 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Car Rental Message-ID: <3996AE5EBEF964418D80953BDCABFF5674CB6B@ex1.asurite.ad.asu.edu> Dear Colleagues I know Shawn has the invitation posted for the 2003 CEDA national tournament with hotel, airfare and rental car information. I want to encourage everyone to act on all three with some haste and prudence. Tempe, AZ (current temperature 74 degrees) is a destination city in March, both because of the weather and Cactus League baseball. As our fair climate attracts tens of thousands of tourists from around the world, hotel rooms and rental cars are in high demand. Please call the Phoenix Airport Sheraton and make reservations. The deal I negotiated with Enterprise Rental Car is very good at $425/week for a 15 passenger van. Here is another vendor who approached me about rental vehicles with very competitive rates. They are not at the airport - only 10 minutes by shuttle van, which is free during business hours. Five Star Ford - Scottsale, AZ Toll free at 1-800-334-9602 - extension 297 7100 East McDowell Scottsdale, AZ 85257 Contact: Kathy Silvanic On the web at www.fivestarford.com Rates: 15 passenger Ford Club Van - $79.00 / daily; $479.00 / weekly Ford Windstar Mini Van - 7 passenger - $59.00 / daily; $349 / weekly Ford Explorer SUV - 5 passenger - $59.00 / daily; $349 / weekly Ford Expedition SUV - 7 passenger - $79.00 / daily; $479 / weekly Ford Excursion SUV - 9 passenger - $99.00 / daily / $499 / weekly Please let me know if there is anything as host we can do to make your visit to Tempe better. Best, Kelly Kelly M. McDonald, Ph.D. Director of Forensics & Assistant Instructional Professional The Hugh Downs School of Human Communication PO Box 871205 Tempe, AZ 85287-1205 Office: 474 Stauffer Hall Phone: (480) 965-2027 (direct) Fax: (480) 965-4291 Email: kelly.mcdonald at asu.edu ASU Forensics on the web: http://com.pp.asu.edu/forensics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/b082a18a/attachment.htm From BERCHNORTO Mon Feb 3 18:42:03 2003 From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 19:42:03 EST Subject: [eDebate] WVU team list with Marist added Message-ID: <178.162e3c72.2b70665b@aol.com> Richmond Varsity: Katie Albrecht & Grant Christensen JV: Nick Sciullo and Andrew Ryan N: Brent Sullivan and Casey Seidel Judges: Kuswa, Hanson Case Western Novice -- Shu-han Zhu/Willson Freeman JV -- Mark Tolles/Dave Beilek Judges: Ian Kimbrell and Aaron Kimbrell Catholic University Varsity: Lauren Baillie/Steve Sawyer JV: Zach Johnson/Steve Martano Novice: Carly Shoupe/Meghan O'Brien Dori Leonard/Kerri Allen Judges: Sarah Snider (Full - 6 Rounds) Rich Sampson (Full - 6 Rounds) Liberty Varsity Elisha Nix and Jeremy Samek JV Josh Autry and Justin Dewberry Andrew Burnham and David Klinedist Brian Aurelio and Jess Surratt Grace Burns and Melissa Hurter Novice Kelly Azevedo and Lindsey Hoban Jared Isham and Andrew Lindblom Matt Case and Dana Foglesong Judges Heather Hall John Ross Rebekah Tilley Michael Tilley Clarion JV: Carli Bober - Ann Godfrey Novice: Nancy Nelson - Erin Witner Kim Kelly - Rob Noerr George Mason Novice: Jeannine Mohler and Sharon Lee Judge: James Kimble Capital JV Chris Piazza/ John Swords Angie Naugle/ Mike Jones Novice Elycia Taylor/ Pam Moore Julie Barnhill/ Jen Mooney Judges Dave Miller Jeff Lohr University of Pittsburgh Varsity: Allison Hahn and Darinka Maldonado Junior Varsity Peter Cancro and Michael Hughes Judge: Eric English Mary Washington College JV Jenn Golladay and Joe Packer Adrianne Barnett and Ali Samantar Karla Rood and Rachel Kimble Novice Raya Drew and Leslie Wyatt Rebecca Sklepovich and Jennifer Rollman Judge - Chris Devault Marist Junior Varsity Matthew Gardner and Stephen Nocera Novice Owen Daly and Diedre Greely Judges: Jason West (5) Andy Ellis (1) Other estimates: Towson 4 teams Rochester 6 teams Binghamton 1 novice, 1 jv Western Illinois 3 novice Others reporting they will attend or reserving rooms at hotel: John Carroll Miami (OH) Navy Allegheny Penn State? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/ba8e3a6e/attachment.html From lraymer Mon Feb 3 19:12:31 2003 From: lraymer (Lauren Raymer 94) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 20:12:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Let's end the Mandela debate Message-ID: <200302040112.h141CZv02351@apollo.capital.edu> I do not usually engage in any commentary on edebate, but I found myself so disgusted by the treatment of this topic that I now feel compelled to. So far, every single person that has engaged in this debate has done so without really knowing anything about Nelson Mandela, or the conditions in South Africa. Let me educate you. I spent last summer in the Republic of South Africa doing research and peace building with my university. It was an experience I will never forget. I saw Mandela's cell that some of you so eagerly want to throw him back in, and I saw the children that he helped to liberate through his leadership. To make the argument that this man is racist is not only absurd, it is an insult to his cause, and an insult to those struggling for freedom everywhere. When preschoolers in Langa sing "Nkosi Sikelele Afrika", a formerly banned freedom song of apartheid, they do so because they can. Because they are no longer quieted by the oppression so many faced just a few years ago. If you want to know actual facts about Madiba, as South Africans call him, or about the country, feel free to backchannel me. I even have a web site you can check out if you're really curious. Otherwise, keep the debate focused on Iraq, NMD, or whatever. It's unfair to treat a man that deserves this much respect as just another plaything in your rhetorical games. Thank You. -Lauren Raymer From newchyld Mon Feb 3 20:03:16 2003 From: newchyld (Charles Simpkins) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 18:03:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] New World Order - Rochester or others In-Reply-To: <7C7E990CEED54A499C1A2A3DF7D362E70CB5C659@exmailml02> Message-ID: <20030204020316.76902.qmail@web14903.mail.yahoo.com> Hey: Could anyone backchanneling Sullivan with the Nayar sites for NWO be so kind as to backchannel myself with them as well? Also, the sites for the heteronormative intersectionality would be nice also. Thanks a lot, Claudio Simpkins CUNY Debate __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From scottelliott Mon Feb 3 20:09:27 2003 From: scottelliott (Scott M. Elliott) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 20:09:27 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Another Reason--the REAl Reason to invade Iraq Message-ID: <000b01c2cbf2$7222c280$e6995a42@grandecom.net> Here's the REAL reason were are invading Iraq--makes the cheap oil conspiracy look passe'. >From Pravda(better than the Sac. Bee): Scott Pravda.RU:Top Stories:More in detail 13:47 2003-01-31 Is Hussein Owner of Crashed UFO? "An UFO-related incident that occurred four years ago poses a troubling question whether any kind of cooperation is possible between Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and extraterrestrials," UFOlogist Joseph Trainor declared in his review UFO Roundup (issue 51 of December 17, 2002). "On December 16, 1998, during Operation Desert Fox against Iraq, a video clip aired on CNN showed a UFO hovering over Baghdad; it moved away to avoid a stream of tracer anti-aircraft fire. At that time we all thought it was another UFO sighting, although captured on videotape. But now, ufologists think it was much more than a mere incident." Jack Sarfatti reported that Friday evening, December 6, 2002 "someone called the Art Bell radio show, claimed his connection with the military and informed that a UFO crashed in Iraq several years ago. The USA is currently searching for any pretext to invade Iraq. In fact, the USA is motivated by the greatest fear that Saddam will reverse-engineer the crashed alien spacecraft." It is allegedly said that the craft crashed during the Gulf War (1990-1991), or more recently (probably in December 1998). This became some kind of Iraq's Rosewell. The USA is currently reverse-engineering the Rosewell craft and fears that Saddam's scientists may become even more successful than Americans in this or that sphere. It was said that these researches may give Iraq a considerable advance and even make it a leading super power. UFO Roungup's Arab journalists failed either to confirm or to deny these rumors. Aiasha al-Hatabi replied to Joseph Trainor that "he heard nothing about a UFO crash in Iraq." In the words of Mohammed Daud al-Hayyat, "there are talks about extraterrestrials in Iraq, but nothing is said about any crash. It is rumored at a market in Sulaimaniya, to the south of Zarzi, that aliens are Saddam's guests. Where do they stay then? People mention some underground base. But Saddam has a palace in this valley, an old stronghold Qalaat-e-Julundi. Earlier it belonged to the royal family. After the revolution, the government took possession of the fortress, and now, like every palace in Iraq it is "a summer residence" of Saddam Hussein. The fortress is mentioned here for a very simple reason: it is practically impossible to penetrate into it. The citadel stands on a hill surrounded with vertical precipices on three sides; the precipices plunge down to the Little Zab river. It is said that Saddam lets aliens stay there." Mohammed Hajj al-Amdar said on the basis of strange stories coming out of that valley: "Saddam gave the aliens sanctuary, so that they couldn't be captured by Americans. Nobody can reach the citadel Qalaat-e-Julundi at night. They say that the aliens created "watchdogs" for Saddam. The aliens took ordinary desert scorpions and used their bio-engineering to grow the scorpions to giant size. Scorpions of a cow-size! They are wonderful watchdogs: they blend in with the desert, swiftly and silently move on their warm-blooded prey for a decisive attack. Luckless intruders hear just some strange sound from behind stones, then a pincer crushes their necks, another pincer crushes their legs; then the victims is slammed to the ground and beaten with a barbed tail six or seven times. Death comes almost immediately." Joseph Trainor came to a conclusion that something strange is actually happening in the valley of the Little Zab river, but it is not clear what exactly. It is not ruled out that Saddam intentionally spreads these rumors so that to scare people away from some important military object located in the old fortress of Qalaat-e-Julundi. Nevertheless, it is not the only information about a UFO crash in that area. Many years ago, on June 20, 1993, an information was published on FIDOnet's MUFONET BBS NETWORK, it was a letter of some Steve from Britain. He openly warned: "The following information was published in Amateur Radio Packet BBS on June 13 by some short-wave transmitter for spreading all over the world. I know nothing about the man who published the information, I also cannot say whether his information is true. The man reported that some aircraft was found after it was brought down by F-16 over Saudi Arabia during raids in Baghdad." The information itself said: "A high-ranking source admitted that US Air Force's F-16 brought down a UFO over Saudi Arabia during the Operation Desert Storm, and five countries are trying to conceal information about this fact. I don't know details, but it was some plane unknown to me. Saudis who were with me at that moment, were scared so much that they asked American, British and French investigators to come to the crash site immediately." Colonel Petrokov said that at that moment he was on a visit to Er Riyadh, where together with a Russian group he managed to examine the crashed aircraft before American troops participating in Desert Storm came to the crash site. He said: "The aircraft was round and made of some material that I never saw myself. About one third of the craft was torn out by blasts of American missiles. Saudis didn't let us touch anything, but we managed to see appliances, mechanisms and other things that bewildered us absolutely." Inscriptions on the control panel and on the scales were in some unknown language. "It was a relatively small craft, of approximately 15 feet in diameter. It had three chairs, probably for crew members, but they were so small as if meant for children. To all appearance, space aliens were just about three feet tall. However, it seems incredible that there were no dead bodies at the crash site; what is more, nothing that might look like an engine was found there as well. Probably American missiles hit the engine immediately and destroyed it. Later, operators of Saudi radar stations told me that no ejection or falling of some subjects out of the craft was registered. Searching helicopters surveyed the desert, but the pilots failed to find any surviving crew member close to the crash site. At the radar station Petrokov learnt that the target identified as a UFO emerged "from nowhere" when four F-16 headed for Baghdad. One of the American planes broke the line and directed toward the UFO. The alien craft started moving south-west, away from the American plane, and the latter pursued it. When the F-16 was three miles away from the object, the craft fired at it but missed. Then the American plane fired a missile at the UFO. A horrifying sound followed and the spacecraft dropped on the ground. Petrokov says that when American investigators came to the crash site, he and his people were ordered to leave the area for Er Riyadh. The colonel says, it is highly likely that Americans didn't want others see some other things that were in the crash site in addition to the round shape of the craft made of some unknown material and the fact that no aliens survived after the crash. In Petrokov's words, people from his team managed to take pictures of the site, and neither Saudis nor Americans noticed it. But the next day the team was ordered to bring the pictures to Russian authorities. "American military engineers gathered all wreckage and removed them for further study in the USA." This story seems to be absolutely unlikely. As we see, the source of the information is just a Russian colonel, some Petrokov. If no additional information follows in connection with the case, it may be still considered just doubtful anonymous rumors. Based on materials of UFO navigator Translated by Maria Gousseva Read the original in Russian: http://science.pravda.ru/science/2003/6/79/304/6375_ufologia.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/65be12fb/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/65be12fb/attachment.gif From tshuman Mon Feb 3 20:16:49 2003 From: tshuman (Terrance Shuman) Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 20:16:49 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Let's end the Mandela debate: ans Raymer In-Reply-To: <200302040112.h141CZv02351@apollo.capital.edu> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030203195856.00a27360@mail.magiccablepc.com> At 08:12 PM 2/3/2003 -0500, Lauren Raymer wrote: >To make the argument that this man is racist is not only absurd, it is an >insult to his cause, and an insult to those struggling for freedom everywhere. Not quite. What IS an insult to his cause and to those struggling for freedom everywhere is his ridiculous, baseless claim that President Bush rejects Kofi Annan's "leadership" on Iraq because Annan is black. But then, Mandela's record when it comes to distinguishing the decent folks from their opposites is not inspiring: "Mandela had a great opportunity to lead a democratic revolution in Africa, but he never even gave voice to cries for for freedom for all Africans. Indeed, he lavished grotesque praise on many of the world's dictators, from Castro to Khadaffi, and repeatedly failed to intervene decisively at major potential turning points in countries like Zaire and Zimbabwe. Even now, an elderly retiree, he cannot bring himself to demand the removal of the mad tyrant Robert Mugabe, and he continues to genuflect before the dictators who supported the ANC in the bad old days." (Michael Ledeen, 2/03/03) >It's unfair to treat a man that deserves this much respect as just another >plaything in your rhetorical games. While I do not share the apparent desire of some on this list to send Mandela back to prison (a cruel remark, even said in jest), I do not feel he merits a free pass to say whatever he likes merely because he is beloved in his own country. So long as the press reports his dotty opinions, he is fair game, as is any other public figure... Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and...well, not so tall as I used to be, Terrance Shuman Bishop LeBlond Memorial High School St. Joseph, Missouri From ewarner Mon Feb 3 20:40:16 2003 From: ewarner (Ede Warner) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 21:40:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Superbowl Results Message-ID: <001601c2cbf6$c0dd7f10$31a9d6d1@EDE> Thanks to all that allowed us to experiment with format and schedule. We enjoyed it! Open: NFC East Division Winner: West Ga (Thomas/Barnstein) Rams NFC South Division Winner: Ga State (Mathis/Sherman) Bucanneers NFC Wildcards: Georgia (Carr/Kelley) Falcolns; Emory (Levkowitz/Traister) Eagles AFC West Division Winner: Emory (Ghali/Wholmer) Jets AFC North Division Winner: Emory (Foster/Stabile) Ravens AFC Wildcards: West Ga (Cole/Hadley) Colts Wildcard Playoff round: NFC: Falcons over Rams; Eagles over Buc's AFC: Jets advance; Ravens over Colts Division Championship: NFC: Eagles over Falcons AFC: Jets walk over Ravens Superbowl not played: Co champions Eagles and Jets Junior Varsity: AFC Champion: Emory Browns (Tarter/Murphy) NFC Champion: Louisville Bears (Bernert/King) Superbowl: Browns over Bears Novice: AFC Champion: Louisville Bengals (Harris/Floyd) NFC Champion: Miami Panthers (Yelder/Guzman) Superbowl: Panthers over Bengals Speaker awards Novice Jennifer Harris, UofL, 1st Novice Crystal Foster, Miami, 2nd Novice Ebony Floyd, UofL, 3rd Novice Junior Varsity Loren Bernert, UofL, 1st JV King, Ga State, 2nd JV Courtney King, UofL, 3rd speaker Junior Varsity Gabe Coyle, Georgia State, Junior, 4th speaker George Mencia, Miami, 5th speaker Junior Varsity Open Casey Wholmer, Emory, 1st Open Nermin Ghali, Emory, 2nd Open Jenard Sherman, Ga State, 3rd Open James Thomas, West Georgia, Open, 4th Speaker Adrienne Carr, Georgia, Open, 5th Speaker Elizabeth Thatcher, Mercer, 6th Open Patricia Kelley, Georgia, 7th Open Hays Watson, Georgia, Open, 8th Speaker Ede Warner, Jr, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Communication/Director of Debate University of Louisville Phone: 502-852-6976 fax: 502-852-8166 UofL Debate Society Webpage: http://comm.louisville.edu/~debate/ "I've told how debating was a weekly event there, at the Norfolk prison colony. My reading had my mind like steam under pressure..Once my feet got wet, I was gone on debating." --Malcolm X, Autobiography of Malcolm X, 1964 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/6f26eadc/attachment.htm From fem2n Mon Feb 3 22:03:41 2003 From: fem2n (Max Archer) Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 20:03:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Scott Pierson or Isaac Allen - SMS Message-ID: <20030204040341.25969.qmail@web11504.mail.yahoo.com> could either or both of you two gentlemen please backchannel me? Max Archer UNT Without empty mind--without mindfulness--we are attached to our ideas, our thoughts, our mental constructions; and we take these productions to be reality itself. Many of our concepts are so deeply ingrained in our minds, in our education, and in our culture, that we forget that they completely condition our perceptions of reality. In attachment to these mental productions, we are chained in the cave, observing merely the shadows of appearance on the wall before us. Awareness is a breaking of the chains of conditioned thought and a viewing of the reality beyond the shadows. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030203/b19879eb/attachment.html From rs001j Tue Feb 4 02:01:19 2003 From: rs001j (Rajen S. Subramanian) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 03:01:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NYU FS Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030204025542.02e763b0@mail.rochester.edu> Hey Jen and Kristin, I was looking for the cites to your "Rejecting heterosexism will solve for queer oppression" and "Solving for queer oppression will solve for all other forms of oppression" (the last two cards you read against us on the conflation kritik). I was wondering if y'all could backchannel me these cites. Thanks in advance. Rajen Rochester Debate "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams! Live the life you've imagined. As you simplify your life, the laws of the universe will be simpler." ---Henry David Thoreau From GatorDebate Tue Feb 4 09:01:12 2003 From: GatorDebate (GatorDebate at aol.com) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 10:01:12 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] SE/SEC CEDA - District 6 Tournament entry update Message-ID: <4E46591A.25C0B5FC.37F60172@aol.com> Florida, Mercer, MTSU, Georgia and Samford so far. 9 Open teams (7 NDT eligible) 2 JV teams 2 Novice teams frank From lisakanak Tue Feb 4 09:15:05 2003 From: lisakanak (Lisa Kanak) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 10:15:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] FW: Looking for help -- various things Message-ID: First, let me once again say ?hello? to my former colleagues. As a re-cap, my maiden name is Lisa Lundquist. I am a former debater from Liberty University, and a former volunteer, assistant coach from the U.S. Naval Academy. I am again coaching home school debate ? despite the fact that I spend most of my time with a preschooler and a 1 year old. Theory debates are raging in the home school community ? and fortunately, or unfortunately, depending upon your point of view ? the only theories that seem to be found are the more, shall I say, ?modern? theories of the past 10-15 years. I am attempting to bring some competing viewpoints into this debate, but since I don?t have my own personal debate theory backfiles ? I am in need of assistance finding these articles (I may be able to task a couple of debaters with locating journals at MWC). Second, I am looking for a debate text series ? I believe it used to be published by NTC. There were three hard-cover books ? something like: Basic Debate (which was extremely basic), Intermediate Debate (which was a little more useful), and Advanced Debate (which focused primarily on debate theory). Lastly, for those of you who are program directors, let me ask: 1) How likely are you to bring home school debaters into your programs? 2) How important is actual debate experience with theory, rather than an understanding of it ? to the selection of your team members? 3) How important is speed ? to the selection of your team members? 4) How likely are home school debaters to receive scholarships during their first year of college debate. Lastly, The home school tournament is seeking an East Coast home for the 2003-2004 tournament (I?d love to have it at LU, of course :-)), and homes for future tournaments in both the central and western parts of the country. Anyone on the East Coast interested (the tournament includes: CX, L-D and I.E.?s I look forward to hearing from you. You can back channel me at lisakanak at adelphia.net Lisa Kanak 12 Debbie Drive Fredericksburg, VA 22406 540-752-1935 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030204/4d28d523/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 5665 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030204/4d28d523/attachment.obj From lsd041 Tue Feb 4 09:42:53 2003 From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 09:42:53 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] LAST CALL for NORTHWESTERN TOURNEY Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030204092944.00aef4c0@lulu.it.northwestern.edu> If you have not entered and would like to do so, please respond to this message asap. The entry deadline was last Friday at Noon. Several people who did not read the URL post carefully have begged and pleaded with me over the last four days. I have entered them, primarily because we got the URL out later than we originally promised. However, we are now reaching the point of no return: The tournament is larger than any Owen L. Coon in history, classrooms are at a premium, and at present we have no extra rooms for rounds 1 and 2. In addition, we need to finalize the judge pool asap so that a preference sheet can be made available. I will start saying no at noon today. Let me also remind you that the DROP DEADLINE is Wednesday, February 5 (tomorrow) at Noon CST. If you drop between now and the drop deadline, there is no fee. However, if you drop after the announced deadline, there is a $40 per person drop fee. That's not because we hate you. It's because I must provide final counts to our various food providers at that time. Once I give them a final guarantee, our contracts oblige us to pay, your presence notwithstanding. Should you need to DROP a person or team, please do so by accessing your account on the web page, just as you entered. The URL is www.debatetournament.com/northwestern2003. Please ALSO CONFIRM your drop or change by sending e-mail to me, lsd041 at northwestern.edu or nudebate at northwestern.edu. The tournament will be paired on the basis of what is in the database, and that is established only by your entry on the web page and your subsequent editing of it. Finally, let me urge you to read past posts that you may have ignored, especially coaches. In addition to the invitation, two other posts have come previous to this: one announcing the URL for entry and one providing overflow hotel information. The one with the URL included a number of other announcements that may impact your visit. The invitation, which is available on the web page, contains a number of announcements about changes in the tournament as compared to past years. I encourage you to visit it and the edebate posts. Look for at least two additional posts: one from Gary Larson announcing the availability of the preference sheets, and one from me regarding a number of tournament logistics. We look forward to your visit. See you soon. Best. SD Scott Deatherage Director of Debate Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois From Catherine.Palczewski Tue Feb 4 10:38:18 2003 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 10:38:18 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Eligibility reminder #3 (only 2 more) Message-ID: <3E3FEC7A.4F66338C@uni.edu> Eligibility letters are Due February 8. If you have sent a letter, and want to confirm receipt, please go to: http://www.uni.edu/palczews/eligibility.htm I will post the names of all eligibility forms received at that location, and update it as new forms are received. I figured that would be nicer than cluttering edebate with confirmations. Also, some of you have asked about faxes. I will accept faxes as meeting the deadline. However, faxes SHOULD be followed by official copies via snailmail. My fax is: (319) 273-7356 My original message is below. Cate Greetings anyone planning on attending the NDT, According to the Standing Rules of the NDT, Rule II A 1 g: To be an eligible debater for the National Debate Tournament, a student must provide, by February 8th to he NDT committee chair, an official document from appropriate university officials verifying that he/she is registered as an undergraduate student and is in good standing at the school, for which he/she is participating, as of February 1st immediately preceding the NDT in which he/she wishes to participate. The Chair of the NDT Committee shall promptly notify the applying program director of any application which does not meet the above criteria. The program director may then appeal the eligibility of the debaters by contacting, and submitting all relevant documentation to, the NDT Committee Chair not later than one week from the date of notification. The appeal will then be forwarded to the Appeals Committee. The Appeals Committee may conduct the appeal by means of telephone calls, email or conference calls. The Appeals Committee may grant an exemption when the student's school provides written documentation explaining why a student may be officially enrolled but may not be in good standing, for example, if the university/college defines "in good standing" by criteria other than satisfactory academic performance. Accordingly, if you are planning on attending the NDT, please get to me, by FEBRUARY 8, 2003 an OFFICIAL DOCUMENT certifying students' eligibility to participate. If you are uncertain about whom you will be sending to the NDT, just get eligibility certification for any student who might attend. Letters should be sent to: Cate Palczewski, NDT committee chair Lang 326 University of Northern Iowa Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0139 From vrenegar Tue Feb 4 11:01:57 2003 From: vrenegar (Val Renegar) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 09:01:57 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Aztec invitational Message-ID: <001801c2cc6f$20debe60$e71abf82@gltkv> Hello there- If you are coming to the Aztec in sunny San Diego February 14-16, please do not forget to enter at: http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/DebateEntry/index.asp Also, if you have any vegans or other special requests, you can email me at vrenegar at mail.sdsu.edu Thank you much- Val -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030204/9c4916f0/attachment.htm From Catherine.Palczewski Tue Feb 4 11:17:48 2003 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 11:17:48 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Eligiblity and Northwestern Message-ID: <3E3FF5BB.B958BEAD@uni.edu> Greetings all, A number of you have emailed me about hand delivery of eligibility forms at Northwestern. The answer: I WILL be at Northwestern. I WILL accept hand delivery on or before Feb 8, 2003. The easiest way to find me: the NDT Committee meeting is during rounds 2 and 3 in Harris 108. I WILL be there. Cate NDT Committee and Eligibility Chair From richco Tue Feb 4 13:20:30 2003 From: richco (Rich) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 14:20:30 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] (no subject) Message-ID: Hey, Can someone back channel me the site for spivak. Either Marist or anyone else. Thanks, -Richard Haggwood Citi tech/NYC easy.com Sent by Mail at easy.com, an easyGroup company. From BERCHNORTO Tue Feb 4 13:51:05 2003 From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO at aol.com) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 14:51:05 EST Subject: [eDebate] WVU deadline this afternoon Message-ID: Hi, everyone! Technically, our entry deadline is in a little over an hour. I'm still waiting to hear from Towson, Rochester, Binghamton, Navy, Allegheny, Miami (OH), John Carroll, and Penn State. I'm especially anxious to get final numbers for varsity, so we can make a decision on that division (though I'm very optimistic). If you don't enter by the deadline, your entry fees double (hopefully, team has a math major who can calculate two times zero!). I really do need to finalize entries for food, strike sheets, etc. Here's the latest list: Richmond Varsity: Katie Albrecht & Grant Christensen JV: Nick Sciullo and Andrew Ryan N: Brent Sullivan and Casey Seidel Judges: Kuswa, Hanson Case Western Novice -- Shu-han Zhu/Willson Freeman JV -- Mark Tolles/Dave Beilek Judges: Ian Kimbrell and Aaron Kimbrell Catholic University Varsity: Lauren Baillie/Steve Sawyer JV: Zach Johnson/Steve Martano Novice: Carly Shoupe/Meghan O'Brien Dori Leonard/Kerri Allen Judges: Sarah Snider (Full - 6 Rounds) Rich Sampson (Full - 6 Rounds) Liberty Varsity Elisha Nix and Jeremy Samek JV Josh Autry and Justin Dewberry Andrew Burnham and David Klinedist Brian Aurelio and Jess Surratt Grace Burns and Melissa Hurter Novice Kelly Azevedo and Lindsey Hoban Jared Isham and Andrew Lindblom Matt Case and Dana Foglesong Judges Heather Hall John Ross Rebekah Tilley Michael Tilley Clarion JV: Carli Bober - Ann Godfrey Novice: Nancy Nelson - Erin Witner Kim Kelly - Rob Noerr George Mason Novice: Jeannine Mohler and Sharon Lee Judge: James Kimble Capital JV Chris Piazza/ John Swords Angie Naugle/ Mike Jones Novice Elycia Taylor/ Pam Moore Julie Barnhill/ Jen Mooney Judges Dave Miller Jeff Lohr University of Pittsburgh Varsity: Allison Hahn and Darinka Maldonado Junior Varsity Peter Cancro and Michael Hughes Judge: Eric English Mary Washington College JV Jenn Golladay and Joe Packer Adrianne Barnett and Ali Samantar Karla Rood and Rachel Kimble Novice Raya Drew and Leslie Wyatt Rebecca Sklepovich and Jennifer Rollman Judge - Chris Devault Marist Junior Varsity Matthew Gardner and Stephen Nocera Novice Owen Daly and Diedre Greely Judges: Jason West (5) Andy Ellis (1) Western Illinois Novice Mark Hlavacik/Lucas Johnson Pia Jeffries/Chris Wood Tracy Alexander/Jason Welge Judges Derek Gaffrey Karen Lewis Ilon Lauer Other estimates: Towson 4 teams Rochester 6 teams Binghamton 1 novice, 1 jv Others reporting they will attend or reserving rooms at hotel: John Carroll Miami (OH) Navy Allegheny Penn State? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030204/04236391/attachment.html From mmk_savant Tue Feb 4 16:12:59 2003 From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 17:12:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ans Heidt Message-ID: finally a few minutes free. good to hear from Stephen Heidt on the counterplans/perms/conditionality discussion, but he is pretty rusty. in order: 1. his BIG argument: "My big arg: If your interp of the Perm making the CP "go away" is accepted then ALL cps are Conditional by nature. This involves serious advocacy/fairness issues which would hopefully play out in the affirmatives favor. I say again, ALL CP's ARE CONDITIONAL under this framework of evaluation. Also, i'm suspicious of any judge who states a belief that a successfull perm AUTOMATICALLY means the CP goes away and then it's a comparison of the SQ vs. the Plan. Even if your predisposition is in that direction, it is up to the debaters to establish that fact. I was always somewhat amused when in the 2NR a debater would concede a perm, say "that makes the CP go away", and then go for a DA against the case without any prior notice/discussion. I'm not saying anyone in this discussion would fall prey to this, just making an observation." the claim that my interpretation makes all counterplans conditional is just false. i am unsure what Stephen thinks does that and he doesn't explain how. i await explanation. but it is just false that a subsequent comparison between plan and competitive portions (those parts not in the perm) of the counterplan makes all (or any) counterplans conditional. and it is easy to demonstrate but i will wait on that just in case Heidt means something else entirely. i agree with the rest of his "big" argument. although i DO think that counterplans are, by their nature, conditional, i certainly agree that it should be the arguments in the debate that determine the implications of a "failed" counterplan. in particular, the argument that conditional/dispositional counterplans skew policy evaluation because the plan is never fairly compared against its opportunity cost is quite good. if the plan was compared against the status quo alone, there would be a set of arguments available to the affirmative which offered reasons to prefer the plan in comparison to the status quo. if the plan was compared against the counterplan alone, there would be a different set of arguments which offered reasons to prefer the plan in comparison to the counterplan. when both the status quo and a counterplan are in play, then the affirmative is restricted, roughly, only to the subset of arguments which offer reasons to prefer the plan in comparison to BOTH the status quo and the counterplan. the simple way to say it is the affirmative can't make arguments in support of the plan in comparison to the counterplan which make the status quo even more appealing AND can't make arguments in support of the plan in comparison to the status quo which make the counterplan even more appealing. and when either the status quo or the counterplan is kicked, the plan is left to be compared against the other, but that comparison is now made WITHOUT some (perhaps the BEST) arguments in favor of the plan in comparison to the remaining negative position. and that is an irrational policy evaluation. 2. Heidt's comments on my "one good argument" "In reference to Korcok's "one good argument" that the opportunity costs of the permutation are never truely tested, I say that's the Neg's fault and you shouldn't penalize the aff because the neg didn't make offense against the perm (i.e. more than just "it links to a da"). Back in the glory days, Fitz and I used to routinely run disadvantages to permutations, i.e. substantive offense that i can only presume tested the opportunity costs of a perm (does anyone else think Korcok's fetish with opportunity costs is a little odd?)." well, not a fetish, but i will, of course, defend the view that opportunity cost is the only and only promising way to ground counterplans as policy evaluation. and JP presented the same insight that maybe it is the negative's fault that the opportunity cost of the permutation is never presented. i have no idea why the negative would do that, especially when the block would BEGIN to treat the permutation as a/the policy to be evaluated in the debate rather than treating the plan as such. especially since the affirmative in the 2ac has presumably NOT presented the opportunity cost of the counterplan as a reason to reject the counterplan as a/the policy to be evaluated in a debate round. i just doubt that the affirmative could marshal a compelling argument for this perspective. and the negative would be on the right side of this debate i think: "HEY!!! plan was presented in the 1ac. we thought that would be the policy to be evaluated in this debate rather than OUR negative plan in the 1nc. we played in good faith and presented the opportunity cost of plan - hell, we would MUCH rather have advocated a policy that didn't have to compete with the 1ac. NOW, the aff tries to argue 'no, we changed our minds, we'd rather this OTHER POLICY serve as the policy to be evaluated?' bullshit." finally here, running a disad to the perm is NOT presenting the opportunity cost of the perm. the opportunity cost of an action is the best action which would have to be foregone if the original action was undertaken. disads are more productively thought of as reasons to prefer one action in comparison to another. so those disads to the perm that Fitz and Heidt used to run were what? reasons to prefer the counterplan to the perm of course but THAT doesn't present the opportunity cost of the perm, it only defends the counterplan as the opportunity cost of the PLAN. think of it this way: if the affirmative had presented the perm in their 1ac (assuming no T problems) then the negative could have presented a counterplan to THAT policy as its opportunity cost and there is no reason to think that the best counterplan against the perm would ALSO be the same counterplan presented as the opportunity cost of plan. yet another way to see the point of the above argument is to consider the logic of Fitzmeier and Heidt's disads to the perm. if they won those disads, what conclusions could be drawn? could we conclude that the counterplan SHOULD be adopted? and of course the answer is no. for exactly the reason above: the counterplan's opportunity cost was never presented in the debate so we can't conclude that it should or shouldn't be adopted. what we can conclude is that the counterplan is better than that particular permutation and if that is the only perm or if all the other perms lose too, then we conclude that the counterplan DOES compete and is better than the plan and that the plan should NOT be adopted. and that's all we could conclude. see it yet? 3a. Stephen's argument that wording matters "In reference to Veronica's arg/Korcok's reference of that arg, I think there's a difference between theory and practice. Negatives don't say "our CP tests the qualities of the plan", they say "the CP solves the case and avoids the DAs making it a better policy option". It's advocacy and that advocacy directly mimics the Aff method of presentation. Affs predicate their strategies based on the word choices and argument choices of the negatives. That's why they say things like "no, the best policy option is the permutation b/c it solves best and avoids the Disad". Also, this still links to my big arg, that ALL CP's WOULD BE CONDITIONAL." hmmm... this argument is interesting but i don't think it gets Heidt anything in the end. i am not sure how he understands the term "advocacy" but i don't really care. my argument is that the affirmative plan is the only policy that is appropriately evaluated in a debate. and that is the argument repeated and elaborated on in #2 above. to see how fruitless Heidt's above argument ultimately is, consider: should the negative automatically lose the conditionality debate because they say the counterplan is a "better policy option"? i sure don't think so. i think that's sloppy-talk shorthand for "the plan isn't as good as it's opportunity cost". at most, it shows the negative hasn't thought-through counterplan theory very well. Heidt's overall argument is the equivalent of 2ac pointing out that the 1nc said "vote aff" at the end of their speech so "IT'S GAME OVER!!!" 3b. Heidt's really really bad last argument "Last, I'm not sure if Korcok's rational test of opportunity costs explanation makes any sense. It doesn't seem like the aff ever demonstrates that the plan "should be undertaken if and only if it is better than the best course of action which will have to be foregone if that course of action is undertaken." That seems like an impossible thing to demonstrate and it seems to non-competitive CPs that we used to call "Counterwarrants". For example, the plan costs 100 million and saves 100 lives. Under Korcok's opportunity costs framework, neg's could just get up and say "we could spend that 100 million on asteroid mapping and potentially save 5 billion lives". Aff would just say "Perm" or "No link", but it seems like the Neg would still win in front of Korcok because they've demonstrated that that money could be better spent elsewhere. But what do you expect from the Father of Plan-Plan (sorry, cheap shot - i had to)." yeesh. unh... Stephen forgot the part of the definition of opportunity cost that said "will HAVE to be foregone." you know, the part that says there is FORCED CHOICE between plan and counterplan, the COMPETITION. so "do both" beats the counterplan. after all, the fundamental test is NOT an action "should be undertaken if and only if it is better than the best course of action which COULD be done" because that doesn't capture any interesting concept of forced choice. counterwarrants have nothing to do with anything here. and plan-plan DOES have something to do with it, but it is what debate ultimately looks like (i think) in the absence of plan-focus and opportunity cost. thanks for reading, Michael Korcok _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From Gary.N.Larson Tue Feb 4 16:32:35 2003 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary N. Larson) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 16:32:35 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern pref sheets Message-ID: <003c01c2cc9d$50d567d0$100c18ac@bl2471> Subject to some last minute verification of judges, we are about ready to go - I estimate within the hour. I will send the password to the e-mail address that you designate. Additionally, Mike is attempting to put the info on your registration page so that you will find it there. The DEADLINE for registering prefs is 2:00 PM on Friday in order for the prefs to count for Saturday's presets (which will be released Friday evening at registration). I have received from 33 schools the e-mail where I will send the password for the judge pref site. That means I haven't heard from the following: Baylor Berkeley Boston College CSU-Long Beach Claremont Clarion Concordia Cornell Emporia State Fort Hays George Mason Georgia State Idaho State Indiana Iowa Liberty Loyola (IL) Mary Washington Michigan State North Texas Pepperdine Pittsburgh Regis Samford Southern Cal UMKC UT-Dallas Wake Forest Wayne State Weber State West Georgia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030204/c54cbf58/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson Tue Feb 4 17:20:36 2003 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary N. Larson) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 17:20:36 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern Pref Sheet Message-ID: <00bc01c2cca4$0651c440$100c18ac@bl2471> I definitely want to receive ALL prefs via the online system BUT so you can print out the list of judges as a worksheet AND in the extreme circumstance that the online system fails for you, here is the e-mail version of the sheet. There are 144 judges in the pool. You must rank no fewer than 16 judges as 1, at least 32 as 2 or better, 48 as 3 or better, etc. You should mark all judges that are constrained from hearing the team as "Y" (constrained). For purposes of counting, you may consider the constrained judges to be ranked 6 or lower. If you leave a judge blank, they will be treated as a match for whatever your opponent ranks them in the debate. The deadline for completing the sheet is 2:00 PM on Friday in order for the sheet to count for the Saturday debates that will be released at registration (1-4). If you need to submit the e-mail version, remember to place your ranking immediately in front of the slash (NO SPACES). You also need to send the file as plain text rather than HTML. Having said that, I think you will find the online system will work very well for you. /3 Dybvig, Kristin - Arizona State 6+0+0 /4 McKeehan, Grant - Arizona State 6+0+0 /5 Hamilton, Heidi - Augustana 2+0+0 /6 Moore, Matt - Augustana 8+0+0 /7 Leeper, Karla - Baylor 2+0+0 /8 Coppola, Joseph - Baylor 6+0+0 /9 Arnett, Dave - Berkeley 3+0+0 /10 Macdonald, Matt - Berkeley 3+0+0 /11 Katsulas, John - Boston College 4+0+0 /12 Bauschard, Stefan - Boston Colle 4+0+0 /13 Mancuso, Steve - Catholic 4+0+0 /14 Carson, Austin - Catholic 6+0+0 /15 Kerr, Paul - Catholic 6+0+0 /16 Johnson, Kristin - Claremont 4+0+0 /17 Lyle, Jim - Clarion 4+0+0 /18 Sternhagen, Fred - Concordia 2+1+0 /19 Niska, Harry - Concordia 8+0+0 /20 O'Leary, Kevin - Concordia 2+1+1 /21 Hayman, Jethro - Cornell 4+0+0 /22 Jacobsen, Trond - Cornell 4+0+0 /23 Willis, Kris - CSU-Chico 4+0+0 /24 Martin, Josh - CSU-Chico 4+0+0 /25 Skarb, Justin - CSU-Fullerton 6+0+0 /26 Symonds, Adam - CSU-Fullerton 6+0+0 /27 Nielson, Toni - CSU-Long Beach 4+0+0 /28 Ceren, Omri - Dartmouth 5+0+0 /29 Garen, Adam - Dartmouth 4+0+0 /30 McIntosh, Chris - Dartmouth 5+0+0 /31 Strange, Ken - Dartmouth 2+0+0 /32 Gerali, Stephanie - Denver 4+0+0 /33 Renken, Judd - DePaul 4+0+0 /34 Heidt, David - Emory 8+0+0 /35 Ghali, Kamal - Emory 8+0+0 /36 Goldstein, Adam - Emory 8+0+0 /37 Klemz, Aaron - Emory 8+0+0 /38 Lupo, Jon Paul - Emory 8+0+0 /39 Rains, John - Emory 6+0+0 /40 DeLaughder, Ken - Emporia State 2+0+0 /41 Maurer, Samuel - Emporia State 6+0+0 /42 Taylor, James - Emporia State 8+0+0 /43 Irizarry, Frank - Florida 4+0+0 /44 Shanahan, Bill - Fort Hays 8+0+0 /45 Angat, Jomel - George Mason 2+0+0 /46 Weiner, Timothy - George Mason 2+0+0 /47 Finch, Jay - George Washington 4+0+0 /48 Roston, Michael - George Washing 4+0+0 /49 Parcher, Jeff - Georgetown 2+0+0 /50 Gragert, Sarah - Georgetown 2+0+0 /51 Panetta, Ed - Georgia 4+0+0 /52 Holland, Shannon - Georgia 4+0+0 /53 Rufo, Ken - Georgia 4+0+0 /54 Bellon, Joe - Georgia State 2+0+0 /55 Frappier, Glen - Gonzaga 2+0+0 /56 Russell, Jason - Gonzaga 6+0+0 /57 Sullivan, John - Harvard 6+0+0 /58 Choi, Eun Young - Harvard 6+0+0 /59 Hall, Sherry - Harvard 6+0+0 /60 McCollum, Peter - Harvard 6+0+0 /61 Perkins, Dallas - Harvard 2+0+0 /62 Hatziavramidis, Katie - Hired 8+0+0 /63 Mahoney, Tim - Hired 5+0+0 /64 Partlow, Sarah - Idaho State 1+0+0 /65 Peterson, Andy - Iowa 8+0+0 /66 Varda, Scott - Iowa 2+0+0 /67 Wiese, Danielle - Iowa 3+0+0 /68 Bsumek, Pete - James Madison 4+0+4 /69 Jenkins, Eric - James Madison 4+0+4 /70 Morris, Eric - Kansas 4+0+0 /71 Thompson, Jacob - Kansas 4+0+0 /72 Arbenz, Casey - Kansas State 2+0+0 /73 West, Isaac - Kansas State 2+0+0 /74 Hubbard, Russ - Kentucky 6+0+0 /75 Woodbury, Charles - Kentucky 2+0+2 /76 Gall, Laura - Liberty 8+0+0 /77 Romanelli, David - Loyola (IL) 8+0+0 /78 Cram Helwich, David - Macalester 4+0+0 /79 Woodward, Natalie - Macalester 4+0+4 /80 O'Donnell, Tim - Mary Washington 2+0+0 /81 Truett, Eric - Mary Washington 4+0+0 /82 Tews, Richard - Miami 8+0+0 /83 Hoe, Josh - Michigan 2+0+0 /84 Kall, Aaron - Michigan 6+0+0 /85 Wiley, Liz - Michigan State 8+0+0 /86 Eber, Alison - Michigan State 5+0+0 /87 Lukasik, Dennis - Michigan State 6+0+0 /88 Repko, Will - Michigan State 5+0+0 /89 Petit, Lou - Missouri 4+0+4 /90 Keenan, Victoria - New York 3+0+1 /91 Baker, Will - New York 1+0+3 /92 Green, Justin - North Texas 4+0+0 /93 Palczewski, Cate - Northern Iowa 4+0+0 /94 Fitzmier, Dan - Northwestern 0+0+0 /95 Mueller, Leslie - Northwestern 2+0+0 /96 Paul, Jonathan - Northwestern 4+0+0 /97 Saloom, Rachel - Northwestern 8+0+0 /98 Smith, Nate - Northwestern 0+0+0 /99 Brovero, Adrienne - Northwestern 0+0+0 /100 Deatherage, Scott - Northwestern 0+0+0 /101 Fletcher, Brandon - Northwestern 2+0+0 /102 Kastenak, Annie - Northwestern 8+0+0 /103 Lundberg, Chris - Northwestern 4+0+0 /104 McBride, Brian - Northwestern 0+0+0 /105 Achten, Greg - Pepperdine 2+0+0 /106 Robertson, Kylie - Pepperdine 8+0+0 /107 Congdon, Kelly - Pittsburgh 6+0+0 /108 Mitchell, Gordon - Pittsburgh 2+0+0 /109 Cummings, Kevin - Regis 4+0+0 /110 Hausrath, Bary - Richmond 4+0+0 /111 Lee, Adam - Rochester 8+0+0 /112 Janas, Michael - Samford 4+0+0 /113 Stables, Gordon - Southern Cal 2+0+0 /114 Damus, David - Southern Cal 4+0+0 /115 Peterson, Jason - Southern Cal 3+0+0 /116 Sharpe, Jon - Southern Cal 3+0+0 /117 Bittner, Brian - Southern Illino 3+0+0 /118 Graham, Todd - Southern Illinois 2+0+0 /119 Walts, Chuck - Southern Illinois 3+0+0 /120 Walters, Heather - Southwest Mis 4+0+0 /121 Rollins, Joel - Texas 4+0+0 /122 Breshears, David - Texas 4+0+0 /123 Evans, Kirk - Texas 4+0+0 /124 Grove, Jairus - Texas 7+0+0 /125 McCartney, Jonathan - Texas 8+0+0 /126 Nathan, Laura - Texas 4+0+0 /127 Baisley, Matt - UMKC 6+0+0 /128 Stevens, Monte - UMKC 6+0+0 /129 Burk, Christopher - UT-Dallas 4+1+1 /130 Smith, Ross - Wake Forest 2+0+0 /131 Atchison, Jarrod - Wake Forest 5+0+0 /132 Kelly, Casey - Wake Forest 4+0+0 /133 Lacy, J.P. - Wake Forest 4+0+0 /134 McCauliff, Kristen - Wake Forest 5+0+0 /135 Stevenson, Ron - Wayne State 3+0+0 /136 Dutcher, Jim - Wayne State 3+0+0 /137 Sovacool, Ben - Wayne State 3+0+0 /138 Young, Kelly - Wayne State 3+0+0 /139 Mueller, Eric - Weber State 8+0+0 /140 Davis, Daniel - West Georgia 4+0+1 /141 Holbrook, Sarah - West Georgia 4+0+1 /142 Simmonds, Brian - Whitman 8+0+0 /143 Jarman, Jeff - Wichita State 4+0+0 /144 Kenyon, Chris - Wichita State 4+0+2 /145 Stone, Sarah - Wyoming 4+0+4 /146 Stannard, Matt - Wyoming 4+0+0 From rjgree01 Tue Feb 4 18:39:30 2003 From: rjgree01 (R.J. Green) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 19:39:30 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Superbowl of Debate Photos are Online In-Reply-To: <001601c2cbf6$c0dd7f10$31a9d6d1@EDE> Message-ID: <000001c2ccaf$0bf69e10$6b54a588@reslllxpcqb81x> Hello For those who may be interested in such things, results and photos from this year's Superbowl of Debate are posted at the following URL: http://www.comm.louisville.edu/~debate/bowl03/bowlindex.html Regards, R.J. Green UofL Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030204/84cd4c1d/attachment.html From SSbauschard2 Tue Feb 4 20:19:13 2003 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 21:19:13 EST Subject: [eDebate] Caselist info/judge phil update Message-ID: <3a.33de9c22.2b71cea1@aol.com> Hi everyone, All the caselist info from the original P-Debate postings, the versions of the Wake caselist, the Dart RR,a nd a few other things are all now available at Planet Debate for easy download. You do need to log in as a member (free) to access the material. If you forgot your p-word, please click on "forgot pw" and it will be sent to you. Also, if you are judging during the rest of the year, esp. at NW, please add your judge philosophy. There arer presently 598 judge philosophies on Planet Debate, 198 for college. To do so, enter it when you register as a member or simply click on "My Account" and then "Edit Profile" after you have already logged in if you are already a member. See everyone in Chicago, Stefan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030204/26f78c36/attachment.htm From rlake Tue Feb 4 20:27:07 2003 From: rlake (randy lake) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 18:27:07 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Japan Tour 2003 Message-ID: <142f8e1142dffb.142dffb142f8e1@usc.edu> The Committee for International Discussion and Debate (CIDD) of the National Communication Association (NCA) announces tryouts for The Biennial Debate Tour of Japan Approximate tour dates: mid-June to early July, 2003 Tryout information: Where: Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ (in conjunction with the CEDA National Tournament) When: Thursday, March 20, 2003 (all day) Who is eligible: Any past or present forensic participant who is a full time undergraduate in good standing, or who has received an undergraduate degree but is no older than 25; upperclasspersons and recent graduates are preferred. We encourage applications from students active in all forms of forensics, including Lincoln-Douglas debate, team policy debate, parliamentary debate, and individual events. Students will be evaluated on the basis of their debating skills and their ability to teach debate basics; their knowledge of political, social and cultural conditions in Japan and the world; and their ability to represent the United States and American forensics effectively and professionally. How to apply: If you are interested in trying out for the tour, send 1) a letter of interest, explaining your suitability for the tour; 2) college transcripts (official records strongly preferred); 3) at least two letters of recommendation; 4) a resume; and 5) contact information, especially an email address Send application to: Dr. Marilyn Young Department of Communication - 1531 Florida State University Tallahassee, FL 32306 Fax: (850) 644-8642 Deadline: Applications must be received by Wednesday, February 26, 2003. Only completed applications will be considered. Finalists will be selected from the applicant pool and invited to attend the tryouts in Tempe. Finalists will be notified as soon as possible after February 26, and will receive an information packet describing the interview format, interview times, lodging information, and so on. Transportation and lodging are the responsibility of the applicant; meals will be provided. Two finalists will be chosen to represent the United States on an all-expense-paid tour. If you have questions, please feel free to contact Dr. Young via email at myoung at garnet.acns.fsu.edu or via telephone at (850) 644-8757. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Japan 03.19011DEFANGED-rtf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 7220 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030204/64652815/attachment.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: rlake.19011DEFANGED-vcf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 320 bytes Desc: Card for randy lake Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030204/64652815/attachment-0001.obj From bratt Tue Feb 4 21:11:57 2003 From: bratt (Ron Bratt) Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2003 22:11:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ndt 2004, ceda 2004 References: <003901c2cbae$10a2d4d0$24a11a9c@gatewaycompute> Message-ID: <011401c2ccc4$579a9500$61343744@howard01.md.comcast.net> NDT 2004 - April 1 to April 5, 2004. Catholic University, Washington, D.C. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey Jarman" To: ; Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 12:59 PM Subject: RE: [eDebate] ndt 2004, ceda 2004 > CEDA Nationals 2004 > > Location: Univ of Louisville > Dates: March 19 - 22 > > Jeff > > > -----Original Message----- > From: edebate-admin at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-admin at ndtceda.com] On > Behalf Of Jim Hanson > Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 11:50 AM > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] ndt 2004, ceda 2004 > > what are the dates for ndt 2004 and ceda 2004? > > locations would be cool too. > > jim hanson :) > hansonjb at whitman.edu > > _______________________________________________ > 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 voteforme2024 Tue Feb 4 21:56:18 2003 From: voteforme2024 (Ruben Alonzo) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 03:56:18 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Russia and the ICC Message-ID: I'm looking for any positions that include Russia and the ICC. If you could back chanel me any info, it would be great. Thanks in advance. -Ruben _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From kirk Tue Feb 4 22:10:11 2003 From: kirk (Kirk Knutsen) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 20:10:11 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] (no subject) Message-ID: <000001c2cccc$7e2e8d90$0202a8c0@themeadowsschool.org> The following position has been approved for funding at The Meadows School (Las Vegas, NV) beginning in the Fall of 2003. This is a great opportunity to teach and coach debate full-time (there are no other instructional responsibilities) for a program that is committed to developping a strong national circuit program. The travel budget covers all student expenses, so there's no supplemental fundraising. The position description can be found below, and is also attached as a Word document. Please feel free to circulate this announcement far and wide. If someone would also post this to the CX-L, I would be most appreciative. Kirk L. Knutsen Director of Speech & Debate The Meadows School 8601 Scholar Lane Las Vegas, NV 89128 knutsen at tmsdebate.org http://www.tmsdebate.org 702-254-1610 High School Forensics Instructor/Coach Job Description Features of the Program: The Meadows School is a private K-12 college preparatory day school located in Las Vegas, NV. The Meadows School sponsors a three year old national circuit debate program with strong institutional support, an outstanding travel budget, and administrative support for additional growth in the future. With this hire, the staff will comprise two full-time debate instructors/coaches and one half-time assistant coach. The program currently has approximately 50 students, including 15 policy debate teams. General Responsibilities: This Upper School forensics teacher will instruct students in five year-long honors debate/forensics classes. The current list of anticipated courses include: Introduction to Debate, Argumentation, and Forensics; Intermediate/Advanced Policy Debate; and Intermediate/Advanced Lincoln-Douglas Debate. Areas of Responsibility: . In conjunction with the Director of Forensics, develops both long and short-term plans to organize the curriculum for instruction. . In conjunction with the Director of Forensics, develops both long and short-term plans for the competitive direction of the forensics team. . In conjunction with the rest of the coaching staff, must be available to conduct regular after school practices. . In conjunction with the team and the coaching staff, must contribute to the squad's overall research activities. . Must be capable and available to travel extensively and coach the forensics team at local, regional, and national tournaments. This responsibility includes having a strong driving record, as well as the ability to rent vehicles with national vendors. . Provides accurate and timely assessments of students' achievement. . Creates and maintains an engaging and supportive learning environment. . Serves as an academic advisor for a group of eight to ten students. . Participates in the community life of the school. Qualifications for the Position Include: . A bachelor's degree from an accredited higher education institution is required. An advanced academic degree, or enrollment in a program leading to an advanced degree is not required, but is preferred. . Demonstrated, effective coaching experience in policy debate at either the high school or collegiate level is required. Demonstrated, effective coaching experience in Lincoln-Douglas debate is strongly preferred. . References which speak to the teacher's ability to provide an engaging and challenging learning environment in which high levels of student achievement are consistently attained. . References that speak to the teacher's ability to work cooperatively and effectively within a team approach to the instruction and coaching of competitive speech and debate. Salary and Benefits: Highly competitive, commensurate with qualifications and experience. Timeline: Position will remain open until filled. To Apply: A letter of interest and resume should be forwarded to: Kirk Knutsen Director of Forensics The Meadows School 8601 Scholar Lane Las Vegas, NV 89128 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030204/86b79b7c/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 2950 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030204/86b79b7c/attachment.jpe -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: High School Debate Instructor.12255DEFANGED-doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 35840 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030204/86b79b7c/attachment.obj From kirk Tue Feb 4 22:12:58 2003 From: kirk (Kirk Knutsen) Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 20:12:58 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Coaching Position Available in Sunny Las Vegas Message-ID: <000701c2cccc$e1d2abb0$0202a8c0@themeadowsschool.org> The following position has been approved for funding at The Meadows School (Las Vegas, NV) beginning in the Fall of 2003. This is a great opportunity to teach and coach debate full-time (there are no other instructional responsibilities) for a program that is committed to developping a strong national circuit program. The travel budget covers all student expenses, so there's no supplemental fundraising. The position description can be found below, and is also attached as a Word document. Please feel free to circulate this announcement far and wide. If someone would also post this to the CX-L, I would be most appreciative. Kirk L. Knutsen Director of Speech & Debate The Meadows School 8601 Scholar Lane Las Vegas, NV 89128 knutsen at tmsdebate.org http://www.tmsdebate.org 702-254-1610 High School Forensics Instructor/Coach Job Description Features of the Program: The Meadows School is a private K-12 college preparatory day school located in Las Vegas, NV. The Meadows School sponsors a three year old national circuit debate program with strong institutional support, an outstanding travel budget, and administrative support for additional growth in the future. With this hire, the staff will comprise two full-time debate instructors/coaches and one half-time assistant coach. The program currently has approximately 50 students, including 15 policy debate teams. General Responsibilities: This Upper School forensics teacher will instruct students in five year-long honors debate/forensics classes. The current list of anticipated courses include: Introduction to Debate, Argumentation, and Forensics; Intermediate/Advanced Policy Debate; and Intermediate/Advanced Lincoln-Douglas Debate. Areas of Responsibility: . In conjunction with the Director of Forensics, develops both long and short-term plans to organize the curriculum for instruction. . In conjunction with the Director of Forensics, develops both long and short-term plans for the competitive direction of the forensics team. . In conjunction with the rest of the coaching staff, must be available to conduct regular after school practices. . In conjunction with the team and the coaching staff, must contribute to the squad's overall research activities. . Must be capable and available to travel extensively and coach the forensics team at local, regional, and national tournaments. This responsibility includes having a strong driving record, as well as the ability to rent vehicles with national vendors. . Provides accurate and timely assessments of students' achievement. . Creates and maintains an engaging and supportive learning environment. . Serves as an academic advisor for a group of eight to ten students. . Participates in the community life of the school. Qualifications for the Position Include: . A bachelor's degree from an accredited higher education institution is required. An advanced academic degree, or enrollment in a program leading to an advanced degree is not required, but is preferred. . Demonstrated, effective coaching experience in policy debate at either the high school or collegiate level is required. Demonstrated, effective coaching experience in Lincoln-Douglas debate is strongly preferred. . References which speak to the teacher's ability to provide an engaging and challenging learning environment in which high levels of student achievement are consistently attained. . References that speak to the teacher's ability to work cooperatively and effectively within a team approach to the instruction and coaching of competitive speech and debate. Salary and Benefits: Highly competitive, commensurate with qualifications and experience. Timeline: Position will remain open until filled. To Apply: A letter of interest and resume should be forwarded to: Kirk Knutsen Director of Forensics The Meadows School 8601 Scholar Lane Las Vegas, NV 89128 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030204/ad06562e/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 2950 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030204/ad06562e/attachment.jpe -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: High School Debate Instructor.13057DEFANGED-doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 35840 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030204/ad06562e/attachment.obj From vandy.debate Wed Feb 5 00:52:14 2003 From: vandy.debate (ML Sandoz) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 00:52:14 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Award Nominations Message-ID: <20030205.005219.572.5.vandy.debate@juno.com> Each year at the CEDA National Tournament, special awards are given to outstanding members of the debate community. Please consider the five awards described below and submit nominations for the deserving students, coaches, and directors you think should be honored. The deadline for all nominations is March 1, 2003. Nomination forms for each award can be found at cedadebate.org and should be returned to M. L. Sandoz at vandy.debate at juno.com (or fax to 615-343-7918). I) The Galentine Award: The annual award named in honor of Rebecca Galentine is designed to recognize an outstanding female debate coach in CEDA. Service to programs and the organization, community building and competitive success are the criteria for award selection. II) The Brownlee Award: The Brownlee Award is given each year to recognize a director/coach who has contributed significantly to CEDA in the areas of education, scholarship, and service. III) The National Public Debate Award: This award is given to the intercollegiate debate program which, over the course of the past academic year, has best advanced the values of debate in the public sphere through sponsorship of one or more public debate activities including international public debates, radio or television debates, public debates on campus or for community groups, and through general promotion of public discourse through diverse fora to promote critical examination of public issues for general audiences. IV) Academic All-American Awards: Recipients should demonstrate personal qualities that show their understanding of the role of intercollegiate debate in a liberal education. They should show evidence of success and good conduct in debate; excellence in their classroom studies as evidenced not only by GPA but also by breadth and challenge of study and show a commitment to the betterment of their community through outside activities. V) All-American Awards: Recipients should demonstrate their competitive excellence, measured qualitatively or quantitatively; evidence of their commitment to fair play in the activity; and evidence of their contribution to the success and well-being of their forensics program. Nomination Deadline: March 1, 2003 Return nominations to: M. L. Sandoz at vandy.debate at juno.com (or fax to 615-343-7918). M. L. Sandoz Director of Debate Vanderbilt University 615-322-3784 (O), 615-322-2307 (O), 615-343-7918 (F), 615-673-7340 (H) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030205/36378023/attachment.html From kloster Wed Feb 5 05:55:21 2003 From: kloster (Michael Kloster) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 03:55:21 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern Pref Sheet References: <00bc01c2cca4$0651c440$100c18ac@bl2471> Message-ID: <021501c2cd0d$76274830$4301000a@laserdev> As alluded to by Gary in a previous post, the web entry site now contains a link that will bring you to a page where you can update your judging preferences. This is an alternative way to get to the judge preference site. It does not require you to have a separate username / password. Simply log into your account at http://debatetournament.org/northwestern2003/ and click the "update judge preference link". This is an alternative to e-mailing Gary for a username / password. You may still e-mail Gary for a direct logon to the judge entry site if that is your preference. Michael Kloster From phallusjerkins Wed Feb 5 03:53:51 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 04:53:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] bush fucks over troops w forced anthrax vaccinations Message-ID: listen to this great radio program w amy goodman of democracy now...dishonourable bush's discharges...if bush were man and a real commander in chief he would volunteer to take the anthrax vaccine himself as a gesture of good faith, but he's not...this is bio-medical fascism of the body... http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20030204.html Story: "IT'S KIND OF LIKE ME PUTTING A SPINNING GUN TO MY HEAD": A SOLDIER REFUSES TO TAKE THE ANTHRAX VACCINATION AND FACES COURT MARTIAL Corporal Anthony Fusco joined the Marine Corps in 1999 with a firm desire to protect the constitution of the United States. But this past December he was ordered to take the anthrax vaccine before a six-month deployment to the Persian Gulf. Fusco refused it, citing research that the vaccine had harmful side effects. Fusco was removed from his unit and now faces a court martial and a possible year in prison. He is the only member of the 45,000-person First Marine Expeditionary Force charged with refusing the vaccine since the controversial program resumed. Randy Airola was a staff sergeant in the Air Force for over seven years. In September 1998, Airola voluntarily took the first four of six anthrax inoculations as a condition for being deployed to Qatar. When Airola suffered several adverse reactions to the vaccine, she decided not to complete the dosage. She was dishonorably discharged from the Air Force. Guests: * Corporal Anthony Fusco, faces a court martial for refusing to take the anthrax vaccine. * Randy Airola, former Air Force staff sergeant who took the first four of six anthrax vaccine shots, had adverse reactions, and refused to complete the vaccination course. She was discharged. * Dr. Meryl Nass, doctor of Internal Medicine and a biological warfare researcher. She originally supported the military's use of the anthrax vaccine during the Gulf war. She has since reversed her position. She has been investigating anthrax and biological warfare for the last 14 years, and issues regarding the anthrax vaccine for the last five years. Dr. Nass testified at a congressional hearing in 1999 on the subject. * Jane (a pseudonym). Jane's husband is currently on a naval ship. He is being pressured to take the anthrax vaccine. She says he will refuse no matter what. They want to have another child and are concerned that the anthrax vaccine will result in birth defects. Related link: * Anthraxvaccine.org _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From tshuman Wed Feb 5 03:51:00 2003 From: tshuman (Terrance Shuman) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 03:51:00 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Job Openings Update Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030205034947.00a26990@mail.magiccablepc.com> It has been about a month since I posted the invitation to advertise HS coaching vacancies for 2003-2004 in the Coaching Forum on cross-x.com: http://cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25790 During that time, opportunities in California, Michigan, Kansas, Iowa, Texas, Colorado, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Delaware, New York, Wyoming, Illinois, North Dakota, Missouri, and Nevada have been posted, and the thread has been viewed nearly 1,500 times. I've been very encouraged by the response thus far, and I renew my invitation to advertise any vacancies of which you are aware, either directly or via email to me. Thanks in advance for your help in putting interested candidates in touch with schools in need of coaches. Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and...well, not so tall as I used to be, Terrance Shuman Bishop LeBlond Memorial High School St. Joseph, Missouri From BERCHNORTO Wed Feb 5 06:53:26 2003 From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:53:26 EST Subject: [eDebate] WVU almost-final entry list plus announcements Message-ID: <15c.1adcb8c3.2b726346@aol.com> Hi, everyone! Below is an almost-complete list. Still waiting to get names from Navy, and waiting to hear from Allegheny and Penn State. Several announcements: 1. Varsity will make. We have 6 entries now, Navy has indicated they will have one, and we will add one to make 8. That's about all we ever hoped for. We will have semis in varsity and partial octas in both JV and novice. 2. I will send out a judge list tonight. Each team (preferably each school) will have 8 strikes, with the proviso that no more than 2 of them can be WVU judges. In the event that we can't proceed in late outrounds due to too many strikes, we will go to strike cards. Strike sheets may be emailed or filled out at registration (former is preferable for us). Strikes go into effect with round 3. 3. We have two special awards with which I will need some help. We have an award for the best JV team where both members still are novice-eligible. And we have an award for the best novice in her/his first or second debate tournament ever (at any level). Please let me know if you have folks eligible for either of these. 4. The Maxwell Schnurer bowling tournament is a go, but I need some numbers. Please let me know how many from your school are likely to participate. It will be at 10:30 or 11:00 on Friday night, will only last one game, and should be lots of fun. We even have a trophy, though it's NOT for high score. 5. If you have a spare debater, please post to edebate and let me know the results. This situation is in flux at the moment. We're looking forward to seeing all of you in Morgantown on Friday! --Neil Berch West Virginia University Richmond Varsity: Katie Albrecht & Grant Christensen JV: Nick Sciullo and Andrew Ryan N: Brent Sullivan and Casey Seidel Judges: Kuswa, Hanson Case Western Novice -- Shu-han Zhu/Willson Freeman JV -- Mark Tolles/Dave Beilek Judges: Ian Kimbrell and Aaron Kimbrell Catholic University Varsity: Suzie Catania/Steve Sawyer JV: Zach Johnson/Steve Martano Novice: Carly Shoupe/Meghan O'Brien Dori Leonard/Kerri Allen Judges: Sarah Snider (Full - 6 Rounds) Rich Sampson (Full - 6 Rounds) Liberty Varsity Elisha Nix and Jeremy Samek JV Josh Autry and Justin Dewberry Andrew Burnham and David Klinedist Brian Aurelio and Jess Surratt Grace Burns and Melissa Hurter Novice Kelly Azevedo and Lindsey Hoban Jared Isham and Andrew Lindblom Matt Case and Dana Foglesong Judges Heather Hall John Ross Rebekah Tilley Michael Tilley Clarion JV: Carli Bober - Ann Godfrey Novice: Nancy Nelson - Erin Witner Kim Kelly - Rob Noerr George Mason Novice: Jeannine Mohler and Sharon Lee Judge: James Kimble Capital JV Chris Piazza/ John Swords Angie Naugle/ Mike Jones Novice Elycia Taylor/ Pam Moore Julie Barnhill/ Jen Mooney Judges Dave Miller Jeff Lohr University of Pittsburgh Varsity: Allison Hahn and Darinka Maldonado Junior Varsity Peter Cancro and Michael Hughes Judge: Eric English Mary Washington College JV Jenn Golladay and Joe Packer Adrianne Barnett and Ali Samantar Karla Rood and Rachel Kimble Novice Raya Drew and Leslie Wyatt Rebecca Sklepovich and Jennifer Rollman Judge - Chris Devault Marist Junior Varsity Matthew Gardner and Stephen Nocera Novice Owen Daly and Diedre Greely Judges: Jason West (5) Andy Ellis (1) Western Illinois Novice Mark Hlavacik/Lucas Johnson Pia Jeffries/Chris Wood Tracy Alexander/Jason Welge Judges Derek Gaffrey Karen Lewis Ilon Lauer Miami (Ohio) Novice Austin Lemker & Terri Donofrio Bethany Prince & Branden Helton Jessica Baer & Sara Schoenitz Judges: Ben Voth Laurelie Wallace Rochester Junior Varsity Ilana Kaplan-Shain and Anna Czapla Theresa Spaulding and Liz Gaskell Judge: Jessica Myers John Carroll Varsity Mike Grossman & Chris Zurn Erika Thomas & Nick Dorsey (Case Western) JV Tasha Forchione & Matt Gayetsky Novice Pete Arconti & Nelson Wainwright Judge: Neil Butt Binghamton Novice Michelle Sakahee & Sara Manfro Jaquay Felix & Audrey Hernandez Judge: Joe Schatz Towson Junior Varsity Shawntia Diggs and Trinya Smith Peguy Pierre-Louis and Rafal Kosmider Judges: Chris Baron Beth Skinner Michigan-Dearborn JV Amit Sachdev and Laura Farms Judge: Sue Wenzlaff Other estimates: Navy 1 varsity, 2-3 jv, 1 novice Others reporting they will attend or reserving rooms at hotel: Allegheny Penn State? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030205/ed03d057/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson Wed Feb 5 07:50:12 2003 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary N. Larson) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:50:12 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] RE: Northwestern pref sheets Message-ID: <000b01c2cd1d$814da410$100c18ac@bl2471> Update on NW Pref sheets. Several schools have already entered online. A couple have told me that with some browsers (or perhaps Macs), the counter doesn't update on the number of judges in each pref category. We are checking into this today. I would recommend in the meantime trying on another computer and/or browser. I will also verify for you the number of judges you've assigned to each category if you contact me. Some schools have not yet requested passwords: Claremont Emporia State George Mason Georgia State Idaho State Liberty Loyola (IL) Miami North Texas Pittsburgh Regis Samford UT-Dallas Wayne State Weber State -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030205/9dbbe5d0/attachment.html From katsulas Wed Feb 5 08:50:33 2003 From: katsulas (katsulas) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 09:50:33 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ADA Tournament hotel info Message-ID: <3E4BFF4F@netfin6.bc.edu> If you plan on attending the ADA Tournament at Boston College, please remember to make your hotel reservations before February 14th. If anyone wants a copy of the invitation, please let me know and I'll e-mail you a copy. HOTEL INFORMATION FOR ADA TOURNAMENT. The tournament hotel is the Sheraton Newton Hotel. The hotel is located on 320 Washington Street, Newton, Massachusetts. A block of 80 rooms with two double beds has been reserved under the name of Boston College Debate. The rate is $99.00 for up to 4 per room. The block of rooms will be held until February 14, 2003. After that, the rooms will be released to the general public. There is a $9.00 per day parking charge. Do not procrastinate when making hotel reservations. Affordable rooms are not easy to find near Boston College. To make hotel reservations, call Lauren Polimeno (Sales Manager) at 617-630-2933. Her e-mail address is Lauren.Polimeno at sheraton.com When making hotel reservations, please provide a list of persons staying in the rooms, contact information, and method of payment. The Fax number for the Sheraton is 617-630-2977. The general number for the Sheraton is 617-969-3010. From miamidebate Wed Feb 5 09:00:00 2003 From: miamidebate (Miami Debate Team) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 07:00:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] MIAMI OH DEBATE GRAD POSITION Message-ID: <20030205150000.24350.qmail@web13805.mail.yahoo.com> The Miami Forensics program seeks applicants for its debate coaching assistantship within its Communication department. The assistantship covers classes for a two year MA program covering rhetoric, organizational communication, mass communication, and interpersonal communication. The assistantship makes stipends available Fall, Spring, and Summer terms. Miami's debate program is competitive within the policymaking divisions of college debate and travels national and regional circuits of debate. The debate program emphasizes the pedagogical role of coach development with a one course load in public speaking instruction each semester and an emphasis on scholarly preparation such as convention papers. Miami debate maintains an emphasis on a campus accessible program that is nationally competitive while being open to all student backgrounds. On campus debate is an important part of the program. Please submit a letter of intent (addressed to Graduate Director Ann Frymier), undergraduate transcripts, GRE scores, and three reference letters to Ben Voth, Director of Forensics, Miami University, Communication Department, 157 Bachelor, Oxford, OH. Materials should be sent by March 15. Separate graduate school applications for Miami can be completed online. Further clarification can be made by emailing: vothb at muohio.edu (Ben Voth) __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From jwpatt00 Wed Feb 5 09:39:11 2003 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 10:39:11 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] TOC: FLORIDA, NFA, AND NEWARK Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 4578 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030205/5f156506/attachment.bin From Catherine.Palczewski Wed Feb 5 10:03:13 2003 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 10:03:13 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Eligibility -- second to last reminder Message-ID: <3E4135C0.70B2104E@uni.edu> Eligibility letters are Due February 8 (that is Saturday) If you have sent a letter, and want to confirm receipt, please go to: http://www.uni.edu/palczews/eligibility.htm I will post the names of all eligibility forms received at that location, and update it as new forms are received. I figured that would be nicer than cluttering edebate with confirmations. I WILL be at Northwestern and WILL accept forms there. The NDT meeting is during rounds 2 & 3 in Harris 108 on Saturday the 8th. You can find me there. Also, some of you have asked about faxes. I will accept faxes as meeting the deadline. However, faxes SHOULD be followed by official copies via snailmail. My fax is: (319) 273-7356 My original message is below. Cate Greetings anyone planning on attending the NDT, According to the Standing Rules of the NDT, Rule II A 1 g: To be an eligible debater for the National Debate Tournament, a student must provide, by February 8th to he NDT committee chair, an official document from appropriate university officials verifying that he/she is registered as an undergraduate student and is in good standing at the school, for which he/she is participating, as of February 1st immediately preceding the NDT in which he/she wishes to participate. The Chair of the NDT Committee shall promptly notify the applying program director of any application which does not meet the above criteria. The program director may then appeal the eligibility of the debaters by contacting, and submitting all relevant documentation to, the NDT Committee Chair not later than one week from the date of notification. The appeal will then be forwarded to the Appeals Committee. The Appeals Committee may conduct the appeal by means of telephone calls, email or conference calls. The Appeals Committee may grant an exemption when the student's school provides written documentation explaining why a student may be officially enrolled but may not be in good standing, for example, if the university/college defines "in good standing" by criteria other than satisfactory academic performance. Accordingly, if you are planning on attending the NDT, please get to me, by FEBRUARY 8, 2003 an OFFICIAL DOCUMENT certifying students' eligibility to participate. If you are uncertain about whom you will be sending to the NDT, just get eligibility certification for any student who might attend. Letters should be sent to: Cate Palczewski, NDT committee chair Lang 326 University of Northern Iowa Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0139 From stephenheidt Wed Feb 5 10:17:54 2003 From: stephenheidt (Stephen Heidt) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:17:54 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Re: Ans Heidt Message-ID: Sigh. I should know better than to do a half-ass effort on edebate. Now i'm rusty. Lazy, morelike. I want to clear up a couple of things: 1. I'm not supporting the argument that Affs can Advocate Permutations (although if the Neg gets conditionals CPs, then it's only fair for the Aff to get Conditional plans). My take on the CP is (absent some discussion/agreement on Conditionality/Dispositionality) that if the Neg loses the Net Benefits/Competition debate, then they lose the debate. They don't revert to the SQ. The Aff doesn't have to "advocate" the perm. It's a test in the sense that if the perm is better than the CP, than it proves the CP isn't a competitive policy option. The Aff gets a Plan, the Neg gets a CP. If the Aff loses it's plan, they lose. Same for the Neg. That's reciprocal and in my mind, fair. 2. The entire language of opportunity costs is extremely confusing to me and completely foreign. Maybe it's because i've always discussed things in terms of competition and net benefits. But, the point is, I have trouble following you at times because of this language. Complicating this is the i don't think i've EVER heard it discussed in a debate this way. I've definately read/heard discussions outside of debate about opportunity costs, but not in an actual round. (Opportunity Costs - 6 syllables, Net Benefits - 4 syllables) Korcok says: The claim that my interpretation makes all counterplans conditional is just false. i am unsure what Stephen thinks does that and he doesn't explain how. i await explanation. but it is just false that a subsequent comparison between plan and competitive portions (those parts not in the perm) of the counterplan makes all (or any) counterplans conditional. and it is easy to demonstrate but i will wait on that just in case Heidt means something else entirely. I say: Functionally, my argument is true. Think about it. Under your interpretation of CPs, the 1NC presents a CP. The 2AC permutes it. The neg extends the CP in the block. 1AR extends perm. 2NR concedes the perm and says that proves the CP is not competitive, thus the debate reverts to a comparison of SQ vs. the Plan. 2NR extends the DA and argues that it outweighs the case. How is that not a conditional CP? Maybe it doesn't fit exactly with what you interpret "conditional" to mean, but it IS conditional, i.e. the Neg has the option of advocating the SQ or the CP at the end of the debate (some people call that "dispositionality" - it's conditionality to me, regardless of how you label it). Korcok says (in reference to Disads to the Perm): i have no idea why the negative would do that, especially when the block would BEGIN to treat the permutation as a/the policy to be evaluated in the debate rather than treating the plan as such. especially since the affirmative in the 2ac has presumably NOT presented the opportunity cost of the counterplan as a reason to reject the counterplan as a/the policy to be evaluated in a debate round. i just doubt that the affirmative could marshal a compelling argument for this perspective. I say: Disads to the Perm prove that the permutation is not a good policy option. Since the perm includes ALL of the plan, the disads presumably link to the plan also (although, some certainly wouldn't). Prudent Negatives should run Offense to the Aff's best args whenever possible, regardless of the question of "advocating" the perm. That being said, i don't think DA's to the Perm legitimize the Aff Advocating the perm. The perm, in my mind, is always a test. Disads to the perm prove that it is a worse policy option or a failed test. I'll agree with your stuff about the Aff not testing the opportunity costs of the CP given your definition of "Opportunity Costs" below. Not sure why that matters. Korcok continues: and the negative would be on the right side of this debate i think: "HEY!!! plan was presented in the 1ac. we thought that would be the policy to be evaluated in this debate rather than OUR negative plan in the 1nc. we played in good faith and presented the opportunity cost of plan - hell, we would MUCH rather have advocated a policy that didn't have to compete with the 1ac. NOW, the aff tries to argue 'no, we changed our minds, we'd rather this OTHER POLICY serve as the policy to be evaluated?' bullshit." I say: Don't be absurd. I guess ALL permutations are illigit then? For clarity's sake: Permutation are ALL of the Plan and All or part of the CPs Permutations are tests of competitiveness, Affs don't get to advocate them (unless the neg does something theoretically illigit that justifies it). Does that clear it up for you? Probably not, but i'm not really sure how you got to the aff shifting from the plan to the perm. Korcok says: finally here, running a disad to the perm is NOT presenting the opportunity cost of the perm. the opportunity cost of an action is the best action which would have to be foregone if the original action was undertaken. disads are more productively thought of as reasons to prefer one action in comparison to another. so those disads to the perm that Fitz and Heidt used to run were what? reasons to prefer the counterplan to the perm of course but THAT doesn't present the opportunity cost of the perm, it only defends the counterplan as the opportunity cost of the PLAN. think of it this way: if the affirmative had presented the perm in their 1ac (assuming no T problems) then the negative could have presented a counterplan to THAT policy as its opportunity cost and there is no reason to think that the best counterplan against the perm would ALSO be the same counterplan presented as the opportunity cost of plan. yet another way to see the point of the above argument is to consider the logic of Fitzmeier and Heidt's disads to the perm. if they won those disads, what conclusions could be drawn? could we conclude that the counterplan SHOULD be adopted? and of course the answer is no. for exactly the reason above: the counterplan's opportunity cost was never presented in the debate so we can't conclude that it should or shouldn't be adopted. what we can conclude is that the counterplan is better than that particular permutation and if that is the only perm or if all the other perms lose too, then we conclude that the counterplan DOES compete and is better than the plan and that the plan should NOT be adopted. and that's all we could conclude. see it yet? I say: I don't really have any argument here. I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove. Take away all the discussion of "opportunity costs" and add in a discussion of Net Benefits and I think we basically agree. The point of this discussion was what happens to a CP if the perm is good. I'll concede that Disads don't test the opportunity costs of the perm, but i'm not sure how you test the opportunity costs of the plan absent a CP. I'm also not sure what advantages using Opportunity Costs as a lens of evaluation get you. It just seems to make something fairly simply, that much more complicated. 3a. Stephen's argument that wording matters Korcok says: my argument is that the affirmative plan is the only policy that is appropriately evaluated in a debate. and that is the argument repeated and elaborated on in #2 above. to see how fruitless Heidt's above argument ultimately is, consider: should the negative automatically lose the conditionality debate because they say the counterplan is a "better policy option"? i sure don't think so. i think that's sloppy-talk shorthand for "the plan isn't as good as it's opportunity cost". at most, it shows the negative hasn't thought-through counterplan theory very well. Heidt's overall argument is the equivalent of 2ac pointing out that the 1nc said "vote aff" at the end of their speech so "IT'S GAME OVER!!!" I say: Maybe I was unclear, but I was assuming a situation where there was NOT a discussion of conditionality/dispositionality (as was the case in the hypothetical set up by JP I believe). In that situation, the Aff would have no expectation that the CP could suddenly disappear in the 2NR and the language used by the negative WOULD matter. Your example of "vote aff" is moronic. It's not equivalent at all. A more appropriate example is the Neg running a DA with a moral obligation Impact, stating that Moral Obligations trump real world impacts, getting the DA turned and then going for the Real World impacts, i.e. an advocacy shift that unfairly impairs the Affs ability to win. If you don't follow me now, then I guess we will continue to have a failure to communicate. I also don't really know what Mike means by the aff being the only thing "appropriately evaluated" in a debate. I guess that all depends on your perspective, but I for one, think that many things in debate are "appropriately evaluated", but maybe not to your satisfaction. Korcok says: 3b. Heidt's really really bad last argument yeesh. unh... Stephen forgot the part of the definition of opportunity cost that said "will HAVE to be foregone." you know, the part that says there is FORCED CHOICE between plan and counterplan, the COMPETITION. so "do both" beats the counterplan. after all, the fundamental test is NOT an action "should be undertaken if and only if it is better than the best course of action which COULD be done" because that doesn't capture any interesting concept of forced choice. I say: Yeah, i'll give you that one. A bad arg. But, I already mentioned i'm not really with the whole "opportunity costs" rhetoric/theory. I guess I just see that perspective as inefficient and unnecessary. Debate, to me, isn't about finding truth or the best policy. It's about making choices between competing policies - or finding the BETTER policy. You probably agree with that. I just think we get there different ways. For example, how can you ever determine what the "best course of action which could be done" is? I don't think you can. You may be able to determine what a BETTER course of action is (which in my mind is what 100% of all CPs do). Or is it your argument that the Negative in running a CP is searching for the BEST course of action that would be forgone by doing the plan? I dunno. Just seems really unnecessary and complicated to conceive of debate that way. That being said, I still argue that ABSENT a discussion of what happens to a CP, that the AFF doesn't have to advocate the perm to win (which I believe is what sparked this discussion originally). Best, Stephen _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From kerpen Wed Feb 5 10:37:32 2003 From: kerpen (Phil Kerpen) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 11:37:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Re: Ans Heidt Message-ID: <3E413DCC.8060200@ndtceda.com> This discussion just illustrates how vital it is to establish the ground rules for counterplan disposition inside each debate, because judges have widely divergent views. I, for instance, *always* consider the status quo a live option absent arguments to the contrary, even if the 2NR extends the counterplan. From Yaki54 Wed Feb 5 12:10:09 2003 From: Yaki54 (Yaki54 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 13:10:09 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] SIU BG please Message-ID: <1BBEEB64.6D33EEB5.00056AFB@aol.com> Please backchannel me. Thanks Sobek UMKC debate From privethedge Wed Feb 5 12:16:32 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 10:16:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Subway Stop for Harvard High School Tourney Message-ID: <20030205181632.99331.qmail@web10008.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, Does anyone know the subway stop for the school where the Harvard High School Tourney is located? ( I think the school is Cambridge Latin and Ringe School, but it's been a while since I've been there). Thanks, "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030205/666f0c71/attachment.html From pem6751 Wed Feb 5 14:43:25 2003 From: pem6751 (Paul Mabrey III) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 14:43:25 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] emory or northwestern judge people Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030205/0b7ce7d1/attachment.htm From delliott Wed Feb 5 15:43:43 2003 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 15:43:43 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] K-State, Wichita State, SMS, UCO, UMKC Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030205154343.00bf0f18@kckcc.toto.net> A last attempt to find out from you all if any of you receive funding from student fees, student government, accounts or their equivalent. Regional help will be very useful. Anyone else around the country who still wants to reply would be helpful too. Have to go before the board tomorrow and would like to make a comparative analysis! Thanks if you can help, Chief From veronica_m_barreto Wed Feb 5 16:54:48 2003 From: veronica_m_barreto (Veronica Barreto) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:54:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Perms, CP's and the SQuo -- Ans Heidt Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030205/56385a6a/attachment.html From vrenegar Wed Feb 5 17:17:27 2003 From: vrenegar (Valerie R. Renegar) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 15:17:27 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] NCA conference- Women and debate discussion Message-ID: <001201c2cd6c$bf9ee9a0$a8ddf492@sdsu.edu> Hello friends- For the last five or six years, some people interested in talking about Women in Debate have gathered together at the National Communication Association conference. These discussions are an opportunity to meet with others interested in this topic and share experiences, ideas, develop relationships, and provide support. Women, men, faculty, students...anyone is welcome. If you are interested in being part of the discussion at Miami Beach please send me your name (as you would like it to appear in the program), affiliation, and email address (please type it out for me in the body of the email). I need this information no later than Friday 2/7. Thanks- Val Valerie R. Renegar, Ph.D. San Diego State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030205/9b83cfe0/attachment.htm From kenedebate Wed Feb 5 17:50:26 2003 From: kenedebate (Ken DeLaughder) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:50:26 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Chris Burke or delete Message-ID: Chris, could you backchannel me, its about the D3 tech committee stuff Ken D. ESU _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From kenedebate Wed Feb 5 17:58:35 2003 From: kenedebate (Ken DeLaughder) Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:58:35 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] JV RR results - unofficial Message-ID: I have had a few requests, so I thought I would post them, its unofficial cuz I'm not Joe Carver :) These are the results of the Neil Warren Round Robin held in sunny Rohnert Park, CA last weekend. SEMIFINALS Emporia State KW (aff) defeats K-State FS 3-0 Idaho State (neg) defeats Emporia State CN 2-1 FINALS (held in the Arbenz suite) Emporia State KW (neg) defeats Idaho State 2-1 Carver, Arbenz, *Robertson Speaker awards 1. Dunn - Idaho State 2. Stout - K-State 3. Flagg - K-State 4. Winfrey - Emporia 5. Keller - Emporia Thanks to Joe Carver for holding this round robin so far from home, and for the great debate and fun had by all. I had my great experience with in and out burger, and the N. California greenery was BEEEEEE-YOUUUUUUTEEEFUL. We appreciated the divergence of view points in rounds, engaging with some bright young minds, and tasting lots of great wine. Thanks to Greg for tabbing and for Dana who held it all togther, despite Joe ;) It was great to see Micheal Korcok in action again, as well as everyone else who attended. To the Idaho State folks... stay out of the Spanos trap! I loved the Bay Area, I know now about why they say I left my heart in san francisco... I gotta get back! Ken D. Emporia _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From BERCHNORTO Wed Feb 5 20:45:30 2003 From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 21:45:30 EST Subject: [eDebate] WVU strike list Message-ID: <1d0.1c3cb8c.2b73264a@aol.com> Here is the judge list for the WVU tournament (below that is the hopefully final team list). Each team gets 8 strikes (in effect from round 3). You may strike no more than 3 WVU judges (so as to facilitate late outrounds). You may email those to me (I would prefer that), or you may fill out strike sheets at registration. Please also email me with any conflicts for your judges. Follow the directions to the tournament that are printed in the invite. If you have changes on Thursday, please email them. If you have late changes or problems on Friday, please call my cell phone (412-445-3957). We look forward to seeing all of you in Morgantown on Friday! --Neil Berch West Virginia University Kevin Kuswa, Richmond Kenny Hanson, Richmond Ian Kimbrell, Case Western Sarah Snider, Catholic Rich Sampson, Catholic Heather Hall, Liberty John Ross, Liberty Rebekah Tilley, Liberty Michael Tilley, Liberty James Kimble, George Mason Dave Miller, Capital Jeff Lohr, Capital Eric English, Pittsburgh Chris DeVault, Mary Washington Anand Rao, Mary Washington (emergency only) Jason West, Marist Andy Ellis, Marist Karen Lewis, Western Illinois Ilon Lauer, Western Illinois Derek Gaffrey, Western Illinois Neil Berch, WVU (emergency only) Mark Schaefer, WVU Natalie Schaefer, WVU Nicole Newlon, WVU Jodie Robinson, WVU Joshua K. Boggs, WVU Stephen Marshall, WVU Kimberly Bandy, WVU Kimberly Brode, WVU Jonathan Bompiani, WVU Mark Nye, WVU Loren Allen, WVU Jennelle Harper, WVU Daniel Overbey, Navy Todd Lyden, Navy Brian Fitzpatrick, Navy Alisha Hamilton, Navy Ben Voth, Miami Laurelie Wallace, Miami Jessica Myers, Rochester Neil Butt, John Carroll Beth Skinner, Towson Chris Baron, Towson Joe Schatz, Binghamton Sue Wenzlaff, Michigan-Dearborn Richmond Varsity: Katie Albrecht & Grant Christensen JV: Nick Sciullo and Andrew Ryan N: Brent Sullivan and Casey Seidel Judges: Kevin Kuswa, Kenny Hanson Case Western Novice -- Shu-han Zhu/Willson Freeman JV -- Mark Tolles/Dave Beilek Judge: Ian Kimbrell Catholic University Varsity: Suzie Catania/Steve Sawyer JV: Zach Johnson/Steve Martano Novice: Carly Shoupe/Meghan O'Brien Dori Leonard/Kerri Allen Judges: Sarah Snider (Full - 6 Rounds) Rich Sampson (Full - 6 Rounds) Liberty JV Josh Autry and Justin Dewberry Andrew Burnham and David Klinedist Brian Aurelio and Jess Surratt Grace Burns and Melissa Hurter Novice Kelly Azevedo and Lindsey Hoban Jared Isham and Andrew Lindblom Matt Case and Dana Foglesong Judges Heather Hall John Ross Rebekah Tilley Michael Tilley Clarion JV: Carli Bober - Ann Godfrey Novice: Nancy Nelson - Erin Witner Kim Kelly - Rob Noerr George Mason Novice: Jeannine Mohler and Sharon Lee Judge: James Kimble Capital JV Chris Piazza/ John Swords Angie Naugle/ Mike Jones Novice Elycia Taylor/ Pam Moore Julie Barnhill/ Jen Mooney Judges Dave Miller Jeff Lohr University of Pittsburgh Varsity: Allison Hahn and Darinka Maldonado Junior Varsity Peter Cancro and Michael Hughes Judge: Eric English Mary Washington College JV Jenn Golladay and Joe Packer Adrianne Barnett and Ali Samantar Karla Rood and Rachel Kimble Novice Raya Drew and Leslie Wyatt Rebecca Sklepovich and Jennifer Rollman Judge - Chris Devault Marist Junior Varsity Scott Perrell and Stephen Nocera Novice Owen Daly and Diedre Greely Judges: Jason West (6) Andy Ellis (available for hire) Western Illinois Novice Mark Hlavacik/Lucas Johnson Pia Jeffries/Chris Wood Tracy Alexander/Jason Welge Judges Derek Gaffrey Karen Lewis Ilon Lauer Miami (Ohio) Novice Austin Lemker & Terri Donofrio Bethany Prince & Branden Helton Jessica Baer & Sara Schoenitz Judges: Ben Voth Laurelie Wallace Rochester Junior Varsity Ilana Kaplan-Shain and Anna Czapla Theresa Spaulding and Liz Gaskell Judge: Jessica Myers John Carroll Varsity Mike Grossman & Chris Zurn Erika Thomas & Nick Dorsey (Case Western) JV Tasha Forchione & Matt Gayetsky Novice Pete Arconti & Nelson Wainwright Judge: Neil Butt Binghamton Novice Michelle Sakahee & Sara Manfro Jaquay Felix & Audrey Hernandez Judge: Joe Schatz Towson Junior Varsity Shawntia Diggs and Trinya Smith Peguy Pierre-Louis and Rafal Kosmider Judges: Chris Baron Beth Skinner Michigan-Dearborn JV Amit Sachdev and Laura Farms Judge: Sue Wenzlaff Navy Varsity John Burger and Sale Lilly JV Jon Smith and Cameron Mattes Laine Cameron and Beau Portillo Novice Gavin Whittle and Brenda Smith (Michigan-Dearborn) Judges Todd Lyden Alisha Hamilton (4 rounds, no rounds 1,2) Brian Fitzpatrick (2 rounds, 5,6 then elims) Dan Overbey (as needed) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030205/10f191a7/attachment.html From elliottdarren Thu Feb 6 00:30:21 2003 From: elliottdarren (DARREN ELLIOTT) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 00:30:21 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] JV RR results - unofficial Message-ID: Congrats to the alma mater for winning the JV RR. Proud of them Hornets. As for seeing Korcok back in action-my time will come at Phi Rho Pi-looking forward to it. Havent seen the young man in years! Glad to know some of the folks from around old school get back. And what could me more old school than Ken D AND Korcok in the same building? Congrats all!! Chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate KCKCC >From: "Ken DeLaughder" >To: eDebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: [eDebate] JV RR results - unofficial >Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:58:35 -0600 > > > >I have had a few requests, so I thought I would post them, its unofficial >cuz I'm not Joe Carver :) These are the results of the Neil Warren Round >Robin held in sunny Rohnert Park, CA last weekend. > >SEMIFINALS > >Emporia State KW (aff) defeats K-State FS 3-0 > >Idaho State (neg) defeats Emporia State CN 2-1 > > >FINALS (held in the Arbenz suite) > >Emporia State KW (neg) defeats Idaho State 2-1 Carver, Arbenz, >*Robertson > > >Speaker awards > >1. Dunn - Idaho State >2. Stout - K-State >3. Flagg - K-State >4. Winfrey - Emporia >5. Keller - Emporia > > Thanks to Joe Carver for holding this round robin so far from home, and >for the great debate and fun had by all. I had my great experience with in >and out burger, and the N. California greenery was BEEEEEE-YOUUUUUUTEEEFUL. > We appreciated the divergence of view points in rounds, engaging with >some bright young minds, and tasting lots of great wine. Thanks to Greg >for tabbing and for Dana who held it all togther, despite Joe ;) > It was great to see Micheal Korcok in action again, as well as everyone >else who attended. To the Idaho State folks... stay out of the Spanos >trap! > > I loved the Bay Area, I know now about why they say I left my heart in >san francisco... I gotta get back! > >Ken D. >Emporia > > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From govnt_man Thu Feb 6 06:34:03 2003 From: govnt_man (The Drake) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 07:34:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Need to backchannels from Cockrell-Davis and (James) Herndon Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/3bcfca37/attachment.htm From privethedge Thu Feb 6 07:33:36 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 05:33:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Thanks to Everyone for Subway Help In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030206133336.40759.qmail@web10008.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, Just wanted to thank everyone for helping me out with the subway logistics. Hope to meet several of you next week. Thanks, Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/d89ddd3e/attachment.html From stephenheidt Thu Feb 6 08:41:41 2003 From: stephenheidt (Stephen Heidt) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 09:41:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Perms, CP's and the SQuo -- Ans Heidt Message-ID: So I guess you missed this sentence? "My take on the CP is (absent some discussion/agreement on Conditionality/Dispositionality) that if the Neg loses the Net Benefits/Competition debate, then they lose the debate." OF COURSE conditionality/dispositionality are fair game. In fact, I generally think that conditionality is legit. But that's not what's being talked about here. Stephen >From: "Veronica Barreto" >To: stephenheidt at hotmail.com, edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: Re: [eDebate] Perms, CP's and the SQuo -- Ans Heidt >Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:54:48 -0500 > _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Veronica Barreto" Subject: Re: [eDebate] Perms, CP's and the SQuo -- Ans Heidt Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 17:54:48 -0500 Size: 20171 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/389e9123/attachment.mht From jwpatt00 Thu Feb 6 08:49:41 2003 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 09:49:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] TOC: DOWLING, HENRY HUDSON AND NOVA Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 4245 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/c495bf25/attachment.bin From wnewnam Thu Feb 6 08:59:32 2003 From: wnewnam (Bill Newnam) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 09:59:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] emory or northwestern judge people References: Message-ID: <3E427854.7105938F@emory.edu> John Rains the younger, the recent graduate NOT the elder, the one I debated against 25 years ago. bill n emory Paul Mabrey III wrote: > which john rains is it that is judging for emory at > northwestern???thanks in advance, paul mabreyfort hays state > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*. > _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber > list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From Gary.N.Larson Thu Feb 6 09:06:18 2003 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary N. Larson) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 09:06:18 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern pref sheets - UPDATE Message-ID: <000501c2cdf1$4d8f6210$100c18ac@bl2471> At this point 53 teams (out of 153) have entered at least some of their preferences online. For most people the system seems to be working well - contact me with any problems. You may enter or edit your preferences anytime prior to 2:00 PM CST tomorrow (Friday). You might want to check just prior to that time that you have entered what you "really" want to see in effect for the tournament. Some schools have not yet requested passwords: Loyola (IL) Miami Pittsburgh Regis Samford UT-Dallas Weber State -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/a3cb8412/attachment.htm From BERCHNORTO Thu Feb 6 09:25:12 2003 From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:25:12 EST Subject: [eDebate] WVU weather situation Message-ID: Some snow is expected tonight in Morgantown and to the east. Conditions are supposed to improve significantly by late Friday morning. I implore people coming from the east to be especially careful on I-68 between Cumberland and Morgantown. Remember: it's only a debate tournament! If we have a number of schools arriving late, we do have contingency plans regarding schedule. Please call us if you're going to be late. Use my cell phone (412-445-3957) beginning at 5pm today, as I may go down to Morgantown this evening (I commute from Pittsburgh). We look forward to seeing all of our friends (in one piece!) when you arrive. --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/d9b132ca/attachment.html From Catherine.Palczewski Thu Feb 6 10:11:42 2003 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 10:11:42 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] NDT Eligibility -- LAST reminder Message-ID: <3E42893E.F255E78C@uni.edu> Eligibility letters are Due February 8 (that is Saturday) If you have sent a letter, and want to confirm receipt, please go to: http://www.uni.edu/palczews/eligibility.htm I will post the names of all eligibility forms received at that location, and update it as new forms are received. I figured that would be nicer than cluttering edebate with confirmations. I WILL be at Northwestern and WILL accept forms there. The NDT meeting is during rounds 2 & 3 in Harris 108 on Saturday the 8th. You can find me there. Also, some of you have asked about faxes. I will accept faxes as meeting the deadline. However, faxes SHOULD be followed by official copies via snailmail. My fax is: (319) 273-7356 My original message is below. Cate Greetings anyone planning on attending the NDT, According to the Standing Rules of the NDT, Rule II A 1 g: To be an eligible debater for the National Debate Tournament, a student must provide, by February 8th to he NDT committee chair, an official document from appropriate university officials verifying that he/she is registered as an undergraduate student and is in good standing at the school, for which he/she is participating, as of February 1st immediately preceding the NDT in which he/she wishes to participate. The Chair of the NDT Committee shall promptly notify the applying program director of any application which does not meet the above criteria. The program director may then appeal the eligibility of the debaters by contacting, and submitting all relevant documentation to, the NDT Committee Chair not later than one week from the date of notification. The appeal will then be forwarded to the Appeals Committee. The Appeals Committee may conduct the appeal by means of telephone calls, email or conference calls. The Appeals Committee may grant an exemption when the student's school provides written documentation explaining why a student may be officially enrolled but may not be in good standing, for example, if the university/college defines "in good standing" by criteria other than satisfactory academic performance. Accordingly, if you are planning on attending the NDT, please get to me, by FEBRUARY 8, 2003 an OFFICIAL DOCUMENT certifying students' eligibility to participate. If you are uncertain about whom you will be sending to the NDT, just get eligibility certification for any student who might attend. Letters should be sent to: Cate Palczewski, NDT committee chair Lang 326 University of Northern Iowa Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0139 From privethedge Thu Feb 6 10:12:10 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 08:12:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq Message-ID: <20030206161210.58388.qmail@web10002.mail.yahoo.com> Just wondering if Powell's presentation did anything to change minds on this list? Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/a7f645d0/attachment.htm From ccooper Thu Feb 6 10:37:53 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:37:53 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370710C9A69@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Duane: Actually...I read a transcript of Powell's presentation in today's Salon. I think he lays out a pretty formidable case for Iraqi intransigence when it comes to the production of and destruction of chemical and biological weapons. Where he is weakest, of course, is in presenting a case for imminent threat from Iraq or any link between Iraq and the international terrorist cells that we face. Ultimately, that was the reason for the big debate over resolution 1441, right? They only need show a "material breach" of the resolution to justify the use of force, not imminent threat. I suppose the lingering questions in my mind are still: why NOW? Why must we forcible disarm this guy right now when we are (ostencibly) in the middle of a war against these terrorist cells? It just seems like we are trading one (potentially) dangerous situation for an even MORE dangerous one: 1) Saddam is more likely to use these weapons if we directly attack him. 2) A unilateral move against Iraw is likely to increase anti-Americanism in the region 3) A unilateral move is likely to decrease the intelligence cooperation we need to fight the terrorism threat. The weapons are dangerous (for sure). Saddam is a liar (for sure). But why do those facts constitue a reason to pick a fight with him now? COOP -----Original Message----- From: Duane Hyland [mailto:privethedge at yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:12 AM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq Just wondering if Powell's presentation did anything to change minds on this list? Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." _____ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/222b3916/attachment.html From XenLove Thu Feb 6 11:02:06 2003 From: XenLove (XenLove at aol.com) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 12:02:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NU tourney info Message-ID: <0673B6E9.502DA11F.001B0B35@aol.com> I'm a chicago hs debater who'd like to attend the tourney for educational purposes and I'd like to know what buildings the tournament's gonna take up, where the tab is (so i can get pairings), and, if possible, a map, thanx to anyone who helps in advance. (if your getting this again, sorry, i didn't know if my other address would send or not) From GQDB8R Thu Feb 6 13:02:21 2003 From: GQDB8R (GQDB8R at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 14:02:21 EST Subject: [eDebate] Repko or eber email me please Message-ID: <164.1b568bfe.2b740b3d@aol.com> sorry for the clutter: Repko or eber email me please thanks Alex Acosta -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/db423dc5/attachment.htm From scottelliott Thu Feb 6 13:13:04 2003 From: scottelliott (Scott M. Elliott) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:13:04 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq Message-ID: <000601c2ce13$c769dee0$e6995a42@grandecom.net> Chaim Perelman said that a persuasive act only exists when one is open to persuasion. Since most people, if not all, are committed to their respective positions, I wonder what good it does to present any persuasive evidence. I think all Powell did was compromise key forms of intelligence gathering. Now every country is beginning to realize that the NSA (10 times bigger than CIA) is monitoring every conversation. If the evidence is persuasive enough for the President, his cabinet, select members of both house of Congress, then we should go to war. I am still at a loss as to why the UN has any relevance in a unipolar world. F---- the French! Scott Elliott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/028cff8f/attachment.html From ermo Thu Feb 6 13:58:43 2003 From: ermo (Eric Morris) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:58:43 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq References: <000601c2ce13$c769dee0$e6995a42@grandecom.net> Message-ID: <007501c2ce1a$271d5320$e9fbed81@ku.edu> >From what I've read, a lot of people were quite persuaded by the speech. I guess they weren't committed to their respective positions. I wasn't real open to persuasion, but Powell didn't even breathe on most of the counter-arguments to military action. He just buttressed the claim they probably have WMDs (as COOP said, more persuasive on Chem and Bio than nuclear). I wonder how many people were opposed this war because they really think Iraq has nothing to hide. Perhaps if Powell has persuasive evidence that a war would not escalate, that civilians would not die, that governments would not be overthrown, or that the US would not occupy the oil field indefinately (etc etc etc), he might have persuaded me. I do think it is less dangerous with more support, and I do think having gone through the UN process and defining the goal as disarm may limit the administration in some useful ways. I guess the Bush administration thinks the UN is still somewhat relevant, even if only for political cover or getting allies on board. I don't think that "the US is listening" compromises much for intelligence. Such compromising is more concerning with regard to human intel, and they know better than I what specific sources are put at risk by what specific revelations. I don't find the commitment of government leaders satisfying, because I don't agree with some of the agendas I think are spurring this, and I frankly don't trust them. I am still at a loss as to why Scott Elliott has any relevance in a unipolar world. Eric Morris p.s. If Iraq is really trying *hide" their WMD, why did they put up big yellow signs that even a satellite could pick up to tell us where their decontamination trucks are? What idiots.... ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott M. Elliott To: Duane Hyland ; edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 1:13 PM Subject: Re: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq Chaim Perelman said that a persuasive act only exists when one is open to persuasion. Since most people, if not all, are committed to their respective positions, I wonder what good it does to present any persuasive evidence. I think all Powell did was compromise key forms of intelligence gathering. Now every country is beginning to realize that the NSA (10 times bigger than CIA) is monitoring every conversation. If the evidence is persuasive enough for the President, his cabinet, select members of both house of Congress, then we should go to war. I am still at a loss as to why the UN has any relevance in a unipolar world. F---- the French! Scott Elliott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/9e906c4b/attachment.htm From Yaki54 Thu Feb 6 14:00:41 2003 From: Yaki54 (Yaki54 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 15:00:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Someone from SIU please Message-ID: <593C0108.28177D89.00056AFB@aol.com> Please backchannel me. Thank you. Sobek UMKC debate From cornellforensics Thu Feb 6 13:39:29 2003 From: cornellforensics (Jethro Hayman) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 14:39:29 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Cornell Tournament of Love Results Message-ID: Speaker Awards: Varsity: 10. Goodin (UMKC) 9. Hill (UVM) 8. Schramm (NYU) 7. Dietrich (UMKC) 6. Scher (USMA) 5. Gordon (UMKC) 4. Press (USMA) 3. Feeley (NYU) 2. Vermitsky (Rochester) 1. Webster (Rochester) JV: 10. Perrell (Marist) 9. Sword (WVU) 8. Sullivan (USMA) 7. Czapla (Rochester) 6. Bowser (Rochester) 5. Kern (UVM) 4. Squire (WVU) 3. Kaplan-Shain (Rochester) 2. Nuruddin (Rochester) 1. D'Amico (Rochester) Novice: 10. Kendall (Vanderbilt) 9. Waite (WVU) 8. Melander (UVM) 7. Greeley (Marist) 6. Martin (Rochester) 5. Parker (Vanderbilt) 4. McKinney (Vanderbilt) 3. Williams (Vanderbilt) 2. Klein (Binghampton) 1. Vanykov (Rochester) Sweepstakes: 3. USMA 2. Vermont 1. Rochester Elimination Rounds: Varsity Quarters: Rochester VW defeated FSU BS on a 2-1 decision UMKC DG defeated NYU FS on a 2-1 decision UMKC LC defeated Vermont HL on a 3-0 decision UMKC GW defeated USMA PS on a 2-1 decision Varsity Semis: Rochester VW defeated UMKC DG on a 2-1 decision UMKC LC advanced over UMKC GW Varsity Finals: Rochester VW over UMKC LC on a 3-0 decision JV Quarters: NYU-CUNY defeated Rochester KC on a 2-1 decision Rochester BN defeated WVU SS on a 2-1 decision Rochester DL defeated Vermont VK on a 2-1 decision Cornell SF defeated Rochester GS on a 2-1 decision JV Semis: Rochester BN defeated NYU/CUNY on a 3-0 decision Cornell SF defeated Rochester DL on a 2-1 decision JV Finals: Rochester BN defeated Cornell SF on a 3-0 decision Novice Octos: Binghampton GuKl defeated Vermont MM on a 2-1 decision USMA WA defeated Cornell ML on a 2-1 decision Vanderbilt KM defeated Rochester ST on a 3-0 decision WVU LW defeated Cornell SS on a 3-0 decision Marist DG defeated Vanderbilt MW on a 3-0 decision Rochester VM defeated Binghampton CF on a 2-1 decision Binghampton KlGo defeated Vanderbilt SP on a 3-0 decision Cornell DK defeated Vermont RM on a 2-1 decision Novice Quarters: Binghampton GuKl defeated USMA WA on a 3-0 decision Vanderbilt KM defeated WVU SS on a 3-0 decision Marist DG defeated Rochester VM on a 2-1 decision Binghampton KlGo defeated Cornell DK on a 3-0 decision Novice Semsis: Binghampton GuKl defeated Vanderbilt KM on a 2-1 decision Marist DG defeated Binghampton KlGo on a 3-0 decision Novice Finals: Marist DG defeated Binghampton GuKl on a 2-1 decision -- Jethro A Hayman Director of Forensics Argumentation and Debate Instructor Department of Communication Cornell University 301 Kennedy Hall jethro at cornell.edu 255-2124 From nselegzi Thu Feb 6 14:50:35 2003 From: nselegzi (Noel Selegzi) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 15:50:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] FW: [CivilSoc] Starr Collaborative Research Grants Message-ID: <1CBED6247AC65445BF49BFDD3CC5DBC6EE425E@osinyexch.soros.org> This looks like a great grant opportunity that can link schools in the US with schools in Eurasia, the Near East and Asia. The results of the research these grants encourage could be printed by IDEA Press and/or in Controversia. IDEA would be happy to help coordinate these project and can provide technical and potentially financial assistance to the applicants. Noel -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Papendick [mailto:bpapendick at irex.org] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 11:28 AM To: SAIS (Grad); ccsi at u.washington.edu; civilsoc at vhost1.partners-intl.net; czelizer at gmu.edu; IMCEAFAX-Georgetown+20School+20of+20Foreign+20Service+40+2B1+20+28202+29 +20687-7222 at irex.org; escareer at gwu.edu; lisa at internationaljobs.org Subject: [CivilSoc] Starr Collaborative Research Grants IREX is pleased to introduce the new Starr Collaborative Research Grants Program, created to highlight contemporary issues facing the communities of Eurasia, the Near East, and Asia. Each year, the Starr Collaborative Research Program will focus on one theme devoted to a topic of pressing interest to the academic, corporate and policy-making community. With this program, IREX hopes to foster the development of further understanding on key issues while promoting collaboration between researchers of neighboring countries and the United States. This year, research grants will be awarded to projects focusing on the topics of media and the Internet. The eligible countries are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, China, Georgia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Pakistan, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkey, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Maximum Award: $20,000 Application Deadline: May 1, 2003 All applicants will be notified of their status in mid June and research projects may begin on or after July 1, 2003, and must be completed before July 31, 2004. Eligibility: Groups with a minimum of three researchers are eligible to apply. At least one of the researchers must be a US citizen or legal permanent resident and at least two of the researchers must be citizens and current residents of two different countries of the eligible regions at the time of application. Eligible Expenses: Travel and associated expenses, research expenses, participant honoraria, and materials. To Apply: Submit the original plus 3 copies of the completed application form (see below), project proposal, budget narrative, timeline, and curriculum vitae for each collaborator, to the following address: IREX ATTN: STARR COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH GRANTS 2121 K Street NW, SUITE 700 WASHINGTON, DC 20037 Complete applications and supplementary materials may also be submitted via e-mail to collabgrants at irex.org. Those applying electronically must submit all materials and fax the signature page to (202) 628-8189 by the deadline. To download applications or for more information, visit the IREX website at http://www.irex.org/programs/starr or contact: collabgrants at irex.org. The Starr Collaborative Research Grants Program is made possible through the generosity of The Starr Foundation. _______________________________________________ CivilSoc mailing list CivilSoc at lists.civilsoc.org http://lists.civilsoc.org/mailman/listinfo/civilsoc IT solutions for international development - http://www.partners-intl.net From Gary.N.Larson Thu Feb 6 14:55:15 2003 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary N. Larson) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 14:55:15 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern Pref update Message-ID: <004501c2ce22$0cc76800$100c18ac@bl2471> I need to get in contact with someone from Miami, Pittsburgh, and Regis to insure that you have passwords to enter your prefs. To date, 69 of 152 have entered prefs - 2:00 PM tomorrow is the DEADLINE. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/82f70ea9/attachment.html From privethedge Thu Feb 6 15:18:40 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:18:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq In-Reply-To: <000601c2ce13$c769dee0$e6995a42@grandecom.net> Message-ID: <20030206211840.27233.qmail@web10010.mail.yahoo.com> HI, What Scott says is true, of course I also hear the doubts that Chris is expressing. And then I go back to History. Churchill was warning of Germany's power in the 30's, nobody was listening. Bush is warning of Sadaam's power in the 00's, nobody is listening. HItler was an omipressent madman, bent on destroying his own people, weeding out all who didn't bend to his wishes, and had delusions of conquering the world. Sadaam is a madman who has destroyed segments of his own people, brutally supresses his own people, and has expressed desires in the past if not to conquer the world, at least to conqure the middle east. Scott is right, the same protests in regard to Iraq were being launched in the 30's against involvement against Germany. Heck, forget the 30's, the same protests against US involvement in a war against Germany were being voiced right up until 12 noon on December 7, 1941. So, when Chris asks "why now." I guess my answer is "because we'll have to sooner or later." A few things should be apparent now: 1) Sadaam has the WMD, 2) He's fronting to inspectors, 3) The UN is allowing itself to be played like a two bit fiddle, 4) Eventually, he'll use the weapons against Israel (according to defectors he's said this on many occassions). If we can remove Sadaam in a quick war, it might be to our benefit to do so: 1) I doubt, very seriously, that the Iraqi populace will rise up against any concerted US action. I think it will be more like the old joke about the Lone Ranger "Sadaam and the Iraqi people ride up to the ridge to check out what's happening, see 10,000 Americans coming over the rise, Sadaam says "looks like it's you and me, faithful, beloved people. And the Iraqis utter in mass "who's we, deadman." (I know I changed the joke a bit). My co-worker who was an LAV commander in Gulf War I said that the Iraqi troops he ran into were too busy tring to surrender, and to worried about the food they were gettting for surrendering, than fighting. And, after 10 years of sanctions i can't see the resolve being any stronger - despite what some would have us believe. 2) I think after Powell's presentation only a hard bitten, left wing radical, would say that Sadaam is good for Iraq. he needs to go. I'm not sure that any middle eastern regime, save, perhaps, Israel, is up to the task of removal. 3) Not removing Sadaam, out of fear that terrorists would strike here, is kind of a non-unique argument after 9/11. Terrorists will stike here again if we get rid of Sadaam, or if we bake him a cake every year. Besides, not removing evil for the sake of fear is twisted, to my way of thinking. In the end, it might be better to strike now, and settle the situation instead of waiting and giving Sadaam more time to play his games and entrench. This is a winnable war, it should be a short war. Even if Sadaam deploys WMD in the field, the price of a liberated, Sadaam free Iraq, might be easier to pay than the price of an Iraq with Sadaam still there. As for the French...my Uncle Leroy fought in World War 2, from D-Day +2, to the end. He saw all war had to offer as a Tank Commander in Patton's 3rd Army. He's always said to this day "War is horrible, I would never willingly go to war again, unless it were against the French, then I'd go in a minute." I don't know what hte French did to Uncle Leroy, but I do know he wishes he could have his old Sherman back for a few hours to teach them a lesson, or two. When it comes to the French, and military matters I sort of ignore them. We're talking about a nation that hasn't had a good military since Bonepart was alive - they screwed up in both the big ones, got their asses kicked in Vietnam, and in Algeria - they are about as relevant to world military affairs today as the minie ball. So, in the end...Bush is on the right side of history for his views on Iraq. Not attacking now and settling the issue when the time is right will result in far worse circumstances down the line. An American effort at taking out Sadaam, followed by a rebuilding program on scale of the Marshall Plan might also show the Middle East that we aren't the bloodthirsty monsters that everyone makes us to be. "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/a1f93b34/attachment.htm From bodonnel Thu Feb 6 15:28:38 2003 From: bodonnel (O'Donnell, Brett M.) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 16:28:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 2002-03 NDT Subscribers-Updated Message-ID: Below is the current list of NDT subscribers. To participate in the NDT or be ranked in the final NDT rankings, you must be a subscriber. To pay your NDT dues you can contact Jim Pratt at the American Forensic Association at 1-800-228-5424 or send a check for $30.00 made payable to the National Debate Tournament to: Brett O'Donnell Liberty University Debate 1971 University Blvd Lynchburg, VA 24502 NDT Subscribers 2002-03 Albertson College of Idaho Angelo State University Arizona State University Augustana College Boston College Fulton Debating Soc California Poly State University - San Luis Obispo California State University Fullerton California State University Long Beach California State University Northridge Capital University Clarion University Concordia College Cornell University Dartmouth College DePaul University Eastern New Mexico University Emory University Emporia State University Fordham University Franklin Pierce College Fresno State University Georgia Military College Harvard University Illinois College James Madison University Lewis & Clark College Liberty University Marist College Mercer University Miami University of Ohio Michigan State University Northwest College Pepperdine University Sacramento State University Samford University San Diego State University Southern Illinois University Southern Utah University St. Mary's College of California Trinity University University of Central Oklahoma University of Georgia University of Kentucky University of Michigan University of Michigan-Dearborn University of Missouri-Kansas City University of Northern Iowa University of Oregon University of Pittsburgh University of Redlands University of Richmond University of Rochester University of South Carolina University of Texas University of Texas at Dallas Wake Forest University Washington State University Wayne State University Webster University Western Washington University West Virginia University Whitman College Wichita State University William Jewell College From privethedge Thu Feb 6 15:34:33 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 13:34:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq In-Reply-To: <007501c2ce1a$271d5320$e9fbed81@ku.edu> Message-ID: <20030206213433.46457.qmail@web10009.mail.yahoo.com> What is it going to take, Eric before you'll say "yep, Sadaam has gotta go." I'm just wondering. Will he need to put a nuclear missile into the middle of Tel Aviv? Will he need to amass enough WMD to role over Saudi? Does he have to gang rape and torture a few more dissenters? If the date were November 1, 1938, would you be voicing these concerns about military action against Germany? And what is this obsession about oil? If the US were hell bent on getting oil, we could invade Saudi Arabia, Venezuala, or a host of other unarmed, small, oil rich nations. If it were ALL about the oil, as some of you claim, I doubt the first nation we'd be going after would be one with WMD capability. This war is not about oil, despite the feverish, leftist chants to the contrary. So, Eric - it's November 1, 1938 - whose side are you on? Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/042a781f/attachment.html From ccooper Thu Feb 6 15:59:17 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 15:59:17 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370710C9A72@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Duane and Scott: First, Scott...It's a little ridiculous to make an argument like you don't understand the relevance of the U.N. after I put out TWO very important questions regarding unilateral action: 2) A unilateral move against Iraw is likely to increase anti-Americanism in the region 3) A unilateral move is likely to decrease the intelligence cooperation we need to fight the terrorism threat. (These are arguments, by the way, that Duane doesn't respond to either...) Now, Duane... There are a few substantial differences between Hitler's Germany and Saddam's Iraq. 1) Saddam has not made any imperialist moves towards neighboring nations 2) Saddam is (and has been successfully) contained militarily. It would be virtually impossible for him to launch an attack without us knowing and being in a position to stop it 3) We are defending (successfully again) protective zones in the north and the south that prevent Saddam from ethnically cleansing certain factions of Iraq. In many ways...what we are doing now is the IDEAL strategy....because it prevents Saddam from becoming Hitler without the bloodshed of war or the big argument that Duane and Scott have ignored: EVEN THE CIA says that the most likely scenario for Saddam's USE of WMD is when we unilaterally try to take him down. So...again....given the current situation (as dangerous as it might be)...why shouldn't we do something along the lines of sending in a concentrated unit of U.N. soldiers to enforce the disarmament of WMD instead of an all-out U.S. invasion of the country for regime change, especially when (to repeat): 1) unilateral attack = WMD use against U.S. soldiers 2) unilateral attack = loss of intelligence cooperation to counter Al-Qaida 3) unilateral attack = increased anti-americanism which fuels terrorism ??? COOP -----Original Message----- From: Duane Hyland [mailto:privethedge at yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 4:19 PM To: Scott M. Elliott; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq HI, What Scott says is true, of course I also hear the doubts that Chris is expressing. And then I go back to History. Churchill was warning of Germany's power in the 30's, nobody was listening. Bush is warning of Sadaam's power in the 00's, nobody is listening. HItler was an omipressent madman, bent on destroying his own people, weeding out all who didn't bend to his wishes, and had delusions of conquering the world. Sadaam is a madman who has destroyed segments of his own people, brutally supresses his own people, and has expressed desires in the past if not to conquer the world, at least to conqure the middle east. Scott is right, the same protests in regard to Iraq were being launched in the 30's against involvement against Germany. Heck, forget the 30's, the same protests against US involvement in a war against Germany were being voiced right up until 12 noon on December 7, 1941. So, when Chris asks "why now." I guess my answer is "because we'll have to sooner or later." A few things should be apparent now: 1) Sadaam has the WMD, 2) He's fronting to inspectors, 3) The UN is allowing itself to be played like a two bit fiddle, 4) Eventually, he'll use the weapons against Israel (according to defectors he's said this on many occassions). If we can remove Sadaam in a quick war, it might be to our benefit to do so: 1) I doubt, very seriously, that the Iraqi populace will rise up against any concerted US action. I think it will be more like the old joke about the Lone Ranger "Sadaam and the Iraqi people ride up to the ridge to check out what's happening, see 10,000 Americans coming over the rise, Sadaam says "looks like it's you and me, faithful, beloved people. And the Iraqis utter in mass "who's we, deadman." (I know I changed the joke a bit). My co-worker who was an LAV commander in Gulf War I said that the Iraqi troops he ran into were too busy tring to surrender, and to worried about the food they were gettting for surrendering, than fighting. And, after 10 years of sanctions i can't see the resolve being any stronger - despite what some would have us believe. 2) I think after Powell's presentation only a hard bitten, left wing radical, would say that Sadaam is good for Iraq. he needs to go. I'm not sure that any middle eastern regime, save, perhaps, Israel, is up to the task of removal. 3) Not removing Sadaam, out of fear that terrorists would strike here, is kind of a non-unique argument after 9/11. Terrorists will stike here again if we get rid of Sadaam, or if we bake him a cake every year. Besides, not removing evil for the sake of fear is twisted, to my way of thinking. In the end, it might be better to strike now, and settle the situation instead of waiting and giving Sadaam more time to play his games and entrench. This is a winnable war, it should be a short war. Even if Sadaam deploys WMD in the field, the price of a liberated, Sadaam free Iraq, might be easier to pay than the price of an Iraq with Sadaam still there. As for the French...my Uncle Leroy fought in World War 2, from D-Day +2, to the end. He saw all war had to offer as a Tank Commander in Patton's 3rd Army. He's always said to this day "War is horrible, I would never willingly go to war again, unless it were against the French, then I'd go in a minute." I don't know what hte French did to Uncle Leroy, but I do know he wishes he could have his old Sherman back for a few hours to teach them a lesson, or two. When it comes to the French, and military matters I sort of ignore them. We're talking about a nation that hasn't had a good military since Bonepart was alive - they screwed up in both the big ones, got their asses kicked in Vietnam, and in Algeria - they are about as relevant to world military affairs today as the minie ball. So, in the end...Bush is on the right side of history for his views on Iraq. Not attacking now and settling the issue when the time is right will result in far worse circumstances down the line. An American effort at taking out Sadaam, followed by a rebuilding program on scale of the Marshall Plan might also show the Middle East that we aren't the bloodthirsty monsters that everyone makes us to be. "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." _____ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/2ecbdd41/attachment.htm From privethedge Thu Feb 6 16:09:25 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 14:09:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq In-Reply-To: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370710C9A72@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Message-ID: <20030206220925.64463.qmail@web10003.mail.yahoo.com> Duane and Scott: First, Scott...It's a little ridiculous to make an argument like you don't understand the relevance of the U.N. after I put out TWO very important questions regarding unilateral action: << 2) A unilateral move against Iraw is likely to increase anti-Americanism in the region3) A unilateral move is likely to decrease the intelligence cooperation we need to fight the terrorism threat. >> I'm assuming that the move will not be unilateral. I believe the boys at the Quay D'Orsay will come around, and I believe Germany will fall in line also. Besides, the last I looked Britian and Australia, and 8 other European nations, as well as Angola were with us - so it's not unilateral.(These are arguments, by the way, that Duane doesn't respond to either...) Now, Duane... There are a few substantial differences between Hitler's Germany and Saddam's Iraq. << 1) Saddam has not made any imperialist moves towards neighboring nations >> Would you care to tell that to the people of Kuwait? They might offer a different perspective. Or the people of Iran. Or the people of Israel (for his attacks on Tel Aviv during the 1st Gulf War). << 2) Saddam is (and has been successfully) contained militarily. It would be virtually impossible for him to launch an attack without us knowing and being in a position to stop it >> I agree. << 3) We are defending (successfully again) protective zones in the north and the south that prevent Saddam from ethnically cleansing certain factions of Iraq. >> Yes. You might have a point here. Unless, Sadaam sees our no-attack as an emboldening move and he rolls over into those zones. Members of his cabinet have been making that noise of late. But, I guess as Sadaam is confined he only gangrapes, tortures, and murders his citizens in his zone- that;s OK? << In many ways...what we are doing now is the IDEAL strategy....because it prevents Saddam from becoming Hitler without the bloodshed of war or the big argument that Duane and Scott have ignored: EVEN THE CIA says that the most likely scenario for Saddam's USE of WMD is when we unilaterally try to take him down.>> This makes sense, but that use would most likely be against prepared military targets. Not unsuspecting ones. I also don't think that Sadaam's field commanders are going to launch those weapons. Even if Sadaam could launch the weapons - he's well aware what the US doctrine on force says about responding to WMD attacks, not to mention Israel's. << So...again....given the current situation (as dangerous as it might be)...why shouldn't we do something along the lines of sending in a concentrated unit of U.N. soldiers to enforce the disarmament of WMD instead of an all-out U.S. invasion of the country for regime change, especially when (to repeat): >> Right..cause the UN is some mighty effective fighting force. << 1) unilateral attack = WMD use against U.S. soldiers >> Assumes Sadaam's field people are loyal, and would do that.<< 2) unilateral attack = loss of intelligence cooperation to counter Al-Qaida >> Not from the players that count. Al-Qaida is everyone's enemy, not just ours. << 3) unilateral attack = increased anti-americanism which fuels terrorism >> Non-Unique post 9/11. It will happen, as I said, if we attack or if we bake Sadaam a cake every year for his birthday. In the end, Sadaam has to go. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/c2b69de7/attachment.html From ccooper Thu Feb 6 16:28:29 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 16:28:29 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370710C9A74@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Duane: C'mon...don't be a dolt...I'm trying to be open-minded about this and you're not giving my arguments the credence they deserve (or else you really are just this slow). 1) By unilateral, I mean without the support of key middle eastern nations. 2) Saddam DID make imperialist moves. When I said he hasn't, I meant he hasn't SINCE WE have contained him. (and when you ask what Kuwait would say...well...they are one of those key nations that does NOT support our attack...funny that.) 3) If you agree that Saddam has been successfully contained, that takes-out your ONLY good argument for attacking him NOW (the threat of him lashing out with WMD) 4) Saddam's inability to do ethnic cleansing in the north and south is what makes him UNLIKE Hitler. That was my point...not that he's a goodie-goodie. So...you're analogy to whose side would someone be on in WWII is still not apt. 5) I have ALWAYS conceeded that an adequate case can be made for a police action to bring Saddam to justice for his past (and continuing) atrocities. But again...that does not answer why ONLY Saddam, why NOW, why in THIS manner. As much as Bush and you would like to now paint this as an admirable action of humanitarian assistance...an excercise in the enforcement of international law. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS IS. If it is...then the U.S. should acceed to the I.C.C. and make plans to go after Kissinger and Kim Jong Il. 6) If 9-11 is hopelessly non-unique, then you'd think that we would be prioritizing our resources in: A) protecting our borders from clandestine attacks (harbor patrol anyone....NOT happening!) B) trying to understand and mitigate the motivation for this terrorism (U.S. unilateralism in the middle east and the resulting anti-Americanism) The WEAKEST case for this action has ALWAYS been that it will somehow help us address the war on terrorism. COOP -----Original Message----- From: Duane Hyland [mailto:privethedge at yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 5:09 PM To: Christopher Cooper; Scott M. Elliott; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: RE: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq Duane and Scott: First, Scott...It's a little ridiculous to make an argument like you don't understand the relevance of the U.N. after I put out TWO very important questions regarding unilateral action: << 2) A unilateral move against Iraw is likely to increase anti-Americanism in the region 3) A unilateral move is likely to decrease the intelligence cooperation we need to fight the terrorism threat. >> I'm assuming that the move will not be unilateral. I believe the boys at the Quay D'Orsay will come around, and I believe Germany will fall in line also. Besides, the last I looked Britian and Australia, and 8 other European nations, as well as Angola were with us - so it's not unilateral. (These are arguments, by the way, that Duane doesn't respond to either...) Now, Duane... There are a few substantial differences between Hitler's Germany and Saddam's Iraq. << 1) Saddam has not made any imperialist moves towards neighboring nations >> Would you care to tell that to the people of Kuwait? They might offer a different perspective. Or the people of Iran. Or the people of Israel (for his attacks on Tel Aviv during the 1st Gulf War). << 2) Saddam is (and has been successfully) contained militarily. It would be virtually impossible for him to launch an attack without us knowing and being in a position to stop it >> I agree. << 3) We are defending (successfully again) protective zones in the north and the south that prevent Saddam from ethnically cleansing certain factions of Iraq. >> Yes. You might have a point here. Unless, Sadaam sees our no-attack as an emboldening move and he rolls over into those zones. Members of his cabinet have been making that noise of late. But, I guess as Sadaam is confined he only gangrapes, tortures, and murders his citizens in his zone- that;s OK? << In many ways...what we are doing now is the IDEAL strategy....because it prevents Saddam from becoming Hitler without the bloodshed of war or the big argument that Duane and Scott have ignored: EVEN THE CIA says that the most likely scenario for Saddam's USE of WMD is when we unilaterally try to take him down.>> This makes sense, but that use would most likely be against prepared military targets. Not unsuspecting ones. I also don't think that Sadaam's field commanders are going to launch those weapons. Even if Sadaam could launch the weapons - he's well aware what the US doctrine on force says about responding to WMD attacks, not to mention Israel's. << So...again....given the current situation (as dangerous as it might be)...why shouldn't we do something along the lines of sending in a concentrated unit of U.N. soldiers to enforce the disarmament of WMD instead of an all-out U.S. invasion of the country for regime change, especially when (to repeat): >> Right..cause the UN is some mighty effective fighting force. << 1) unilateral attack = WMD use against U.S. soldiers >> Assumes Sadaam's field people are loyal, and would do that. << 2) unilateral attack = loss of intelligence cooperation to counter Al-Qaida >> Not from the players that count. Al-Qaida is everyone's enemy, not just ours. << 3) unilateral attack = increased anti-americanism which fuels terrorism >> Non-Unique post 9/11. It will happen, as I said, if we attack or if we bake Sadaam a cake every year for his birthday. In the end, Sadaam has to go. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." _____ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/d3188793/attachment.htm From korryharvey Thu Feb 6 16:41:54 2003 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 14:41:54 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] judges needed-- beautiful bellingham Message-ID: hey folks, sorry for the clutter.... anyone interested in making some easy cash this weekend in bellingham... we are particularly in need of some i.e. and/or parli judges... either email me or, even better, email steve: steven.woods at wwu.edu thanks _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From cchampa Thu Feb 6 17:50:08 2003 From: cchampa (Clayton S. Champagne) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:50:08 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern Registration Message-ID: <007f01c2ce3a$7b23bd40$2c2a7e93@clay> I might have missed the posting, but could someone tell me when and where registration starts tomorrow night for the tournament? Thanks. Clayton Champagne Loyola Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/843a0640/attachment.html From cchampa Thu Feb 6 17:52:30 2003 From: cchampa (Clayton S. Champagne) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:52:30 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Adam Lee Message-ID: <008801c2ce3a$d00fb2f0$2c2a7e93@clay> Hey Adam... Could you drop me a line? Clayton cchampa at luc.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/24bfae85/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Thu Feb 6 17:51:29 2003 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 16:51:29 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq Message-ID: http://traprockpeace.org/firstresponse.html This contains a refutation of Powell's speech. Are we really "Post-Powell" yet??? stannard _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From cchampa Thu Feb 6 18:18:04 2003 From: cchampa (Clayton S. Champagne) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 18:18:04 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] dp or Nader Message-ID: <00b201c2ce3e$625ecf30$2c2a7e93@clay> Can one of you two drop me a line? Clayton cchampa at luc.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/63b4f0da/attachment.html From carverjoseph Thu Feb 6 18:25:41 2003 From: carverjoseph (Django Carver) Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 00:25:41 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] mike davis please Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030207/13fb17cc/attachment.htm From a-brovero Thu Feb 6 19:04:06 2003 From: a-brovero (Adrienne F. Brovero) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 19:04:06 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern Tournament Announcements -- Please read ASAP Message-ID: <005e01c2ce44$d02e04d0$1c01000a@AdriSony> Greetings. We are making final preparations for your arrival. Should you have needs that we can help with, please do not hesitate to ask. In the meantime, a few hints that might make your arrival easier: 1. Coaches: As soon as possible, please consult the list of teams on the tournament website to ensure your entry is accurate: http://www.debatetournament.org/northwestern2003 ***Please make changes through the website.*** 2. Registration will be on Friday evening at the Omni Orrington Hotel, 1710 Orrington Avenue in Evanston. It is in the Lake Michigan room on the second floor, begins at 7 p.m., and concludes at 11 p.m. Coaches are invited to a reception in that same room. For those at the Best Western: The Orrington is two blocks north of the Best Western on the west side of the street. The Best Western's Sherman Avenue address is deceptive. Orrington Avenue and Sherman Avenue merge approximately one half block north of the Best Western. Exit the front door of the Best Western; turn right, walk (or drive) two and one-half blocks (across Davis and Church Streets) and look to your left. For those of you at the Hilton Inn and Garden Suites: Travel south from your hotel to Church Street, approximately one half of one block. Travel east (left) on Church Street. In approximately three blocks you will reach Orrington Avenue. Look to your left and you will see the Omni Orrington Hotel. If members of your party will not be attending or if you are experiencing weather or travel delays such that you may miss registration and/or rounds, please call Adrienne Brovero as soon as humanly possible at 773-383-7750. If leaving a message, please be sure to identify yourself, your school, and your circumstances (e.g. We're dropping a team so you need to fix the pairings before you release them, We're stuck at the Atlanta airport and won't get out until Sunday, etc.), and contact info if available (preferably a cell phone, as opposed to "The United departures terminal at LAX"). The sooner you get us this information, the shorter the delay in turning out preset pairings. Last year, delays in relaying such information to us resulted in a substantial delay in producing the pairings on Friday night. 3. Parking on Friday for those staying at the Orrington. Parking in the garage at the Orrington is by valet only. It is expensive; I have not checked recently, but last year it was $14 per night. It is also slow, particularly when they are trying to retrieve your automobile. You might consider one of three alternatives. After 5 p.m. on Friday, it is safe to park without penalty at one of two Northwestern lots. Option one: Public lot, across the street from the Orrington, behind the Evanston public library. As you exit the drive of the Orrington, look IMMEDIATELY to your right. There is an alleyway parallel to the library. If you drive forward and out of the Orrington drive even ten feet, you've missed your chance. The lot behind the library requires $0.25 for every 30 minutes from 9 a.m. until 6 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Otherwise, it's ok; you can park there without feeding the meter. The second option is one-half block north of the Orrington and one half block east on Clark Street. That's easy to pull off: as you pull out of the Orrington lot onto Orrington Avenue, you can only go one direction (north). In one-half block, Orrington Avenue dead-ends into Clark Street. Turn right, drive one-half block, and look to your left for the aforementioned lot. This is a surface lot, so it easily accommodates 15 passenger vans. It's a one block walk back to the Orrington. The final option is the lot behind the "Hardy House," home to the Debate Society. Follow the directions in step two. Continue traveling east on Clark Street, this time through the traffic light at Chicago Avenue (another half block) and to the first available alley-way, still another half block. Turn left into the alley and you will find two adjacent lots, usually both empty after 5 p.m. This is a two block walk back to the Orrington. IF YOU CHOOSE THIS OPTION, DO NOT PARK IN THE "SAE" LOT, CLEARLY MARKED AS PRIVATE PROPERTY. DANGER, DANGER, DANGER: DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT park overnight on the street. Orrington Avenue, and many streets in Evanston, are 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. tow zones. If you leave your car parked on Orrington Avenue overnight, it will not be there the next morning. The Evanston cops are religious about this. 4. Parking at the Best Western. Your only real option here is the self-serve parking garage, adjacent to the hotel. Sherman Avenue in front of the hotel is also a 2 a.m. tow zone. Since it's self-serve, it's cheaper: 5. Parking at the Hilton Inn and Garden Suites: I know less about this; the Hilton is new. It is adjacent to a very large parking garage operated by the City of Evanston. I do not know what the rate is, nor do I know about the laws governing nearby street parking. I suggest you ask at the desk. 6. Weekend Weather Forecast. If you wish an update for weather or driving conditions, try www.weather.com. The zip code for Evanston, IL is 60201; use the search function at the top of the web page (for driving conditions, check lower down on their main page for the link). At 6:20 p.m. CST on Thursday, February 06, they forecast: Friday: Partly Cloudy, High 18, Low 13, No Snow Saturday: Flurries, High 26, Low 9, 20% chance of precipitation Sunday: Cloudy, High 28, Low 13, 20% chance of precipitation Monday: Cloudy/windy, High 19, Low 6, 20% chance of precipitation 7. Office Supplies and Xerox. There is an Office Max PDQ store right around the corner from the Orrington. 1633 Chicago Avenue, 847-475-2783. PDQ is designation for their smaller stores, but this one has a Xerox center and all of the supplies that a debate team would find essential. It is at the intersection of Chicago Avenue and Church streets. Walking from the Orrington: Exit the Orrington, turn right. When you reach the first street corner, you will be at Church. Turn left on Church, head one block to Chicago Avenue. The PDQ is on the opposite corner. Walking from the Best Western: Exit the building, turn right. Walk two full blocks to Church Street. Turn right on Church. Walk one block to Chicago Avenue. The PDQ is on the opposite corner. Walking from the Hilton: Have the desk point you to Church Street; it's just outside the door. Walk east on Church Street for approximately four blocks to the intersection on Church and Chicago. Hours: Monday, Friday, 8 a.m. until 11 p.m. Saturday, 9 a.m. until 8 p.m. Sunday, 11 a.m. until 6 p.m. To drive to this store from either tournament hotels, follow the directions in "option three" above. Just before reaching the referenced alley, you will be at a traffic light at Chicago Avenue. Turn right onto Chicago, drive one block south to the PDQ at Chicago and Church. Should you need copy facilities after the PDQ closes, you will need to drive to the Kinko's in north Evanston, about 2 miles from the tournament hotels. 2518 Greenbay Road, 847-475-8650. Exit the hotel, heading north (left) on Orrington Avenue. Turn left at the Burger King -- you will be on Clark Street. Turn right at the light onto Sherman Avenue. Take Sherman to Emerson Street (2 lights) and turn left onto Emerson. Take Emerson west about three blocks to a train overpass, and turn right onto Greenbay Road immediately UNDER the train overpass. Stay on Greenbay for almost a mile. Kinko's will be in a shopping center on the left -- be careful not to pass it, if memory serves, the storefront faces north, the same direction you are traveling, so you might overshoot it. 8. The NDT Committee is scheduled to meet during rounds 2 and 3 in room 108 of Harris Hall. Round 2 is scheduled to begin at 11 a.m. Lunch will be served. The District V Committee is scheduled to meet during round 4, again in Harris 108. 9. The Orrington has asked me to request: A. That you take care not to block the entrance way or the "cart path" right at the entrance to the hotel. The front door section is relatively small, and if you walk in and drop your boxes down in the first place you see, you are blocking traffic. The door persons are friendly, and they are anxious to make our guests happy. I have, however, indicated to hotel management that it's ok for door personnel to point out to you if your things are blocking the entrance way. Keep moving as you enter the front door, please. B. That you not conglomerate all night in the hallways, smoking, talking, etc. There are other guests sharing the various floors with us. Should you be overly stressed, unable to sleep, and wish a place other than your room to "hang-out" while your roommates sleep, the Alumni meeting room on the first floor is available to you. Sit, chill, talk, or whatever, in that common space. C. Security reminds us that they can not insure the safety of your property if you block the doors to your hotel rooms open. They are aware that many of you have valuables, like notebook computers, in your rooms. I have explained that the practice of blocking doors open is typically designed to facilitate groups in working together. They know this, but are still legitimately concerned about your security. In general, the staff at the Orrington is both helpful and friendly. They ask these things in order to make everyone's visit nicer. I agree with their general sense that debaters should not block the entrance and that debaters should not conglomerate in public areas such that they disrupt other guests. These requests notwithstanding, they are very interested in providing a hospitable environment for all tournament participants. SD Scott Deatherage Director of Debate Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/6fd8d00b/attachment.html From ermo Thu Feb 6 19:24:02 2003 From: ermo (Eric Morris) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 19:24:02 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq References: <20030206213433.46457.qmail@web10009.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <004b01c2ce47$995e7720$abcbed81@cc.ukans.edu> What is it going to take, Eric before you'll say "yep, Sadaam has gotta go." I'm just wondering. Will he need to put a nuclear missile into the middle of Tel Aviv? Will he need to amass enough WMD to role over Saudi? > Those two would probably do it, depending on the situation. Will you say Bush must go if he puts a nuke in the middle of Baghdad? I suppose if the Saudis bought into the Bush administration threat perceptions, they'd be clearly supporting us instead of slowly altering their position to adjust for the inevitability of a long term US occupation which they view as a substantial security threat. It might help a little bit if it seemed like they had a plan for dealing with the aftermath. Does he have to gang rape and torture a few more dissenters? > As coop points out regarding the ICC, the notion that this is reason for US intervention is bunk. We don't intervene against most human rights abuses in most places. This one has a lot of oil. If the date were November 1, 1938, would you be voicing these concerns about military action against Germany? > I'm not sure. If I thought the dangers of action were greater than the dangers of inaction, then yes. The process of testing peaceful co-existence was an important process of preparing for the eventual war. We are still in that process here. If you want to pre-empt everyone who might have some parallels to Hitler, our military is gonna be awful busy killing enemies, both foreign and domestic. Germany was a truly dominant power. Iraq probably has some WMD that could be more effective in deterring outside attacks than in maintaining and expanding empire. If I thought Iraq was able to first strike with WMD, I could stomach some action to stop it. The problem is, I have about zero trust in this administration since their agenda is pretty clearly independent of such facts. And what is this obsession about oil? If the US were hell bent on getting oil, we could invade Saudi Arabia, Venezuala, or a host of other unarmed, small, oil rich nations. If it were ALL about the oil, as some of you claim, I doubt the first nation we'd be going after would be one with WMD capability. This war is not about oil, despite the feverish, leftist chants to the contrary. > Why do we ignore other countries with potential WMD threats and massive human rights abuses that lack oil. We lack an effective pretext to invade anyone else you mentioned. I don't think they care zero about international opinion, I just think they're way too cavalier given the stakes. So, Eric - it's November 1, 1938 - whose side are you on? > I oppose my country attacking other countries without a damn good reason. How much bloodshed throughout history could have been prevented if most others felt the same? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/d16b7a07/attachment.htm From Ned_Ludd Thu Feb 6 19:34:27 2003 From: Ned_Ludd (Ned Ludd) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 17:34:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] scholarship Message-ID: <20030207013427.606B83941@sitemail.everyone.net> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/d48cea2e/attachment.asc From scottelliott Thu Feb 6 20:20:11 2003 From: scottelliott (Scott M. Elliott) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 20:20:11 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq References: <20030206220925.64463.qmail@web10003.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001c01c2ce4f$72f6a460$e6995a42@grandecom.net> "Unilateralism ='s Anti Americanism": Here's a wake up call folks. The people that are Anti American already exist. Its not like everybody in the world loves us and will be mad only if we invade Iraq. People determined to kill Americans will be determined no matter what we do. I say so what. Kill them before they kill us. Peace through strength and Peacwe through action will do more for peace and democratic values in the world than capitulation. "Decrease Intelligence" I have a sneaking suspicion that those that would refuse to help us in gathering intelligence are the very party's helping to arm Iraq--namely France, Germany, and Russia. They are just covering their asses on their oil contracts as well as their two-faced behavior toward the non-proliferation regime. If doing the Kabuki-dance of UN resolutions serves our purposes, makes the French fell warm and fuzzy, then o.k. by me. But, if it comes down to bowing down to the UN, I say get rid of the whole organization. Maybe Jesse Helms was right. "Containment theory" Quick response--EVERY country is contained--until they invade another country. Just ask Neville Chamberlain. Here's a quick Hypo--Iraq is "contained" until 2005. The country then reinvades Kuwait, better yet, Saudi Arabia. This time, however, Hussien tells the world to F--off because he has nuclear weapons or deliverable chemical/bio weapons. Then watcha gonna do? More sanctions, more hand wringing? Perhaps a pre-emptive nuclear first strike? Hussien is much like cancer--you have a choice between a surgery now or waiting until the cancer metastasizes. Yes, we should have finished him off a decade ago. But now we are ready to to more radical suurgery. I say let's get it over with. I suggest, to turn the 1970's phrase on it head, that we "Just give War a chance." Scott ----- Original Message ----- From: Duane Hyland To: Christopher Cooper ; Scott M. Elliott ; edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 4:09 PM Subject: RE: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq Duane and Scott: First, Scott...It's a little ridiculous to make an argument like you don't understand the relevance of the U.N. after I put out TWO very important questions regarding unilateral action: << 2) A unilateral move against Iraw is likely to increase anti-Americanism in the region 3) A unilateral move is likely to decrease the intelligence cooperation we need to fight the terrorism threat. >> I'm assuming that the move will not be unilateral. I believe the boys at the Quay D'Orsay will come around, and I believe Germany will fall in line also. Besides, the last I looked Britian and Australia, and 8 other European nations, as well as Angola were with us - so it's not unilateral. (These are arguments, by the way, that Duane doesn't respond to either...) Now, Duane... There are a few substantial differences between Hitler's Germany and Saddam's Iraq. << 1) Saddam has not made any imperialist moves towards neighboring nations >> Would you care to tell that to the people of Kuwait? They might offer a different perspective. Or the people of Iran. Or the people of Israel (for his attacks on Tel Aviv during the 1st Gulf War). << 2) Saddam is (and has been successfully) contained militarily. It would be virtually impossible for him to launch an attack without us knowing and being in a position to stop it >> I agree. << 3) We are defending (successfully again) protective zones in the north and the south that prevent Saddam from ethnically cleansing certain factions of Iraq. >> Yes. You might have a point here. Unless, Sadaam sees our no-attack as an emboldening move and he rolls over into those zones. Members of his cabinet have been making that noise of late. But, I guess as Sadaam is confined he only gangrapes, tortures, and murders his citizens in his zone- that;s OK? << In many ways...what we are doing now is the IDEAL strategy....because it prevents Saddam from becoming Hitler without the bloodshed of war or the big argument that Duane and Scott have ignored: EVEN THE CIA says that the most likely scenario for Saddam's USE of WMD is when we unilaterally try to take him down.>> This makes sense, but that use would most likely be against prepared military targets. Not unsuspecting ones. I also don't think that Sadaam's field commanders are going to launch those weapons. Even if Sadaam could launch the weapons - he's well aware what the US doctrine on force says about responding to WMD attacks, not to mention Israel's. << So...again....given the current situation (as dangerous as it might be)...why shouldn't we do something along the lines of sending in a concentrated unit of U.N. soldiers to enforce the disarmament of WMD instead of an all-out U.S. invasion of the country for regime change, especially when (to repeat): >> Right..cause the UN is some mighty effective fighting force. << 1) unilateral attack = WMD use against U.S. soldiers >> Assumes Sadaam's field people are loyal, and would do that. << 2) unilateral attack = loss of intelligence cooperation to counter Al-Qaida >> Not from the players that count. Al-Qaida is everyone's enemy, not just ours. << 3) unilateral attack = increased anti-americanism which fuels terrorism >> Non-Unique post 9/11. It will happen, as I said, if we attack or if we bake Sadaam a cake every year for his birthday. In the end, Sadaam has to go. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/54bd9802/attachment.htm From scottelliott Thu Feb 6 20:29:15 2003 From: scottelliott (Scott M. Elliott) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 20:29:15 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq References: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370710C9A72@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Message-ID: <002801c2ce50$b799a300$e6995a42@grandecom.net> Chris says: 1) unilateral attack = WMD use against U.S. soldiers I say: Doesn't this "turn" all of the other arguments opposing war in Iraq. Won't the problem just get worse? Kinda dumb to say they will use WMD on us--that's the whole point. Better to take them out when they have little WMD capability then when they have a big WMD capability and then cannot be stopped. Chris says: 2) unilateral attack = loss of intelligence cooperation to counter Al-Qaida. I say NSA is doing pretty good. Money can buy anything, anyone, and any country's intelligence service. Not to mention that our friends that are most important for intelligence gathering already support the invasion of Iraq---namely England, many Arab countries (like the Saudi's and Jordanians really love Sadaam). Chris says: 3) unilateral attack = increased anti-americanism which fuels terrorism I say people motivated enough to kill Americans and to attack the U.S are already attacking us--I think this is call "not unique" in debate parlance. Sure, there will be a few protests in the streets. But, as usual, those people will back down. And, when those people see Iraqi's cheering in the streets at the "liberation" of Iraq, then all they can do is bitch about US Imperialism--like they are already doing. Last, many people and many nations only respect a good ol' fashoined ass whoopin'. Tell you what Chris, if you could demonstrate to me that NOT invading Iraq will somehow curb, reduce, or prevent terrorism in or against the US, then I will change my mind. I say, kill them before they kill us. Scott ----- Original Message ----- From: Christopher Cooper To: 'Duane Hyland' ; Scott M. Elliott ; edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 3:59 PM Subject: RE: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq Duane and Scott: First, Scott...It's a little ridiculous to make an argument like you don't understand the relevance of the U.N. after I put out TWO very important questions regarding unilateral action: 2) A unilateral move against Iraw is likely to increase anti-Americanism in the region 3) A unilateral move is likely to decrease the intelligence cooperation we need to fight the terrorism threat. (These are arguments, by the way, that Duane doesn't respond to either...) Now, Duane... There are a few substantial differences between Hitler's Germany and Saddam's Iraq. 1) Saddam has not made any imperialist moves towards neighboring nations 2) Saddam is (and has been successfully) contained militarily. It would be virtually impossible for him to launch an attack without us knowing and being in a position to stop it 3) We are defending (successfully again) protective zones in the north and the south that prevent Saddam from ethnically cleansing certain factions of Iraq. In many ways...what we are doing now is the IDEAL strategy....because it prevents Saddam from becoming Hitler without the bloodshed of war or the big argument that Duane and Scott have ignored: EVEN THE CIA says that the most likely scenario for Saddam's USE of WMD is when we unilaterally try to take him down. So...again....given the current situation (as dangerous as it might be)...why shouldn't we do something along the lines of sending in a concentrated unit of U.N. soldiers to enforce the disarmament of WMD instead of an all-out U.S. invasion of the country for regime change, especially when (to repeat): 1) unilateral attack = WMD use against U.S. soldiers 2) unilateral attack = loss of intelligence cooperation to counter Al-Qaida 3) unilateral attack = increased anti-americanism which fuels terrorism ??? COOP -----Original Message----- From: Duane Hyland [mailto:privethedge at yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 4:19 PM To: Scott M. Elliott; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq HI, What Scott says is true, of course I also hear the doubts that Chris is expressing. And then I go back to History. Churchill was warning of Germany's power in the 30's, nobody was listening. Bush is warning of Sadaam's power in the 00's, nobody is listening. HItler was an omipressent madman, bent on destroying his own people, weeding out all who didn't bend to his wishes, and had delusions of conquering the world. Sadaam is a madman who has destroyed segments of his own people, brutally supresses his own people, and has expressed desires in the past if not to conquer the world, at least to conqure the middle east. Scott is right, the same protests in regard to Iraq were being launched in the 30's against involvement against Germany. Heck, forget the 30's, the same protests against US involvement in a war against Germany were being voiced right up until 12 noon on December 7, 1941. So, when Chris asks "why now." I guess my answer is "because we'll have to sooner or later." A few things should be apparent now: 1) Sadaam has the WMD, 2) He's fronting to inspectors, 3) The UN is allowing itself to be played like a two bit fiddle, 4) Eventually, he'll use the weapons against Israel (according to defectors he's said this on many occassions). If we can remove Sadaam in a quick war, it might be to our benefit to do so: 1) I doubt, very seriously, that the Iraqi populace will rise up against any concerted US action. I think it will be more like the old joke about the Lone Ranger "Sadaam and the Iraqi people ride up to the ridge to check out what's happening, see 10,000 Americans coming over the rise, Sadaam says "looks like it's you and me, faithful, beloved people. And the Iraqis utter in mass "who's we, deadman." (I know I changed the joke a bit). My co-worker who was an LAV commander in Gulf War I said that the Iraqi troops he ran into were too busy tring to surrender, and to worried about the food they were gettting for surrendering, than fighting. And, after 10 years of sanctions i can't see the resolve being any stronger - despite what some would have us believe. 2) I think after Powell's presentation only a hard bitten, left wing radical, would say that Sadaam is good for Iraq. he needs to go. I'm not sure that any middle eastern regime, save, perhaps, Israel, is up to the task of removal. 3) Not removing Sadaam, out of fear that terrorists would strike here, is kind of a non-unique argument after 9/11. Terrorists will stike here again if we get rid of Sadaam, or if we bake him a cake every year. Besides, not removing evil for the sake of fear is twisted, to my way of thinking. In the end, it might be better to strike now, and settle the situation instead of waiting and giving Sadaam more time to play his games and entrench. This is a winnable war, it should be a short war. Even if Sadaam deploys WMD in the field, the price of a liberated, Sadaam free Iraq, might be easier to pay than the price of an Iraq with Sadaam still there. As for the French...my Uncle Leroy fought in World War 2, from D-Day +2, to the end. He saw all war had to offer as a Tank Commander in Patton's 3rd Army. He's always said to this day "War is horrible, I would never willingly go to war again, unless it were against the French, then I'd go in a minute." I don't know what hte French did to Uncle Leroy, but I do know he wishes he could have his old Sherman back for a few hours to teach them a lesson, or two. When it comes to the French, and military matters I sort of ignore them. We're talking about a nation that hasn't had a good military since Bonepart was alive - they screwed up in both the big ones, got their asses kicked in Vietnam, and in Algeria - they are about as relevant to world military affairs today as the minie ball. So, in the end...Bush is on the right side of history for his views on Iraq. Not attacking now and settling the issue when the time is right will result in far worse circumstances down the line. An American effort at taking out Sadaam, followed by a rebuilding program on scale of the Marshall Plan might also show the Middle East that we aren't the bloodthirsty monsters that everyone makes us to be. "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/056f6f96/attachment.html From scottelliott Thu Feb 6 20:46:49 2003 From: scottelliott (Scott M. Elliott) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 20:46:49 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq-Resp. to Morris Message-ID: <000601c2ce53$2a77d8e0$e6995a42@grandecom.net> Regarding the UN and my relevence: Nice ad homs, but not a real argument. Given that the U.S. effectively rules the world, I don't see why we should have to take any shit off anybody. All one can say about the last unipolar power--Rome--was that it eventually collapsed. But it collapsed after over 1,000 years of total dominance. I can stand for US dominance of, say 200 years. My real concern is the lack of academic debate relevance to the world. Regarding the compromise of intelligence: It is one thing to know your cell phone transmissions are being tapped. It is another to realize that your "secure" and "encrypted communications" have been compromised. Just ask the Japanese circa 1944-45 or the Germans once their cyphers were broken. Resp to your distrust of Bush: To bad that you trust the French and the UN more than your own government. To your P.S.: Nobody ever claimed the Iraqi army was full of bright people. Scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/9a67c2a2/attachment.htm From scottelliott Thu Feb 6 21:03:48 2003 From: scottelliott (Scott M. Elliott) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 21:03:48 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Iraq, If this is just about oil...... Message-ID: <000601c2ce55$8a27c780$e6995a42@grandecom.net> If all we want is Oil, then we would have let Hussien take over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, then rush Exxon in ASAP to negotiate new and cheaper contracts. If Oil is the top priority, then we would side with the Palestinians. Here's a hint folks--Isreal doesn't have any oil. So how the F----can oil be the dominant force in our Mid-East policy? If Oil is so important, we would have been the first to push for a removal of sanction on Iraq. The "we just want their oil" argument just doesn't wash. Finally, the economics of war for oil does not make sense. It is going to cost the US billions to invade and rebuild Iraq--more than the returns we will get from oil. A war in Iraq will temporarily drive up oil prices world wide--get ready for $2.00 per gallon gas come March. Rebuilding their oil infrastructure--with or without Saddam blowing up the fields--will take decades. I think that the war drums for war with Iraq is not driven by "oil politics." To paint it as such ignores the reality of our foreign policy decisions. If you want to see who is a WHORE for OIL, I suggest you check out who has signed new contracts with Iraq for oil---the F----ing French government and the Soviet--er--Russians! Hmmmmm!? Could it be that the drive of pacifism in the UN is driven by the lust for cheap oil? F--- the French Government and Just give War a chance. Scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/35a6ee66/attachment.html From scottelliott Thu Feb 6 21:18:40 2003 From: scottelliott (Scott M. Elliott) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 21:18:40 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Richard Perle on France Message-ID: <000a01c2ce57$9cd6e1c0$e6995a42@grandecom.net> Pentagon adviser: France 'no longer ally' By Martin Walker UPI Chief International Correspondent >From the International Desk Published 2/4/2003 8:43 PM View printer-friendly version WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 (UPI) -- France is no longer an ally of the United States and the NATO alliance "must develop a strategy to contain our erstwhile ally or we will not be talking about a NATO alliance" the head of the Pentagon's top advisory board said in Washington Tuesday. Richard Perle, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Reagan administration and now chairman of the Pentagon's Policy Advisory Board, condemned French and German policy on Iraq in the strongest terms at a public seminar organized by a New York-based PR firm and attended by Iraqi exiles and American Middle East and security officials. But while dismissing Germany's refusal to support military action against Iraq as an aberration by "a discredited chancellor," Perle warned that France's attitude was both more dangerous and more serious. "France is no longer the ally it once was," Perle said. And he went on to accuse French President Jacques Chirac of believing "deep in his soul that Saddam Hussein is preferable to any likely successor." French leaders have insisted the country will oppose any military action against Iraq without a second resolution by the United Nations Security Council, where it holds one of five crucial veto powers. Last November France did vote for Resolution 1441, which promised "serious consequences" if Iraq did not cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors verifying that Iraq has indeed dismantled its programs for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. "I have long thought that there were forces in France intent on reducing the American role in the world. That is more troubling than the stance of a German chancellor, who has been largely rejected by his own people," Perle said, referring to the sharp electoral defeat suffered by Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's party in state elections Sunday. Although he is not an official of the Bush administration, Perle's position as the Pentagon's senior civilian adviser gives his harsh remarks a quasi-official character and reflects the growing frustration in the White House and Pentagon with the French and German reluctance to support their U.S. and British allies. "Very considerable damage has already been done to the Atlantic community, including NATO, by Germany and France," Perle said. "But in the German case, the behavior of the Chancellor is idiosyncratic. He tried again to incite pacifism, and this time failed in Sunday's elections in Hesse and Lower Saxony. His capacity to do damage is now constrained. Chancellor Schroeder is now in a box, and the Germans will recover their equilibrium." Perle went on to question whether the United States should ever again seek the endorsement of the U.N. Security Council on a major issue of policy, stressing that "Iraq is going to be liberated, by the United States and whoever wants to join us, whether we get the approbation of the U.N. or any other institution." "It is now reasonable to ask whether the United States should now or on any other occasion subordinate vital national interests to a show of hands by nations who do not share our interests," he added. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/d6e52749/attachment.htm From wrhailer Thu Feb 6 21:18:48 2003 From: wrhailer (William Hailer) Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 21:18:48 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern Airport Ride Message-ID: <001d01c2ce57$a16320a0$6d10818a@cord.edu> If there is a team flying into O'Hare around 7:30-9:30 on Friday evening, and has room, could you please backchanne me. I am looking for a ride from the airport to the Orrington. Thanks. Email wrhailer at cord.edu Will Hailer, Concordia -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030206/d6969055/attachment.html From GatorDebate Fri Feb 7 00:27:01 2003 From: GatorDebate (GatorDebate at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 01:27:01 EST Subject: [eDebate] scholarship (hopefully UT officials can help deal with this!) Message-ID: <110.1fad2201.2b74abb5@aol.com> The following is the text of an e-mail message I sent to Vice President Vick, Director of Public Safety/Campus Security at The University of Texas. Maybe University of Texas officials can help our community deal with this individual. frank gator debate Dear Vice President Vick, My name is Frank Irizarry and I am a Lecturer of Communication and Policy Debate coach at The University of Florida. Today, a message was posted to the National Collegiate Debate listserv (edebate) from an individual with the screen name Ned_ludd. This unknown individual has been known to create trouble on the listserv in the past but this time he has offered a $500 reward to the first individual that significantly disrupts or damages a National Collegiate Debate Tournament. He claims that the money is being held in a "locker on the University of Texas campus." The e-mail that he sent to the EDEBATE listserv is as follows: ______________________________________________________________________ Subj: [eDebate] scholarship Date: 2/6/2003 8:36:10 PM Eastern Standard Time From: Ned_Ludd at aemail4u.com To: edebate at ndtceda.com Sent from the Internet (Details) "[Y]ou never can tell when just that *certain* one might come in who's free enough to foul things up right and left, really make a hell of a mess and constitute a threat to the whole smoothness of the outfit." - the Indian in 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest', Chapter Four. _ Dear Merry Pranksters, The Ken Kesey Scholarship Foundation is offering an educational grant to the first individual or group that substantially disrupts a national debate tournament on either the secondary school or collegiate circuits. Those who successfully halt an awards ceremony through overt protest or successfully cause a false winner to be awarded through covert sabotage will qualify. A $500 cash-prize has been placed in a locker on the University of Texas campus in Austin; the key will be given to the winner(s). If you or your organization is interested in contributing to the KKSF, in brainstorming other potentially effective 'cultural jamming' actions, or has any questions and suggestions, then feel welcome to contact me (at Ned_Ludd at aemail4u.com). Best of Luck to all Applicants, Ned Ludd. _ P.S. Please forward this e-mail to the CX-L & other debate list-servs. Thank You. ______________________________________________________________________ As the Southeast representative to the Executive Council for the Cross-Examination Debate Association, I would appreciate you looking into this potential act of cyberterrorism on your campus. The fact that this person wants to disrupt college debate, especially when the University of Texas has one of the finest debate programs in the country is terrible. The fact that Mr. Ludd is promoting this same type of activity toward minors at High School tournaments is deplorable. Any assistance that you can provide to the debate community would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your time sir. If you have any questions or if I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Frank P. Irizarry University of Florida -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030207/0d068992/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson Fri Feb 7 08:16:27 2003 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary N. Larson) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 08:16:27 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern Pref Sheets - Important Message-ID: <000c01c2ceb3$813a61b0$100c18ac@bl2471> We are making good progress on pref sheets but have several still to be done: I have no records for: Baylor CE,GB Claremont DW CSU-Long Beach HP DePaul MR Emory GR George Mason HF Loyola (IL) RC,VG Michigan State HV,MS,SS,WR Regis RS Texas MD, MB (More/Brar) Wake Forest CG,CT,ES,GM,HL Weber State SR Additionally, I would like the following teams to check their sheets and make sure that you have entered them the way you want them (in some cases the data is blank). If you are having technical difficulties contact me ASAP: Significant question: Indiana AD,RB Miami BS,GS UT San Antonio RS Potential question with blanks (blanks ARE acceptable if you choose) Arizona State RC Emory (Suh/Stabile - sheet marked originally as FS) Gonzaga LS Wyoming CD In all cases, you can edit your sheets up until the deadline of 2:00 PM CST -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030207/5ecbb47b/attachment.html From Martlno4 Fri Feb 7 08:17:11 2003 From: Martlno4 (Martlno4 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 09:17:11 EST Subject: [eDebate] scholarship (hopefully UT officials can help deal with this!) Message-ID: <11.9574a6f.2b7519e7@aol.com> I hope the fwd is a joke. That's pretty damn funny. NM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030207/8abee6a4/attachment.htm From BERCHNORTO Fri Feb 7 08:57:08 2003 From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO at aol.com) Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 09:57:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] WVU tournament will go! Message-ID: <0C0D9668.1C91E432.09C05152@aol.com> Hi, everyone! We will most definitely have the tournament. Richmond and Liberty are already in town, and others are on the way. Those coming from the west probably don't see much of a problem, but the Baltimore-DC area was hit pretty heavily. We have about 2 inches in Morgantown, with maybe another dusting expected today. Please email or call (412-445-3957) to let me know your plans and whereabouts. If a late start is needed, we will do that. Have a safe trip, and we look forward to an outstanding weekend. --Neil Berch West Virginia University From ehrlenmeyerflask Fri Feb 7 09:29:04 2003 From: ehrlenmeyerflask (Aaron Klemz) Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 09:29:04 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Mr. Ludd's Revenge Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030207/d5a7aa28/attachment.html From privethedge Fri Feb 7 09:39:56 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 07:39:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] scholarship (hopefully UT officials can help deal with this!) In-Reply-To: <110.1fad2201.2b74abb5@aol.com> Message-ID: <20030207153956.29067.qmail@web10001.mail.yahoo.com> I hope this is a joke. If the idiots actually do disrupt an awards ceremony, I hope that they are prosecuted the full extent of the law. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030207/d4bb460f/attachment.htm From privethedge Fri Feb 7 10:04:35 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 08:04:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030207160435.34005.qmail@web10001.mail.yahoo.com> Hmmm.......I wonder, who do I trust more? Colin Powell or some leftist prof from Cabridge? Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030207/63efd5c2/attachment.html From ccooper Fri Feb 7 11:04:59 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:04:59 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370710C9A79@exm01w.apac.planning.org> 1) unilateral attack = WMD use against U.S. soldiers Scott says: Doesn't this "turn" all of the other arguments opposing war in Iraq. Won't the problem just get worse? Kinda dumb to say they will use WMD on us--that's the whole point. COOP: Uh...no...because of I guess what you would call uniqueness. No attack = no motivation to use WMD. The CIA concluded that the most likely scenario for Saddam's use of WMD would be in going down in a blaze of glory. That's WHY the U.S. issued the tough new nuclear posture...to try to deter Saddam ahead of time (but doesn't deterrence assume that the guy is rational? And if he's rational NOW...then can't he be deterred now? Hmmmmmmm......). 2) unilateral attack = loss of intelligence cooperation to counter Al-Qaida. Scott says: NSA is doing pretty good. Money can buy anything, anyone, and any country's intelligence service. Not to mention that our friends that are most important for intelligence gathering already support the invasion of Iraq---namely England, many Arab countries (like the Saudi's and Jordanians really love Sadaam). COOP: And yet we can't seem to buy the head of Osama (who? oh that's right....I seem to remember something about some guy...). And I think you clearly underestimate the necessity of not-so-freindly nation's in our intelligence gathering....Yemen, Kuwait, Oman, Iran, Syria, Turkmenistan, Bahrain, Quatar...THESE are some of the places where Osama and friends hang out. 3) unilateral attack = increased anti-americanism which fuels terrorism Scott says: people motivated enough to kill Americans and to attack the U.S are already attacking us--I think this is call "not unique" in debate parlance.... COOP: But at some point you have to examine the best strategies for "fighting" a war against terrorism. You don't REALLY think that the U.S. flexing its muscles in the mid-East is going to make us any safer from terrorism do you? And homeland security is a JOKE. At some point we are going to have to address the motivations (valid or not) of some of these people. SURE...there are already those committed to attacking the U.S. But there ability to recruit new, impassioned, extremist youth rises ten-fold when we unilaterally invade and topple the regime of another country in the area...when we increase U.S. presence in the area...when we use our might to dictate the distribution of resources in the area. Our actions butress the claims of religious extremists that paint their picture of us as the Western Satan. And it is that picture which motivates those who actually carry-out violent acts against us. WE CAN NOT STOP THEM BY ATTACKING IRAQ. COOP -----Original Message----- From: Scott M. Elliott [mailto:scottelliott at grandecom.net] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 9:29 PM To: Christopher Cooper; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq Chris says: 1) unilateral attack = WMD use against U.S. soldiers I say: Doesn't this "turn" all of the other arguments opposing war in Iraq. Won't the problem just get worse? Kinda dumb to say they will use WMD on us--that's the whole point. Better to take them out when they have little WMD capability then when they have a big WMD capability and then cannot be stopped. Chris says: 2) unilateral attack = loss of intelligence cooperation to counter Al-Qaida. I say NSA is doing pretty good. Money can buy anything, anyone, and any country's intelligence service. Not to mention that our friends that are most important for intelligence gathering already support the invasion of Iraq---namely England, many Arab countries (like the Saudi's and Jordanians really love Sadaam). Chris says: 3) unilateral attack = increased anti-americanism which fuels terrorism I say people motivated enough to kill Americans and to attack the U.S are already attacking us--I think this is call "not unique" in debate parlance. Sure, there will be a few protests in the streets. But, as usual, those people will back down. And, when those people see Iraqi's cheering in the streets at the "liberation" of Iraq, then all they can do is bitch about US Imperialism--like they are already doing. Last, many people and many nations only respect a good ol' fashoined ass whoopin'. Tell you what Chris, if you could demonstrate to me that NOT invading Iraq will somehow curb, reduce, or prevent terrorism in or against the US, then I will change my mind. I say, kill them before they kill us. Scott ----- Original Message ----- From: Christopher Cooper To: 'Duane Hyland' ; Scott M. Elliott ; edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 3:59 PM Subject: RE: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq Duane and Scott: First, Scott...It's a little ridiculous to make an argument like you don't understand the relevance of the U.N. after I put out TWO very important questions regarding unilateral action: 2) A unilateral move against Iraw is likely to increase anti-Americanism in the region 3) A unilateral move is likely to decrease the intelligence cooperation we need to fight the terrorism threat. (These are arguments, by the way, that Duane doesn't respond to either...) Now, Duane... There are a few substantial differences between Hitler's Germany and Saddam's Iraq. 1) Saddam has not made any imperialist moves towards neighboring nations 2) Saddam is (and has been successfully) contained militarily. It would be virtually impossible for him to launch an attack without us knowing and being in a position to stop it 3) We are defending (successfully again) protective zones in the north and the south that prevent Saddam from ethnically cleansing certain factions of Iraq. In many ways...what we are doing now is the IDEAL strategy....because it prevents Saddam from becoming Hitler without the bloodshed of war or the big argument that Duane and Scott have ignored: EVEN THE CIA says that the most likely scenario for Saddam's USE of WMD is when we unilaterally try to take him down. So...again....given the current situation (as dangerous as it might be)...why shouldn't we do something along the lines of sending in a concentrated unit of U.N. soldiers to enforce the disarmament of WMD instead of an all-out U.S. invasion of the country for regime change, especially when (to repeat): 1) unilateral attack = WMD use against U.S. soldiers 2) unilateral attack = loss of intelligence cooperation to counter Al-Qaida 3) unilateral attack = increased anti-americanism which fuels terrorism ??? COOP -----Original Message----- From: Duane Hyland [mailto:privethedge at yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 4:19 PM To: Scott M. Elliott; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq HI, What Scott says is true, of course I also hear the doubts that Chris is expressing. And then I go back to History. Churchill was warning of Germany's power in the 30's, nobody was listening. Bush is warning of Sadaam's power in the 00's, nobody is listening. HItler was an omipressent madman, bent on destroying his own people, weeding out all who didn't bend to his wishes, and had delusions of conquering the world. Sadaam is a madman who has destroyed segments of his own people, brutally supresses his own people, and has expressed desires in the past if not to conquer the world, at least to conqure the middle east. Scott is right, the same protests in regard to Iraq were being launched in the 30's against involvement against Germany. Heck, forget the 30's, the same protests against US involvement in a war against Germany were being voiced right up until 12 noon on December 7, 1941. So, when Chris asks "why now." I guess my answer is "because we'll have to sooner or later." A few things should be apparent now: 1) Sadaam has the WMD, 2) He's fronting to inspectors, 3) The UN is allowing itself to be played like a two bit fiddle, 4) Eventually, he'll use the weapons against Israel (according to defectors he's said this on many occassions). If we can remove Sadaam in a quick war, it might be to our benefit to do so: 1) I doubt, very seriously, that the Iraqi populace will rise up against any concerted US action. I think it will be more like the old joke about the Lone Ranger "Sadaam and the Iraqi people ride up to the ridge to check out what's happening, see 10,000 Americans coming over the rise, Sadaam says "looks like it's you and me, faithful, beloved people. And the Iraqis utter in mass "who's we, deadman." (I know I changed the joke a bit). My co-worker who was an LAV commander in Gulf War I said that the Iraqi troops he ran into were too busy tring to surrender, and to worried about the food they were gettting for surrendering, than fighting. And, after 10 years of sanctions i can't see the resolve being any stronger - despite what some would have us believe. 2) I think after Powell's presentation only a hard bitten, left wing radical, would say that Sadaam is good for Iraq. he needs to go. I'm not sure that any middle eastern regime, save, perhaps, Israel, is up to the task of removal. 3) Not removing Sadaam, out of fear that terrorists would strike here, is kind of a non-unique argument after 9/11. Terrorists will stike here again if we get rid of Sadaam, or if we bake him a cake every year. Besides, not removing evil for the sake of fear is twisted, to my way of thinking. In the end, it might be better to strike now, and settle the situation instead of waiting and giving Sadaam more time to play his games and entrench. This is a winnable war, it should be a short war. Even if Sadaam deploys WMD in the field, the price of a liberated, Sadaam free Iraq, might be easier to pay than the price of an Iraq with Sadaam still there. As for the French...my Uncle Leroy fought in World War 2, from D-Day +2, to the end. He saw all war had to offer as a Tank Commander in Patton's 3rd Army. He's always said to this day "War is horrible, I would never willingly go to war again, unless it were against the French, then I'd go in a minute." I don't know what hte French did to Uncle Leroy, but I do know he wishes he could have his old Sherman back for a few hours to teach them a lesson, or two. When it comes to the French, and military matters I sort of ignore them. We're talking about a nation that hasn't had a good military since Bonepart was alive - they screwed up in both the big ones, got their asses kicked in Vietnam, and in Algeria - they are about as relevant to world military affairs today as the minie ball. So, in the end...Bush is on the right side of history for his views on Iraq. Not attacking now and settling the issue when the time is right will result in far worse circumstances down the line. An American effort at taking out Sadaam, followed by a rebuilding program on scale of the Marshall Plan might also show the Middle East that we aren't the bloodthirsty monsters that everyone makes us to be. "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." _____ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030207/26b34d7a/attachment.htm From sykesjason Fri Feb 7 11:11:29 2003 From: sykesjason (Jason Sykes) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:11:29 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Re: scholarship (hopefully UT officials can help deal with this!) References: <20030207153956.29067.qmail@web10001.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003f01c2cecb$f4a915c0$46d1a942@computer> wait a minute here...i have to step in on this one. 1. what law governs whether debate tournaments run smoothly? i hope there's not one...i know a bunch of people who would be in serious trouble. it seems like "prosecution to the full extent of the law" is the real joke here. 2. "cyberterrorism" frank? please! give me a break! maybe we could get the detroit project to drop their commercials about SUVs and run ads regarding the relationship between debate and terrorism! or protesters and terrorism! even better! control yourselves people! jason ----- Original Message ----- From: Duane Hyland To: GatorDebate at aol.com ; edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 9:39 AM Subject: Re: [eDebate] scholarship (hopefully UT officials can help deal with this!) I hope this is a joke. If the idiots actually do disrupt an awards ceremony, I hope that they are prosecuted the full extent of the law. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030207/26b05d65/attachment.html From privethedge Fri Feb 7 11:55:21 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 09:55:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Post Powell: Now Let's Talk about Iraq In-Reply-To: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370710C9A74@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Message-ID: <20030207175521.52516.qmail@web10001.mail.yahoo.com> Duane: << C'mon...don't be a dolt...I'm trying to be open-minded about this and you're not giving my arguments the credence they deserve (or else you really are just this slow). >> Now, now, Coop insulting me isn't nice. I see the world through a much narrower lense than you do, and I tend to speak in literals - not in nuances. I'll forgive you for this slight. I'll readily admit, I'm not the smartest bear in the forest - but I do OK with what I was given. << 1) By unilateral, I mean without the support of key middle eastern nations. >> Ah, but then you didn't say what you meant. Unilateral could have meant that, or have meant without the support of our key allies in Europe. While we're on the Middle East, I guess we have Israel's support - they are pretty key, the Saudis are allowing us to use our bases. Qatar is allowing us to base there, and Kuwait, per today's Post, has actually declared 1/2 there country off limits to anyone but us and Britian, giving plenty of space to mass troops. The Post article makes it sound like Qatar and Kuwait are eagerly wanting us there, and heartily approving of our proposed course of action. << 2) Saddam DID make imperialist moves. When I said he hasn't, I meant he hasn't SINCE WE have contained him.(and when you ask what Kuwait would say...well...they are one of those key nations that does NOT support our attack...funny that.) >> Again, say what you mean. And, read today's Post. If Kuwait really does dissaprove of our planned course of action..they have a weird way of showing it. << 3) If you agree that Saddam has been successfully contained, that takes-out your ONLY good argument for attacking him NOW (the threat of him lashing out with WMD) >> Contained for now. Contained after he gets a nuke, or at some point in the future - maybe not. Also, I question if a liberal White House would still be able to contain Iraq? Someone who practiced the foreign policy of a Clinton, for instance. << 4) Saddam's inability to do ethnic cleansing in the north and south is what makes him UNLIKE Hitler. That was my point...not that he's a goodie-goodie. So...you're analogy to whose side would someone be on in WWII is still not apt. >> You ignored the fact that his ministers are making noise about rolling in there. And the inability to to do the cleansing, doesn't mean he doesn't desire to do the cleansing. It's the desire to that makes him like Hitler. And I have no doubt that one day, he'll have the weapons to roll in there and do it. Unless we stop him now. << 5) I have ALWAYS conceeded that an adequate case can be made for a police action to bring Saddam to justice for his past (and continuing) atrocities. But again...that does not answer why ONLY Saddam, why NOW, why in THIS manner. As much as Bush and you would like to now paint this as an admirable action of humanitarian assistance...an excercise in the enforcement of international law. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS IS. If it is...then the U.S. should acceed to the I.C.C. and make plans to go after Kissinger and Kim Jong Il. >> OK..But I'm not sure why you equate Kissinger with Sadaam or Kim? If you referring to the bombing of Laos and Cambodia - read your history. The Viet Cong was using those nations for refuge - in war you attack the enemy where it's at. BUt I'm not going to debate Vietnam with you. I'll readily admit it was a screwed up war from the start, governed by politicians, and for all the wrong reasons. << 6) If 9-11 is hopelessly non-unique, then you'd think that we would be prioritizing our resources in: A) protecting our borders from clandestine attacks (harbor patrol anyone....NOT happening!) B) trying to understand and mitigate the motivation for this terrorism (U.S. unilateralism in the middle east and the resulting anti-Americanism) >> Why can't we do this, and attack Iraq? Why are the two mutually exclusive? And what is there to understand about terrorism past Lenin "The purpose of terrorism is to terrorize?" The Arabs in the Middle East see the US as some sort of blood thirsty monster, bent on subjugating the world to our liberal, open, promiscious way of life. They view our culture as an offense to their religious sensibilities. They see our support of Israel to be amoral. They, sometimes, allow emotion to overall common sense. If I were an Arab leader I would be ashamed of Sadaam. I would be further ashamed that the Arab nations could not deal with him on their own. I would be mortally embarrassed that this tyrant is setting there, and we were doing nothing about it. The US, or for that matter, the west, shouldn't have to get involved in this type of dispute - but we do because the others won't. Hence, we have terrorism because the Arab nations, for the most part, are just as abusive as Iraq, are just as corrupt, and are just as ineffective at dealing with life. I don't know why this is, but I have a few speculations: 1) The mixing of fundamentalist religion with politics. 2) Arab cultural mores which hold that some lives are worth less than others. 3) The whole "Insah Allah" "Malesh" attitude (I know I spelled those wrong) but one is the Arabic for "If God wills it," the other "nevermind. If you want to read further on how these attitudes cripple the Middle East read the book "Baghdad without a Map." 4) The crushing poverty in most Middle Eastern nations - and the seeming indifference of the Government to that poverty in places like Egypt and Syria. 5) The seeming indifference of the people in these nations to their conditoins. When you think about it, the colonists in America rebelled against, and defeated, the worlds greatest super-power at that time for far less crap than the average Arab on the street experiences in day to day life. Yet, the average Arab sets there and takes the crap - day in - day out. Is content with the explanations that his/her misery that it's all an Israeli/'US plot....ugh, it's enough to make me want to pull my hair out. << The WEAKEST case for this action has ALWAYS been that it will somehow help us address the war on terrorism. >> It might. By destroying all refuges for Terrorists..it just might. But, I'll partially agree with you - it is a weak reason for lots of other reasons. COOP "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030207/edfc7973/attachment.htm From privethedge Fri Feb 7 11:57:16 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 09:57:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Re: scholarship (hopefully UT officials can help deal with this!) In-Reply-To: <003f01c2cecb$f4a915c0$46d1a942@computer> Message-ID: <20030207175716.36787.qmail@web10004.mail.yahoo.com> HI, It's the reference to disturbing activities at Secondary Schools that concerns me. If you come onto my school's grounds, and are not part of the function being held there, and you disrupt our proceedings you are liable for trespass and disturbing the peace. That's what I'm talking about. If he's offering the money to people already involved in the activity - then you're right - most likely nothing that can done. But I read this is as invitation for others to "crash" the tournament and disrupt it. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030207/a843c159/attachment.html From dig Fri Feb 7 12:33:03 2003 From: dig (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 13:33:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Re: scholarship (hopefully UT officials can help deal with this!) Message-ID: <200302071833.h17IX3R10804@fiat.cross-x.com> Frank, are you serious!!! i imgaine that right now the public safety director of the university of texas is preparing to deal with far more serious disruptions than the one you where so concerend about, there is after all a vastly unpopular war(well at least on most college campuses its vastly unpopular) thats gonna start at 6pm on the 13th of february, i assure you he or she is not concerned about the hijinks of the one ned ludd. But more importantly, why do you feel the need to personally take it upon yourself to inform the authorities about ned's post? Do you really think mr ludd is going to go through with it? Do you think its enough of a threat to the safety and security of planet debate that we must have a premptive strike on mr ludd and his ken kasey scholarship? Or does he just annoy you enough that you are willing to subject him to a certain amount of violence(incareceration arrest etc, are state violence) if he can get caught? Is the smooth running of a debate tournament (that will never be disrupted by this ned ludd) worth taking out any one who threatens it? Finally do you remember what the debatistas said about you frank? > its always been our first attention > in the attack on da bait competition > as guess what frank we winnin > you dont exterminate us or our slf cuz > you keep us goin like no one else does > we only leave when you ignore the buzz and then your response: then after this post, I'll start ignoring. maybe then you and your silly buddies will go back to livin' off mommy and daddy and ranting about the government to a group that gives a shit about what you have to say. Good luck finding one though. So the question is: Why can't you ignore the shit that you think is a silly distraction? Do you lack the disciplinje and the will power to actualy not hit the reply key? The debatistas said they where going away and they went away, you said you would stop responding to ned ludd's and debatistas, and you haven't. Why? Is it because you secretly like the exchange with the anonomys folks(even if you perceive it as an exchange you are winning) or do you actualy believe that this time ned ludd is serious and debate tournaments will actuialy be disrupted. You and duane singlehandly turn most of these little insurrectionary sparks of email into big raging edebate discussions and in the process redisseminate the knowledge in a way that makes you an invaluble tool in the debate intafada, its like cnn paying al queda for the right to show al queda recruiting tapes to the entire world , but of course cnn has no problem recruiting for al queda because it makes sure they will have good stories for decades to come, and maybe you have no problem dissemenating and validating nedd ludds scholarship program, but the question is why? Frank, from a current red fox to a former one, much respect, but i gotta ask you why you respond to these things... Andy PS It doesn't mean that i dont like the idea ned ludd has to offer, i think its a sweet little culture jam potyentially or even already really From setterdebate Fri Feb 7 12:41:39 2003 From: setterdebate (joseph carver) Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 18:41:39 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] JVRR Results Message-ID: Greetings. I just wanted to repost the official results - identical to the unofficial- from last weekends Neil Warren JV Round Robin. We had a tremendous group of people attend and I want to thank each of them for spending their weekend with us. Congratulations to Robert Becker and Duane Fish, winners of the Michael Petersen Award and to Casey Arbenz, winner of the Mini- Golf tournament. A special thanks to Greg Achten for running our tab and being an awesome human being. SEMIFINALS Emporia State KW (aff) defeats K-State FS 3-0 Idaho State (neg) defeats Emporia State CN 2-1 FINAL ROUND Emporia State KW (neg) defeats Idaho State 2-1 Carver, Arbenz, *Robertson Speaker awards 1. Dunn - Idaho State 2. Stout - K-State 3. Flagg - K-State 4. Winfrey - Emporia 5. Keller - Emporia Thanks again, Joseph Carver Pace Debate _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From Gary.N.Larson Fri Feb 7 12:57:02 2003 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary N. Larson) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 12:57:02 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Last call - NW Prefs Message-ID: <003101c2ceda$b3559d00$100c18ac@bl2471> One hour to go to finalize your prefs. I still need to receive prefs from: DePaul MR George Mason HF Regis RS Texas MB, MD -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030207/fe91e091/attachment.htm From privethedge Fri Feb 7 13:15:01 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:15:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Re: scholarship (hopefully UT officials can help deal with this!) In-Reply-To: <200302071833.h17IX3R10804@fiat.cross-x.com> Message-ID: <20030207191501.91123.qmail@web10007.mail.yahoo.com> HI, Andy, where did you find the war plans at? 6pm on the 13th? Wow. Thanks for letting me know. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030207/f7755386/attachment.html From GatorDebate Fri Feb 7 14:02:56 2003 From: GatorDebate (GatorDebate at aol.com) Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 15:02:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Mr. Ludd's Revenge Message-ID: <49971C86.0646F2F8.37F60172@aol.com> Aaron, I respect you and your opinion. I disagree. Putting a "bounty" on the disruption of a high school or college tournament is wrong. I don't think I am a tool. Respectfully, Frank In a message dated 2/7/2003 10:29:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Aaron Klemz" writes: > ? > >Seriously Frank, you are being such a tool. > > > >I love how you called him "Mr. Ludd." > > > >Talk about literally LEAPING into the void, instead of just falling into it. > > > >Aaron > > > > > ? ? > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ? > >Aaron Klemz / 1036-B 3 1/2 Avenue North / Sauk Rapids, MN 56379 / (320) 529-8192 / ehrlenmeyerflask at hotmail.com > > ? > >"From this hour I ordain myself loos'd of limits and imaginary lines, Going where I list, my own master total and absolute, Listening to others, considering well what they say, Pausing, searching, receiving, contemplating, Gently, but with undeniable will, divesting myself of the holds that would hold me." > > ? ?Walt Whitman, "Song of the Open Road" >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES.Get 2 months FREE*._______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From Martlno4 Fri Feb 7 14:06:42 2003 From: Martlno4 (Martlno4 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:06:42 EST Subject: [eDebate] Repost... Message-ID: <127.21dee14e.2b756bd2@aol.com> Has anyone seen multiple treaties done succesully this year? If so, what are the implications of doing more than one? Do you think the Aff needs to win each treaty or just one? Some opinions would be great. Thanks, NM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030207/1cc1e66b/attachment.htm From GatorDebate Fri Feb 7 14:07:48 2003 From: GatorDebate (GatorDebate at aol.com) Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 15:07:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Re: scholarship (hopefully UT officials can help deal with this!) Message-ID: <6CB286B0.650CE2DA.37F60172@aol.com> Jason, like I told klemz, I respect your opinion but I disagree. Someone who uses the internet to promote an act of potential terrorism at a debate tournament is engaging in cyberterrorism. That's just wrong, hateful and mean spirited. The fact that the bounty is being held on the Texas campus means texas officials should look into it. VP Vick at UT thanked me for getting in touch and he is looking into it. frank In a message dated 2/7/2003 12:11:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Jason Sykes" writes: >wait a minute here...i have to step in on this one. > >1. ?what law governs whether debate tournaments run smoothly? ?i hope there's not one...i know a bunch of people who would be in serious trouble. ?it seems like "prosecution to the full extent of the law" is the real joke here. > >2. ?"cyberterrorism" frank? ?please! ?give me a break! ?maybe we could get the detroit project to drop their commercials about SUVs and run ads regarding the relationship between debate and terrorism! ?or protesters and terrorism! ?even better! > >control yourselves people! > >jason > ?----- Original Message ----- > ?From: Duane Hyland > ?To: GatorDebate at aol.com ; edebate at ndtceda.com > ?Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 9:39 AM > ?Subject: Re: [eDebate] scholarship (hopefully UT officials can help deal with this!) > > > ?I hope this is a joke. If the idiots actually do disrupt an awards ceremony, I hope that they are prosecuted the full extent of the law. Duane > > > ?"You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson > > ?"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ?Do you Yahoo!? > ?Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now > From dig Fri Feb 7 14:41:51 2003 From: dig (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:41:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Mr. Ludd's Revenge Message-ID: <200302072041.h17KfpL24856@fiat.cross-x.com> What if there where a piece of literature about how ned lud put a bounty on a high school tournament, like a folk song or somethin? What that be wrong or would the ficticous putting on of bounty just be an argument? Andy > Aaron, > > I respect you and your opinion. I disagree. Putting a "bounty" on the disruption of a high school or college tournament is wrong. I don't think I am a tool. > > Respectfully, > Frank > > In a message dated 2/7/2003 10:29:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Aaron Klemz" writes: > > > ? > > > >Seriously Frank, you are being such a tool. > > > > > > > >I love how you called him "Mr. Ludd." > > > > > > > >Talk about literally LEAPING into the void, instead of just falling into it. > > > > > > > >Aaron > > > > > > > > > > ? ? > > > >+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > ? > > > >Aaron Klemz / 1036-B 3 1/2 Avenue North / Sauk Rapids, MN 56379 / (320) 529-8192 / ehrlenmeyerflask at hotmail.com > > > > ? > > > >"From this hour I ordain myself loos'd of limits and imaginary lines, Going where I list, my own master total and absolute, Listening to others, considering well what they say, Pausing, searching, receiving, contemplating, Gently, but with undeniable will, divesting myself of the holds that would hold me." > > > > ? ?Walt Whitman, "Song of the Open Road" > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES.Get 2 months FREE*._______________________________________________ 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 > > -- Debate Information Group http://dig.ndtceda.com/ From delliott Fri Feb 7 15:24:09 2003 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 15:24:09 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Rethinking Race and Lani Guinier Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030207152409.00bef6c0@kckcc.toto.net> I have just had the pleasure of hearing Lani Guinier speak today on our campus at KCKCC in a kickoff for Black History Month. Many of you may know she was the first tenured black female Law Professor at Harvard University. She was nominated by Bill Clinton to head the Civil Rights Division of the Dept. of Justice, but he withdrew her nomination without a confirmation hearing. Her book, "Lift Every Voice: Turning a Civil Rights Setback Into a New Vision of Social Justice", is a personal account of that incident. That book, along with "The Tyranny of the Majority" (which I purchased today and got her to autograph) are both excellent reads. If you have a chance to see Lani Guinier talk I highly recommend you do. She is insightful, critical, and very engaging. She turns the concept of thinking about race on its head and drives a powerful discussion about bringing those on the margins to the center. Our discussion during the book signing was also very enlightening. And for those too quick to engage in Political Party Identity Wars, you'd be interested to hear what she has to say about Texas legislators and President (then Governor) Bush and how they responded to a call for what she calls Confirmative Action in higher education--that is confirming the knowledge about affirmative action as it relates to admissions policies across America. She was more than willing to acknowledge the attempts of the aforementioned to be more inclusive in a previously much more exclusive State. Glad I came in to work on a Friday! : ) Chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate Kansas City Kansas Community College From delliott Fri Feb 7 15:39:10 2003 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 15:39:10 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Still seeking members for PR cmte Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030207153910.00bef6c0@kckcc.toto.net> The CEDA PR Committee is still seeking members. I would like to get a wide-range of perspectives on this committee. Our aim will be to better serve the community by promoting collegiate debate and The Cross-Examination Debate Association. Ideas, thoughts, project ideas are all helpful. Please consider joining. I am trying to organize our first meeting at KU's Heart of America Tournament for those who can attend. Traditionally under-represented groups are especially encouraged to join the committee. Our current committee is composed of: Darren Elliott--Chair Kansas City Kansas Community College Kenny Hanson Richmond University Matt Moore Augustana College Josh Hedrick University of Missouri Ken DeLaughder Emporia State University Joe Carver Pace University Ed Lee University of Alabama Jeremy Hutchins Johnson County Community College Chris Cooper American Planning Association Thank You, Chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate Kansas City Kansas Community College From dig Fri Feb 7 15:45:49 2003 From: dig (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 16:45:49 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] looking for joe schatz Message-ID: <200302072145.h17LjnS00893@fiat.cross-x.com> joe backchannel me or AIM me nihlpenguin is the aim andy marist -- Debate Information Group http://dig.ndtceda.com/ From Alexander.H.Berger.02 Fri Feb 7 16:29:09 2003 From: Alexander.H.Berger.02 (Alexander H. Berger 02) Date: 07 Feb 2003 17:29:09 EST Subject: [eDebate] Ken Sherwood Message-ID: <7244981@horton.Dartmouth.ORG> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030207/e38568c1/attachment.asc From davissona Fri Feb 7 17:51:35 2003 From: davissona (Davisson, Amber) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 17:51:35 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Oh the Scandal!! Vagina Monologues at William Jewell Message-ID: <6DBF7A4AFF57DE46955D7CFA65622F9C03AF3E@regent.jewell.edu> Dear Debate Community, I may have commited a mortal sin, but it is too late now. I am directing "The Vagina Monologues" at William Jewell. We are doing the show as part of the V-Day initiative to stop violence against women, and the show will be a benefit production. Ticket sales go to a African womens grassroots organization doing work to stop female genital mutilation. Unfortunately at this point pretty much the only people interested in the show are the ones picketing the show. So, I'm puting out an SOS, if you are in the KC area or feel like taking a road trip the show is February 14th and 15th and tickets are only $5. Its a good cause, and my actresses have been working on the show for about 6 months and would love it if someone actually showed up!! E-mail me if you are interested and would like more information. Amber Davisson William Jewell Debate Director of "Vagina Monologues" and Cordinator of V-Day 2003 From davissona Fri Feb 7 17:53:50 2003 From: davissona (Davisson, Amber) Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 17:53:50 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Oh the Scandal!! Vagina Monologues at William Jewell Message-ID: <6DBF7A4AFF57DE46955D7CFA65622F9C03AF41@regent.jewell.edu> Dear Debate Community, I may have commited a mortal sin, but it is too late now. I am directing "The Vagina Monologues" at William Jewell. We are doing the show as part of the V-Day initiative to stop violence against women, and the show will be a benefit production. Ticket sales go to a African womens grassroots organization doing work to stop female genital mutilation. Unfortunately at this point pretty much the only people interested in the show are the ones picketing the show. So, I'm puting out an SOS, if you are in the KC area or feel like taking a road trip the show is February 14th and 15th and tickets are only $5. Its a good cause, and my actresses have been working on the show for about 6 months and would love it if someone actually showed up!! E-mail me if you are interested and would like more information. Amber Davisson William Jewell Debate Director of "Vagina Monologues" and Cordinator of V-Day 2003 From Ned_Ludd Sat Feb 8 04:52:57 2003 From: Ned_Ludd (Ned Ludd) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 02:52:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: scholarship Message-ID: <20030208105257.BA838E4B9@sitemail.everyone.net> An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030208/a3b4695c/attachment.pot From Mikedavis13 Sat Feb 8 09:13:52 2003 From: Mikedavis13 (Mikedavis13 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 10:13:52 EST Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: scholarship Message-ID: <1e1.17beddb.2b7678b0@aol.com> You should totally hire a new lawyer. They don't even know the difference between libel and slander: >From cyberlibel.com: ? Libel is written defamation and slander is oral defamation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030208/bac4e30d/attachment.html From Mikedavis13 Sat Feb 8 09:46:26 2003 From: Mikedavis13 (Mikedavis13 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 10:46:26 EST Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: scholarship Message-ID: <11f.1de4b8d3.2b768052@aol.com> I was simply arguing that Mr. Ludd should get a new lawyer. A slander claim would be thrown out of court since it was not spoken. I just want to make sure when Mr. Ludd takes Frank to court he gets a fair hearing. Mike In a message dated 2/8/03 7:40:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, Redrosestar writes: > > that is so minor in the whole scheme of all of this..... why even bring up > grammatiks,.,,, either way the words were abusive and unneeded..... just > becasue? its libel doesnt make one bit of difference... > Sincerely Missy Stone -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030208/3e9e32d6/attachment.htm From mmk_savant Sat Feb 8 10:29:33 2003 From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 08:29:33 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] jammer jam Message-ID: someone ought to offer $500.00 to the best jamming of a culture jam by CEDA Nats. someone ought to have the following ground rules: if any twit vandals are physically injured by the jam jam, the jammer jammer can't collect, so be careful: the twits tend to be really really fragile and sensitive wannabe bullies. any illegal action committed in the jamming would disqualify a participant from collecting. the basic criterion is how much of their shit gets fucked up. do they look confused for 20 minutes or do they have to spend 40 minutes on their hands and knees cleaning up the mess? do they have to beg so the Burger King manager doesn't fire them or will it be the shame of going to mummy und duddy YET AGAIN? do they finally decide to cancel their Greenpeace membership or do they go all the way and finally, finally, enroll in a science class? extra points if they cry like a baby. BIG bonus for capturing the mewling on video. extra points if they post on edebate in outrage. BIG bonus if Ellis publicly condemns the jammer jammer's actions. HUGE bonus if Klemz writes a performance piece about the horror of the jammer jam. points lost for unoriginal jamming: drenching a hippie wearing a "Rage Against Mean People" in blood or tree sap or LSD-laced-koolaid would be great fun, but has been done. accidentally dropping a pound of sugar into the gas tank of the gas-guzzling ride of a radical environmentalist would be justice, but has been done. peppering their dope with cumin is a hoot but DONE THAT. completely trashing the internet account of someone calling themselves "Ned Ludd" is necessary and right and just but OLD. someone really ought to. (oh! i hear Klemz is coding "Vandalactivism 3: Extreme Jamming" for the Atari 2600. release date: July 2006. the Vice City killer! and Frank Irizarry is MOST DEFINITELY A TOOL but i read him as protecting the integrity of jamming. whuddafuk? Nike is running that streaker guy commercial and NOW some assjack calling themselves "Ned Ludd" uses the internet to sponsor and patronize jamming of debate tournaments? Izzy has the right of it: keep yer stinkin dirty muny in yer sticky greedy paws. let jams be jams not tricked trix.) thanks, Michael Korcok "This is what you wanted to hear, so why Did you think of listening to something else? We are all talkers It is true, but underneath the talk lies The moving and not wanting to be moved, the loose Meaning, untidy and simple like a threshing floor." John Ashbery: "Soonest Mended." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030208/27b24c7e/attachment.html From dig Sat Feb 8 10:57:03 2003 From: dig (Andy Ellis) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 11:57:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] No points for korcok Message-ID: <200302081657.h18Gv3W16315@fiat.cross-x.com> I whole heartedly endorse the michael korcok anti twit vigilante program who wants to take a trip to bakersfield? From privethedge Sat Feb 8 12:50:08 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 10:50:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] jammer jam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030208185008.221.qmail@web10005.mail.yahoo.com> << accidentally dropping a pound of sugar into the gas tank of the gas-guzzling ride of a radical environmentalist would be justice, but has been done >> OK, i"m not even going to pretend I know what this post is about. But, wouldn't putting sugar down the gas tank of a car, wetherthe driver of the car was a radical envioronmentalist, or not, aid an abet the radical movement because the care would no longer function? And why sugar? Why not a ping pong ball? Or permacrete? Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030208/fc0288c8/attachment.htm From mmk_savant Sat Feb 8 13:51:59 2003 From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 11:51:59 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] ans Duane Message-ID: Duane, Duane, Duane: yes, you are correct. if someone put sugar in the gas tank of an environmental activist's gas-guzzler, they would be HELPING that activist's cause. good point. and the alternatives you mentioned aren't nearly as good: a ping-pong ball won't fit into most gas tank nozzles and may or may not clog the fuel line, although it would require opening the entire gas tank to remove. does permacrete harden on gasoline? never heard of that one before. in any case, those alternatives don't have MUSIC or SCIENCE about them. FIRST the MUSIC: "Sugar In Your Gas Tank" by Less Than Jake from http://www.lyricsdomain.com/lyrics/13704/ If I had a scheme for everything, It seems that I'd be more content with it all, If I had it in me to stop my random thoughts, and my dumb dreams I could deal with this nonstop spinning world. If only I could say that everything's ok take a good look and look the other way, frustration, hell, who needs it anyway. I'd rather sit back, and just smoke cigarettes. be the one with the loudest mouth be the most closed minded that I could get SECOND the SCIENCE: a decent explanation from http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/msugargs.html "Dear Straight Dope: Does putting sugar in someone's gas tank ruin their engine? Some also say sand in the gas tank will work, but it seems as though it would simply block the fuel filter. --Alan Whinery, Honolulu, Hawaii SDSTAFF Dogster replies: Having a spat with your sweetie, Al? Any sort of gritty substance put into a fuel tank is going to have an adverse effect on the car's performance. Salt and sugar are probably the most effective, since they do not dissolve in the gas. Sand is less effective because it is heavier and will sink to the bottom of the tank. Of course, it depends on how much sand you are funneling in, you delinquent. Let's use sugar as an example. There are three basic ways that sugar in the gas tank is going to foul up someone's car. First, as you say, it will clog the fuel filter. Second, what gets through the fuel filter will clog the fuel pump. Finally, what makes it through the fuel filter and the fuel pump will completely foul whatever fuel delivery system your car uses. A carburetor that gets sugar in it is junk; you can strip it down and attempt to rebuild it but you likely will fail - it's a gummy, sticky mess. Your fuel injected vehicle will not fare much better when mucked up with the sticky stuff. This sort of vandalism will result in the car hesitating, losing power, and stalling. And repairs will not be cheap - replacing the fuel filter, dropping and draining the fuel tank, possibly a new carburetor or new fuel injectors. The latter two are very expensive, both in parts and labor. An interesting side note - in the days before unleaded gasoline, fuel tank intake necks did not have flapper valves, and one way of screwing someone who was going on a long trip over was to roll a few golf balls down the neck into the tank. Once inside, the cover would slowly dissolve in the gas tank, leaving the spagetti-like fine string that wraps the core of a ball to unravel and clog the fuel filter. Now, if you REALLY want to put someone out of commission, sand in the oil fill tube is the ticket. Once the sand gets sucked up by the oil pump, it will score the pistons and the chambers and make the engine scrap. I do not advocate or recommend doing this, as it is extremely illegal and you probably don't want to go to jail. But then again, I don't know you. Here's hoping your interest in this is strictly academic. --SDSTAFF Dogster Straight Dope Science Advisory Board" what it's about is general annoyance with clowns who support and advocate vandalactivism. Michael Korcok "This is what you wanted to hear, so why Did you think of listening to something else? We are all talkers It is true, but underneath the talk lies The moving and not wanting to be moved, the loose Meaning, untidy and simple like a threshing floor." John Ashbery: "Soonest Mended." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030208/684d382d/attachment.html From dig Sat Feb 8 15:38:10 2003 From: dig (Andy Ellis) Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2003 16:38:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ans Duane Message-ID: <200302082138.h18LcAl08132@fiat.cross-x.com> for those for whom these things are not purley academic do you care to provide more tactics for sabotage ? I'm sure there are people who are interested in knowing how to disable cars, but im sure that there are more folks interested in figuring out how to do the kool aid acid thing, but regardless, the more tacitics for liberation you give explicit details for the happier i will be. Andy From aogletree Sat Feb 8 20:36:49 2003 From: aogletree (Aaron Ogletree) Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 02:36:49 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Patroit Act II-The end of your rights Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030209/427bacda/attachment.htm From debatekorea Sun Feb 9 07:05:07 2003 From: debatekorea (Jason Jarvis) Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 08:05:07 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: [eastasia-debate:4] Thank You For Signing Up! Message-ID: Hello All, A listserv to connect people in East Asia who debate or folks interested in East Asian debate activities has recently been created. At the moment there are 5 members, so i don't suspect it will mirror the chaos of edebate. However, if you are interested send a message to Masako, at the below email address and she will add you to the list. regards, Jason Jarvis ************************************* Dear Everyone, Excuse me if you received this mail from multiple sites. I am writing this to invite you to a new mail list. The address of the mail list is eastasia-debate at maeda-lab.net This mail list is established to achieve our close communication toward debating activity in East Asia. Even though we have active debating community in each country, we haven't had close communication each other. We hope to seek further exchange through the mail list. Also, we believe it is wonderful to have advises to improve our debate community from other regions as well. Not only debaters in East Asia, but everyone who is interested in debating in the region is warmly welcomed. This mail list have just started scince last night, and we already have delegates from Mongolia, South Korea and Japan on it. To sign up, please just send an e-mail to the mail list. If you provide us further contact address of debaters who are interested in this mail list, I would appreciate it as well. And please feel free to forward this message to anybody. Best Regards, Masako Suzuki Keio University (Japan) Graduate School of Media and Governance masako at sfc.keio.ac.jp _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From debatekorea Sun Feb 9 07:32:33 2003 From: debatekorea (Jason Jarvis) Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 08:32:33 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Sex tourism in Thailand..... Message-ID: I'll apologize now for the marginal debate content...... Due to the cold weather in Korea, and the fact that our winter break lasts until march, I skipped out of seoul and headed for the warmer climate in Thailand. I can honestly say that this is the most amazing country I have ever been to. Stunning beaches, even more amazing temples, and kind warm hearted people. To be honest at this point I am experiencing a certain level of temple fatigue. It seems as if there is a wat (temple) on every corner, sort of like baptist churches in the south. Since 90 percent of people in Thailand are theraveda Buddhist this is not surprising. I used an entire roll of film at Wat Pho in Bangkok alone......... Anyway, I am writing b/c Thailand is the land of paradox. Amidst all the scenery and beautiful temples is a side of life that I learned a little bit about during the Southeast Asia topic. Like every place, Thailand has its dark side....I remember reading literature on sex tourism, child prostitution and the way aids has run amok in this country.....however, while in one of the towns which is overrun with tourists (Patong) I experienced this up close and personal...and I guess I thought some of you might find it interesting. To tell the truth, the cards we heard and articles we read are all true and its more repulsive and horrifying than you can actually believe. To be fair, Patong is an interesting place......I doubt that Mardi Gras even comes close to the depravity and chaos of that town on a nightly basis. Its located on an island called Phuket, on a gorgeous beach on a cove. It is safe to say that any desire you have can be fulfilled here: amazing beaches, incredible food, any beach activity you want.........and then there were the child prostitutes...............the number of dirty old men walking around with women that were maybe 16 years old at the high end was nothing short of disgusting. Now its POSSIBLE that there are a lot of young thai girls who have really old, white haired sugar daddy's from Sweden, but I aint buying it, and the more I saw of Patong, the more sure I was that these were not relationships that lasted for more than a few hours..... I came to Thailand alone, and in Patong that means you are literally harassed at night. My hotel was in the middle of the main bar/hotel area. Most of the bars employ women to try and bring people into the bar, and then their job is to play games with and talk to people when they come into the bar. These are hostess bars, and that was really all I saw going on in these places. THe women talk to you as long as you drink and then ignore you when you leave. Not so radical, except it was the first time I saw women making catcalls to men as they walked by. Further down the road was a place that had stationed two men, one on either side of the road, with a laminated picture book full of women. THis guy was literally selling the women, telling you as you passed by about all of the things they would do for you......unbelievable.....there were similar men, who had drink lists for the "gogo" bars, where the women had NUMBERS, i shit you not NUMBERS on them, as you walked past the gogo bars, the women all had pictures in the window, complete with their numbers. Since this area was frequented by people from a dozen or more different countries, I suppose the numbers helped to deal with language barriers, so you could tell them which one you wanted. Sex was for sale in two other ways. First is the illlegitimate Thai massage places. Thai massage is world famous, b/c the masseuse uses elbows and knees, and while it feels good, it is not gentle or for the fainthearted. Some of these places will apparently give you more than a massage. Then there were the plain old prostitutes, lining the streets and talking to anyone that they thought might be interested. Walking down the street, just watching the chaos I was called out to, grabbed on teh arm, and in one case even groped. I honestly don't know if I think prostitution should be legal, although I do know that I think the situation would be better all around if something that was so open was simply legalized, I suspect the child prostitution that seemed to be going on might be avoided if at least it were regulated.........regardless, it was a mindblowing experience, and put a human face on a subject that was for me something I had only read about through debate evidence. I can honestly say that this is an issue I will never look at the same. I read in the paper that a recent study by the thai govt determined half of these women have aids b/c the johns wont use condoms, as if it werent enough that many of them havent even reached puberty...... regards, Jason L. Jarvis Visiting Professor Graduate School of Journalism and Communication Kyung Hee University 1 Hoeki-dong, Dongdaemun-ku Seoul 130-701, Korea home:82-2-957-2305 mobile: 82-019-381-2305 _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From BERCHNORTO Sun Feb 9 08:39:54 2003 From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO at aol.com) Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 09:39:54 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] WVU results Message-ID: <2968EFC7.74564BA5.09C05152@aol.com> Results of the 3rd Annual John A. Jacobsohn Memorial Mountaineer Classic Debates Speaker Awards Varsity 1. Sale Lilly, Navy 2. Allison Hahn, Pittsburgh 3. Suzie Catania, Catholic 4. Nick Dorsey, Case Western 5. Steve Sawyer, Catholic 6. John Burger, Navy 7. Matt Gayetsky, John Carroll 8. Darinka Maldonado, Pittsburgh 9. Tasha Forchione, John Carroll 10. Grant Christiensen, Richmond Junior Varsity 1. Shawntia Diggs, Towson 2. Liz Gaskell, Rochester 3. Theresa Spaulding, Rochester 4. John Swords, Capital 5. Peter Cancro, Pittsburgh 6. Zach Johnson, Catholic 7. Ali Samantar, Mary Washington 8. Josh Autry, Liberty 9. Ilana Kaplan-Shain, Rochester 10. Chris Piazza, Capital Novice 1. Lindsey Hoban, Liberty 2. Megan O?Brien, Catholic 3. Carly Shoupe, Catholic 4. Gavin Whittle, Navy 5. Dana Foglesong, Liberty 6. Sharon Lee, George Mason 7. Casey Seidel, Richmond 8. Elycia Taylor, Capital 9. Matt Case, Liberty 10. Jeannine Mohler, George Mason Team Clearing to Elimination Rounds Varsity Catholic CS John Carroll FG Navy BL Richmond AC Junior Varsity Capital PS Case Western BT Catholic JM Liberty AS Liberty AD Mary Washington BS Michigan-Dearborn FS Pittsburgh CH Rochester CK Rochester GS Novice Capital BT Catholic AL Catholic OS George Mason LM John Carroll AN Liberty AH Liberty CF Liberty IL Mary Washington DW Mary Washington RS Richmond SS SPECIAL AWARDS John A. Jacobsohn Memorial Award to a member of the debate community who has done significant public service: Co-winners Chris Baron, Baltimore Urban Debate League Sarah Snider, Marshall-Brennan Urban Debate League Maxwell Schnurer Bowling Award Tasha Forchione, John Carroll University Best Newcomer (highest speaker points by a debater in their first or second lifetime tournament) Trachy Alexander, Western Illinois University Movin? On Up Award (highest ranking JV team where both debaters have remaining novice eligibility) Grace Burns and Melissa Hurter, Liberty University Teamwork Award (lowest speaker points by a team with a winning record, shows ability to outperform speaker points) Jared Isham and Andrew Lindblom, Liberty University (they apparently wanted the award so badly that they forfeited round 3 due to illness). Neil Butt Judging Award (best written ballots as determined by the tabroom staff) Beth Skinner, Towson University Honorable mention to Joe Schatz, Binghamton University for best drawings on ballots. Team Champions Overall (most ballots won in preliminary rounds) Liberty University Small program (most ballots won by a school not in the NDT sweepstakes top 50) Capital University We?ve enjoyed hosting tremendously. We thank everyone for braving the weather to attend, and we?ll post outround results as we have the opportunity. --Neil Berch West Virginia University From lisakanak Sun Feb 9 12:46:23 2003 From: lisakanak (Lisa Kanak) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 13:46:23 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Judging help needed. Message-ID: The National Christian Forensics & Communication Association (NCFCA) is in desperate need of judges for its 2003 National Tournament at Cedarville University, Cedarville, Ohio June 4-7, 2003 Also, many state tournaments are also in need of judges (I know we could use some help at the two Virginia tournaments this spring). NCFCA was initially modeled after NEDA. The debate is relatively slow, and the understanding of basic competitive debate theory and practice rudimentary (at best). Most NCFCA judging relies on the use of volunteer (and mostly) lay judges, making written feedback, objective analysis and RFD ?s (let alone people who understand topicality, disads, counter plans, and permutations) a welcome change. To give you an idea ? most people had never seen or heard a ?standard? topicality argument (standards, definitions, violation, impact) during the past five years, until they downloaded one I wrote out of sheer frustration. Since topicality has been largely ignored by the massive number of lay judges, very few even run it. The usual ballots read: I didn?t like the affirmative plan. I vote negative. You weren?t serious enough ? I saw you playing the kazoo in the hallway, and joking around between rounds. I vote for the other team. You aren?t inherent (big word, except inherency wasn?t argued, and the plan overturns a trade treaty). Your tie was crooked. You mispronounced too many words. You weren?t wearing your jacket. Your eye contact was insufficient. Your evidence was too long. You were too passionate about your issues. As long as the affirmative provides a definition in the 1AC they are topical. You argued the other teams points too much ? that?s just bickering over minor issues.? I think you all get the idea ? assistance is truly needed! They are expecting a need for about 950 judges (I don?t know how they came up with this number) for approximately 100 CX teams, plus L-D and IE?s. Personally, I think they can use most of their lay judges in IE?s and LD . If you feel you might be able to judge, I urge you to do so by contacting the NCFCA at www.ncfca.org. The topic this year is . . . Resolved: That the United States should significantly change its trade policy within one or both of the following areas: the Middle East and Africa. Not a very exciting topic, to be sure, but hey, you may get to hear the building aqueducts in the desert case, along with Security Assistance, Remove troops in Turkey, Food Aid, Emergency AIDS relief, Education, Free Trade for the World, IMF/World Bank/Ex-Im Bank Debt Cancellation, Drill in ANWR, Alternate Fuels, plus more ?mainline cases? like: Lift Sanctions on Iraq, Repeal the AGOA, Blood Diamond Trade, etc. Lastly, be prepared to hear arguments such as: ?Christy Shipe?s book says, ...? ?It was in the Blue Book, so it must be topical,? and ?my coach says the case is good, so you should vote for it.? And, I wouldn?t be surprised if the 1NR repeats the entire 2NC speech, so he doesn?t drop any arguments. I won?t get into the rest. It?s too depressing. There are a few bright spots in our debate league ? most of the students are very bright, just poorly trained. There are also a growing number receiving assistance from outside the league (which, for the most part, is helpful). You will hear some good debates. You will also hear some very bad debates, and wonder how in the world some team made it that far. Please help, if you can. P.S. to Duane Hyland ? the parent in charge of the team has decided that we will do CFL and NCFCA next year. I believe you may see even more home schoolers in CFL across the country ? as 60 clubs have expressed an interest in competing. P.S. to Brett ? you should start getting some e-mails from students/coaches/parents interested in your skills lab. THANK YOU! Thank you in advance for your consideration of this huge request. Lisa Kanak 540-752-1935 Lisa Kanak 540-752-1935 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030209/70dcc239/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 5665 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030209/70dcc239/attachment.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 5665 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030209/70dcc239/attachment-0001.obj From aogletree Sun Feb 9 13:31:34 2003 From: aogletree (Aaron Ogletree) Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 19:31:34 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Patroit Act II Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030209/37877424/attachment.htm From BERCHNORTO Sun Feb 9 14:41:03 2003 From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO at aol.com) Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2003 15:41:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] WVU outround results Message-ID: <5E8F13E7.56FEE07C.09C05152@aol.com> Results from elimination rounds at the 3rd Annual John A. Jacobsohn Memorial Mountaineer Classic: Novice Octafinals Catholic OS advances without debating John Carroll AN advances without debating Liberty AH advances without debating Mary Washington DW advances without debating Richmond SS advances without debating Capital BT advances over George Mason on a 2-1 Liberty IL advances over Catholic AL on a 2-1 Mary Washington RS advances over Liberty CF on a 2-1 Quarterfinals Catholic OS advances over Mary Washington DW on a 2-1 John Carroll AN advances over Capital BT on a 3-0 Liberty AH advances over Mary Washington RS on a 2-1 Richmond SS advances over Liberty IL on a 2-1 Semifinals in progress Liberty AH vs. John Carroll AN Richmond SS vs. Catholic OS Junior Varsity Octafinals Capital PS advances without debating Catholic JM advances without debating Liberty AS advances without debating Liberty AD advances without debating Rochester CK advances without debating Rochester GS advances without debating Michigan-Dearborn advances over Pittsburgh CH on a 2-1 Mary Washington BS advances over Case Western BT on a 3-0 Quarterfinals Mary Washington BS advances over Capital PS on a 2-1 Catholic JM advances over Liberty AD on a 2-1 Michigan-Dearborn advances over Rochester on a 2-1 Liberty AS advances over Rochester on a 2-1 Semifinals in progress Liberty AS (aff) vs. Mary Washington BS Michigan-Dearborn vs. Catholic JM Varsity Semifinals Catholic CS advances over Richmond AC on a 2-1 John Carroll FG advances over Navy BL on a 3-0 Finals Catholic CS defeats John Carroll on a 3-0 Congratulations to Suzie Catania and Steve Sawyer from Catholic! More results later. --Neil Berch West Virginia University From privethedge Sun Feb 9 18:08:12 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 16:08:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Judging help needed. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030210000812.94841.qmail@web10004.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, That's excellent news, Lisa, about ya'll joining CFL..and we'll be hear, at WACFL, eagerly looking forward to you and your students competing. Also, if this event taht Lisa is talking about used to be called teh Home School Debate Championships, sponsored by the Home School Legal Defense Fund, I can tell you that the debate might be a bit outdated, but that hte kids who do it are no less passionate about it than other high school debaters. I got to judge at the Championships a few years ago (I want to say the topic did something with the income tax) and it was an interesting day. Most of what Lisa says about the style of debate, and the arguments is true - but it's still a fun day. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030209/ba01376b/attachment.html From rob.eback Sun Feb 9 22:05:39 2003 From: rob.eback (Rob Eback) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2003 23:05:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [eDebate] UGA team list Message-ID: <20030210040539.2186F3DBA@xmxpita.excite.com> I was just wondering what schools and/or teams where planning on going to UGA's tournament this coming weekend. GSU will have a team in novice and another team (not sure which division -- novice or JV). Rob Eback GSU _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! From drwiese1 Mon Feb 10 02:47:06 2003 From: drwiese1 (DANIELLE WIESE) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 00:47:06 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] NU Elims Message-ID: Teams Clearing Berkley NS Bkly RS Bkly WS Catholic DP Concordia RT Cornell DK Dartmouth LT Dart ST Emory--GP, GR, BL, LP, SW, WG Fort Hays RS Georgia PR Gonzaga LS Harvard MT Iowa LN KState NS Mich OF MSU SS & MS NYU GG NTXs NU GL USC FT, SW TX AY, MB Wake ES Whitman BO -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030210/9be5c714/attachment.htm From lsd041 Mon Feb 10 06:31:25 2003 From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 06:31:25 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern Speakers Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030210062637.00ad2c18@lulu.it.northwestern.edu> Official Speaker Results 1. Calum Matheson, MSU 2. Tejinder Singh, Berkeley 3. Scott Phillips, Emory 4. Jonah Feldman, Michigan 5. Ben Thorpe, Dartmouth 6. Charles Olney, Whitman 7. Jason Regnier, Roft Hays 8. Nate Gorelick, NYU 9. Thad Blank, Whitman 10. Sara Apel, TExas 11. Josh Lynn, Emory 12. John Oden, Michigan 13. Becca Eaton, Wake Forest 14. Greta Stahl, MSU 15. John Turner, Dartmouth 16. Andrew Leonsg, Dartmouth 17. Nirav Patel, North Texas 18. Mike Beckley, Emory 19. Ricky Garner, NYU 20. Patrick Spiece, Wake Forest 21. Dan Shalmon, Berkeley 22. Stacy Nathan, Berkeley 23. Kacey Wolmer, Emory 24. Naveen Ramchandrappa, Georgia 25. Dave Strauss, MSU SD Scott Deatherage Director of Debate Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois From lsd041 Mon Feb 10 06:53:45 2003 From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 06:53:45 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Doubles Pairings Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030210063127.00ad7d10@lulu.it.northwestern.edu> Thanks to Danielle for posting the list of teams clearing. Please be patient through the course of the day; we will do our best. However, our e-mail access at the hotel is limited (our hardware is broken), so we have to return to the Hardy House to post. In addition, there are a number of responsibilities that come with a tournament this size (getting debates started, making sure teams understand side equalization and bracket breaking procedures, getting winning teams moved, getting them fed, returning cargo vans and transportation vans, returning master keys, duplicating result sheets, etc). So we will post as frequently as possible, but our first responsibility lies with efficient administration of the tournament in progress. All odd seeds are affirmative per the group coin flip. Here are doubles pairings: 1 Emory LP v 32 Kansas State NS Simmonds Brian; Kall Aaron, Dybvig Kristin 2. Berkeley NS v 31 Emory GP Finch Jay, Peterson Jason, Roston Michael 3 Michigan FO 30 Southern Cal FT Carson Austin, Heidt David, Russell Jason 4 Whitman BO v 29 Harvard MT Parcher Jeff, Bauchard Stefan, Ceren Omri 5 New York GG v 28 Cornell DK Johnson Kristin, Grove Jairus; Cram-Helwich Dave 6 Michigan State SS v 27 Iowa LN Ghali Kamal, Paul Jonathan, Lacy JP 7 Dartmouth LT v 26 Berkeley SW Davis Dan, STables Gordon, Choi Eun Young 8 Fort Hays RS v 25 Texas BM Garen Adam, Holbrook Sarah, Niska Harry 9 Michigan State MS v 24 Emory SW MacDonald Matt, Lundberg Chris, Hubbard Russ 10 Wake Forest ES v 23 North Texas PP Frappier Glen, Smith Nate, Rains John 11 Berkeley RS v 22 Gonzaga LS Rollins Joel, Breshears David, Martin Josh 12 Emory BL v 21 Concordia RT Eber Alison, Green Justin, Stevens Monte 13 Dartmouth ST v 20 Emory GR Smith Ross, Achten Greg, Peterson Andy 14 Georgia PR v 19 Catholic DP Atchison Jarod, Strange Ken, Repko Will 15 Texas AY v Southern Cal SW Symonds Adam, Arnett Dave, McBride Brian 16 Northwestern GL v 17 Emory GW Wiese Danielle, McCollum Peter, Kelly Casey Good luck to all. SD Scott Deatherage Director of Debate Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois From aogletree Mon Feb 10 08:37:10 2003 From: aogletree (Aaron Ogletree) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:37:10 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] WHEN DID YOU VOTE FOR EMPIRE? Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030210/b0dd41aa/attachment.html From ccooper Mon Feb 10 09:01:17 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 09:01:17 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] WHEN DID YOU VOTE FOR EMPIRE? Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370710C9A9B@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Mumia seems to be under the mistaken impression that this is a democracy. We do not live in a democracy. We live in a democratic republic. Big difference. COOP -----Original Message----- From: Aaron Ogletree [mailto:aogletree at hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 9:37 AM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] WHEN DID YOU VOTE FOR EMPIRE? WHEN DID YOU VOTE FOR EMPIRE? ============================= [Col. Writ. 1/27/03) Copyright 2003 Mumia Abu-Jamal "[T]he attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace." -- Dr. Nelson Mandela, 2002 Anti-war rallies are bubbling up all across America, from Iowa to Indiana, from Minneappolis to Maine. They swell the streets of Paris, of London, and Berlin. They burst through the souks and casbahs of the Muslim world. They reflect, if anything, widespread opposition to the jingoism and bellicosity of the Bush Regime. Yet there is the sneaking suspicion, the deep gut feel, that these demos may not be enough to stay the hand of the Bush White House, which seems perilously poised for a deadly strike into the Iraqi homeland, no matter the human cost. Which raises an interesting question: If the government ignores the wishes of a majority of its citizens, how can that government be called "democratic" (small 'd')? If the White House isn't listening to the will of the People, who is it listening to? Who decides? Is it following the wishes of the defense industries, the oil companies, the military-industrial networks of extreme wealth and power that routinely feeds on the carcass of war? Time will answer that question--and apparently soon. The recent public departure of France and Germany from the pro-war club, seems to have put a chink in the U.S. loincloth of developing a 'coalition' against Saddam. However, no sooner had these two European powerhouses left the tent, then was sparked the retort from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, that they represented 'old' Europe, and that the U.S. didn't really need them, preferring instead, the assistance of 'new' Europe, like Poland, and perhaps, the Czechs. Empires, it seems, can be as petulant as teenagers. Petulant though it may have been, it revealed the desire for Europe, 'old' or 'new', to back their play. It also revealed how desirous empires are for others to bow to their self-evident glory. What seems indispensable for all empires, is arrogance. But the question remains: How did we get here? How did the nation that boasted of its 'democratic principles' emerge as an imperial force in the world? Who voted for this thing? A recent column in *The Washington Post* suggests that the U.S. became a global empire as an "accident". It quotes a senior Bush regime official defending the position of the U.S. assuming "an almost imperial role" in the world. The short rationale? There's no one else. Period. It is presented as if this is but the inevitable fruit of the tragedy of 9/11. As if the U.S. somehow grudgingly accepts its terrible burden, because it alone is strong enough. This is a misreading of the last half century of history if ever there was one. Remember Vietnam? Remember the ridiculous 'domino theory'? How many millions around the world were sucked into that imperial nightmare? It is easy, and somewhat cheap, to lay all of the present madness at the feet of the present president; but this is also misleading. The imperial parameters of the United States may be seen in every American administration, from Truman on down to the present office-holder. They may not have used the words, but they certainly acted as if the whole wide world, was but the plaything of the Empire, and if a leader arose who dared not know his place, he was toppled. Have we forgotten Mohammad Mussadegh? Patrice Lumumba? Salvador Allende? Rafael Trujillo? Sukarno of Indonesia? Americans may not know these names, but much of the world does. They know that the American Empire isn't some kind of "accident" of history. They did it the old-fashioned way: through assassinations, destabilization, spycraft, and military domination. Just as Rome did. Who voted for this abomination? This edifice of terror? Did you? Well, if not, then you must seriously question the notion that this is a democratic state; for if you had no say in these extremely serious matters, when has your will been respected? Some democracy, huh? An imperial democracy, ain't no democracy at all. ______________________________________________ Aaron Malachi Eric Arnesen: With that goal in mind, they took matters in their own hands and invoked their most deadly weapon: racial terrorism. "If I could have convinced more slaves that they were slaves, I wo _____ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030210/7353c042/attachment.htm From beth Mon Feb 10 09:47:33 2003 From: beth (Beth Skinner) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 10:47:33 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Thanks to West Virginia In-Reply-To: <5E8F13E7.56FEE07C.09C05152@aol.com> References: <5E8F13E7.56FEE07C.09C05152@aol.com> Message-ID: <1044892053.3e47c995298a0@dalchemy.com> What a great tournament - excellent hospitality, debates that go off on time, great competition, and free entries. The rest of the Towson team joins me in thanking Neil Berch and the rest of the WVU folks for putting on an event that celebrates the community's values via special awards for novices competing in JV and small programs that do well competitively. Add a bowling night and, really, what more could you want? Beth Skinner Towson Debate From lisakanak Mon Feb 10 09:56:45 2003 From: lisakanak (Lisa Kanak) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 10:56:45 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Extra-topicality/Plan Spikes Message-ID: I?m having an awful time trying to find theory on extra-topicality and plan spikes. Jim Hanson, has a portion of his on-line BDB Q&A that says, ?The majority of theorists agree that non-topical plan spikes are abusive, and limit the negative?s opportunities to present disadvantages,? which I agree with. Of course, then he goes on to say that it?s okay to sever (which I disagree with based on the legislative analogy ? also, I feel it?s more consistent with the position that if the aff can?t add to the plan after it?s presentation, it should not be able to subtract either.) Then Mr. Prager says: Spikes. Spikes are plan components, which serve to avoid a disadvantage that the rest of the plan would otherwise cause. They are parts of the plan that do not implement the resolution directly, but rather make the rest of the plan function better. While you cannot claim an advantage from a plan spike, it can prevent you from losing the debate to a persistent Negative team. For example, a plan to provide free food for the hungry might lead to dramatic inflation; a plan spike to counter this might impose wage and price controls on the U.S. economy. Instead of merely proving that the Affirmative plan would be inflationary, the Negative would also have to prove that the price controls would be ineffective or undesirable; the Affirmative, of course, would have evidence on hand to show that price controls are just great. My questions: 1) When is a plan spike abusive, and when isn?t it? 2) Where can I find theory on this (I?ve checked the electronic listings for most of the forensics journals and come up empty). Lastly, the case is Trade Sanctions on Saudi Arabia ? the spike is Drill in ANWR ? as a coach/judge/debater, what would you think? Lisa Kanak 540-752-1935 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030210/e6fbb87b/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 5665 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030210/e6fbb87b/attachment.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 5665 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030210/e6fbb87b/attachment-0001.obj From privethedge Mon Feb 10 09:53:30 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 07:53:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] WHEN DID YOU VOTE FOR EMPIRE? In-Reply-To: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370710C9A9B@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Message-ID: <20030210155330.69545.qmail@web10008.mail.yahoo.com> Uhm..just some corrections to the rhetoric: << If the government ignores the wishes of a majority of its citizens, how can that government be called "democratic" (small 'd')? >> I assume this statement is about Iraq. However, the majority of the American public favors military action as borne about by polling data. The war protestors, although loud, are a small minority. However, they are still permitted to protest and act like fools. A far cry from the imperialism that the author accuses the US of engaging in Rome, when people opposed the emporer, they became tiger chow for the amusement of thousands in the Collesium. << It is easy, and somewhat cheap, to lay all of the present madness at the feet of the present president; but this is also misleading. The imperial parameters of the United States may be seen in every American administration, from Truman on down to the present office-holder >> Again, the author is off. I guess he forgot about Polk and the Mexican war, the war against Native Americans, and the other aspects of US expansion and conquest pre-Truman. I'm also not sure how Truman would be an imperialist. The only military action under him was at the behest of the liberal beloved UN in Korea. << Sukarno>> Right, a blood thirsty dictator deposed by his own people. << But the question remains: How did we get here? How did the nation that boasted of its 'democratic principles' emerge as an imperial force in the world? >> My answer is that we are not an imperial presence. If we were, we wouldn't have a flap with Germany and France over Iraq. We'd merely dispatch a few legions to storm Paris and Berlin and that would be that - we'd supress the barbarian hordes, and march on Iraq. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030210/20005efb/attachment.htm From ferrits Mon Feb 10 12:06:26 2003 From: ferrits (Joe Schatz) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 02:06:26 +0800 Subject: [eDebate] Thanks WVU Message-ID: <20030210180626.29016.qmail@sailormoon.com> A big thanks should go out to West Virginia University for hosting such a wonderful tournament that not only had awsome awards but also the only tournament I've ever seen with no registration fees. It's an incredible idea to host tournaments with free registration. Not only does it help newly developing squads (especially for student-run teams) but also gives those teams who normally don't go to tournaments because the A and B teams get all the travel to attend a high quality tournament without having to cost their program tons of money. I hope other schools will follow in WVU's step and host other free tournaments. Thanks again for a wonderful weekend. joe -- _______________________________________________ Come to http://www.sailormoon.com the sailormoon friends & fan community where you get chat, e-mail and can even build your own homepages! Powered by Outblaze From lsd041 Mon Feb 10 12:15:59 2003 From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 12:15:59 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Doubles Results, Octos Pairings Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030210120935.00b0d1f0@lulu.it.northwestern.edu> The top 16 seeds all won their first elimination round. The following lower seeds picked-up a ballot: Emory GP (Roston), Harvard MT (Ceren, Texas BM (Holbrook), and Gonzaga LS (Breshears). No bracket breaking was required to establish the following octo-final debates, now underway: 1 Emory LP (N) v 16 Northwestern GL Repko Will, Mancuso Steve, McIntosh Chris 2 Berkeley NS (A) v 15 Texas AY Eber Alison, Hoe Josh, Ghali Kamal 3 Michigan FO (N) v 14 Georgia PR Atchison Jarrod, Peterson Jason, Carson Austin 4 Whitnaman BO (A) v 13 Dartmouth ST Smith Ross, Stables Gordon, Paul Jonathan 5 New York GG (N) v 12 Emory BL Grove Jairus, Garen Adam, Haziavramidis, Katie 6 Michigan State SS (A) v 11 Berkeley RS Strange Ken, Holbrook Sarah, Green Justin 7 Dartmouth LT (N) v 10 Wake Forest ES Davis Daniel, Arnett Dave, Heidt David 8 Fort Hays RS (N) v 9 Michigan State MS Lundberg Chris, Sharpe Jon, Niska Harry Off to more errands. Octos results and quarter-final pairings when possible. SD Scott Deatherage Director of Debate Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois From Maxwell.Schnurer Mon Feb 10 12:50:11 2003 From: Maxwell.Schnurer (Maxwell Schnurer) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:50:11 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Public debate coverage . . . ICC cards! Message-ID: Hey folks -- Marist and UVM had a public debate via internet 2. The poughkeepsie Journal dedicated almost all of their opinion page to carrying an opinion piece by myself and some exerpts from the debate. If you would like some nice ICC neg cards from Brian Cole, here they are! The transcript is on top & then my opinion essay is below. best, maxwell/marist Colleges spar over war crimes court MARIST DEBATE The following are excerpts from the debate between Marist College and the University of Vermont regarding the merits of the International Criminal Court. The debate was conducted through video sent over the Internet. Jacqueline Gamrat, junior business and finance major at Marist College: Dr. William Aceves, a professor from the California Western School of Law, reveals that 270 minority groups are at risk of genocide. One billion people, or one-sixth of the world's population, stands the risk of being exterminated. These are the poorest of the poor and those who have been oppressed throughout history. The ratification of the International Criminal Court, commonly referred to as the ICC, is the only way to stop potential genocides from happening in the future and give these peoples a much-deserved sense of freedom. Genocide is defined as the systematic extermination of a group of people based on their ethnic characteristics. The Jewish Holocaust is a clear example of how evil humans can really be to one another. We as members of the human race have a moral obligation to prevent genocide and do whatever possible to stop it. We must act now. Despite the obvious need for the ICC, the lack of U.S. support undercuts its potential success from becoming an accepted body. The ICC is a body created by dozens of nations. Its main purpose is to prosecute crimes against humanity and bring its perpetrators to justice. The U.S. has not only spoken against the ICC, but has also refused any support or participation. The current strategy of the U.S. is to sabotage the ICC through their words and actions. The rejection of the ICC by the U.S only makes it seem as if the U.S. supports the actions of the past. Without supporting the ICC, the U.S. is running the risk of allowing these genocides to happen in the future. The U.S. needs to stop looking at itself as a single nation and more as a member of the global community. The U.S. stands on a cusp and has a choice. We can stand with or against those who want to exterminate 1 billion people. We can stand with or against those who believe that mass rape is not a crime against humanity. We can stand with or against those who believe that the U.S. should not ratify the ICC. Today we urge and call for the ratification of the International Criminal Court. And stand up against genocide at all costs. Jennifer Knopps, senior philosophy major from the University of Vermont: The ICC will not solve genocide. The International Criminal Court cannot force people to change their views. While the affirmative team gives a compelling argument, talking about the 270 minority groups that are at risk of genocide, they don't ever address the root cause of the problems of genocide. They suggest advocating the ICC to create an effective deterrent atmosphere. Our claim is that this deterrence will never be effective. There are corrupt leaders who exist in this world who will engage in actions regardless of the potential trials which might exist. A great example of the evidence of this is Pol Pot-induced genocide in Cambodia. This was post-Nuremberg, post-Holocaust. Pol Pot was not deterred by the notion of a trial which could compel him to address the wrongs of his doings. In fact, he felt he was so right that he felt compelled to engage in these actions. We have to recognize that these individuals commit genocide when they are positive that they are right and they commit genocide based upon a deep-seated racial or ethnic hatred that they have within themselves. The ICC can do nothing to eliminate this deep-seated hatred; it runs far deeper than an international statute or law can ever hope to address. Another illustration is: Even if the Nazis had known that Nuremberg would ever exist post the war, they still would have engaged in the extermination of the Jews and the other people who they killed. There is no way the ICC can act as an effective deterrent regarding these issues. The ICC is even more problematic because there is no way for the International Criminal Court to obtain evidence for a fair and legitimate trial. So, even if the ICC were able to engage in an effective trial against somebody, like (former Yugoslav President Slobodan) Milosevic for instance, they would not be able to obtain the evidence from other states to justify that fair trial. This is a significant monkey wrench in the constitution of the international criminal court. There is no factual legitimacy that can uphold the standards of western international law, which the ICC seeks to implement in the international community. Stephen Nocera, sophomore political science major at Marist College: Would we trust Hitler to stop discrimination of the Jewish people? Would we have trusted Pol Pot, the dictator of Cambodia, to keep safe the Cambodian people? Would we have trusted Milosevic to keep safe the women of Bosnia? Of course not; there must be a higher power of authority. Genocide happens because national leaders believe they can get away with it. Pinochet in Chile never gave a second thought to killing all those people simply because he knew that no one could stop him. This is why, today, Jacqui and I are advocating for a higher power that will deter acts of genocide. The ICC can solve for genocide, especially with the involvement of the United States. The U.S. brings superior strength to the international community; we are the international heavyweight and one of the biggest players in the international community. Jenn references Pol Pot, arguing that Nuremburg was around when Pol Pot was killing people; however, this doesn't include the idea that the U.S. would be involved with the ICC. In the status quo, the U.S. has not ratified the International Criminal Court. Then she argues that people will do these things because they think that they are on the side of right. However, I contend that the International Criminal Court putting up all these standards and showing people that they are wrong; that's where they will stop genocide. Set standards that show people that genocide is not the right way to go about politics and diplomacy. Jenn's next point is that the ICC is unable to obtain evidence. However, Brian Concannon, who is a Haitian attorney who wrote in the Columbian Human Rights Review in 2000, says that the ICC has both the funding and support for every country to gather evidence. The ICC provides training for lawyers and officials and provides assistance for domestic collection, analysis, and preservation of evidence. Secondly, the ICC provides protection and support as well as funding for witnesses and gathering evidence. Even if the ICC can't get evidence, it's still very valuable because it will encourage national prosecutions of dictators and sends a strong international signal, which it can only do with the involvement of the United States. In conclusion, even if there are problems with the ICC it doesn't mean that we shouldn't participate. In fact, I would contend that it should encourage the United States to get involved so that these problems can be fixed, and real change can begin to take place. Brian Cole, senior political science major at the University of Vermont: The problem in this debate is that we have failed to talk about the key issues. The key issues in this debate seem to come down to the idea of retributive justice vs. restorative justice. The affirmative's first point and Phillip Gourevitch's quote about Rwanda actually speaks to this point quite well. In fact, Rwanda is an excellent example of how retributive justice fails. In Rwanda, currently, the idea of retributive justice that is going on right now has led to fewer trials and fewer reconciliations for the crimes committed than would the concept of restorative justice in South Africa. Additionally, the deterrence theory on which the ICC is based has been disproven historically. Megalomaniacs such as Pol Pot and Mr. Hussein for example, also Mr. Milosevic and leaders of countries who feel that they are right in what they are doing, have historically not been deterred by international bodies. There is no good answer to the argument of Pol Pot committing atrocities that he did against his own people after he saw the Nuremberg trials and what happened at Nuremberg. Obviously we can see that an international body, such as the ICC, is not the appropriate way to answer back the claims and the problems of genocide. The ICC does not have subpoena power. Steve reads a quote talking about how it has the funding and support of the countries. But, if you look at Article 93 of the treaty itself, it specifically is faulty in that it does not allow for any sort of subpoena power. There is no standing army; there are no police officers of the court to go and obtain the evidence or to obtain those who have committed the atrocities. Meaning that there is no way to effectively guarantee that these people will be brought to trial. Meaning we'll have the exact same problem we've had for years with leaders running away to foreign nations or other places on the planet, where they are untouchable by this body. If this is to be our first major document of international law, to stop genocide, we need to get it right the first time. And the way that we need to get it right is to give the ICC some kind of subpoena power. The only way is to do that is to change the ICC, not to implement the ICC. The current strategy of the U.S. is to sabotage the ICC through their words and actions. The ICC will not solve genocide. AT A GLANCE INTERNATIONAL COURT Dozens of nations have agreed to participate in the International Criminal Court, a permanent war crimes tribunal. It is designed to make those participating abide by an international standards of conduct and ensure that war crime perpetrators are brought to justice before the ICC when national courts are unable or unwilling to do so. The United States strongly opposes the court, objecting to the notion that Americans -- particularly those involved in global peacekeeping missions -- would be subject to the court's international jurisdiction. Valley Views: Debate showcases new technology, solid content By Maxwell Schnurer When it comes to debate, we have a method of inquiry that stimulates minds and teaches strong research skills. Debate results in vigorous argument and critical analysis of ideas. The biggest barrier to debate is distance. Almost every weekend I gather my debaters to drive hundreds of miles in order to get a tightly compressed schedule of debates in against colleagues at other colleges. On Jan. 29, all this changed. Marist and the University of Vermont had the first debate over Internet2. This connection allowed debaters to argue from the comfort of their own colleges with their messages transmitted at television quality. The technology of the Internet has allowed debates to occur beyond the constraints of space. Debaters have the skills and the content. The intense debate that emerged in this medium about the International Criminal Court highlights the skills that emerge from debating. Even more importantly, the use of the Internet for debate opens up the possibility for debaters to engage each other across national lines. There are excited debaters across the globe that would like the chance to debate against each other. Debaters in Russia and South Korea among other places watched this debate, and I believe that one day soon these debaters will be able to turn on the screen and begin competing. Imagine Marist debaters arguing against students in Serbia or Chile while the event is available for all to see online for virtually no cost. The world of ideas could finally surpass the distance and difference that keep us apart. This debate made history, but more importantly, it opened up the doors for more discussion and dialogue in the world. Dr. Maxwell Schnurer is a professor of communication and the debate coach at Marist College. From let_the_american_empire_burn Mon Feb 10 13:18:55 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 13:18:55 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 1984 reasons Duane likes Big Brother Message-ID: duane: "However, the majority of the American public favors military action as borne about by polling data. The war protestors, although loud, are a small minority. However, they are still permitted to protest and act like fools." hmm, maybe - there's a few things about polls that are rather undemocratic (as many conservative commentators like to point out). first, they only poll people with phones; a lot of people don't have phones, and those people might tend towards a more economical and a less reckless approach to foreign policy. second, polls typically only poll, not just eligible voters, but so-termed 'likely voters' - and clearly, there's a slew of folks who feel rather disenfrancized by the one-party (masquerading as two-party) system, since half of those eligible don't vote (not counting oppressed peoples like children, prisoners, and the like). third, polls vary widely depending on how you ask the question. if you ask whether the US should only use military action if the UN sanctions it, then a majority says yes. if you ask whether, when faced with Saddam's refusal to disarm, the US should use military action, again a majority says yes. whichs leads to four: what polls show is only how well the propaganda system is getting its message out. duane, i know you may think that this god-fearing country is so enlightened that it has shed all the nationalistic tendencies of every empire before it, but sadly, it ain't so. the mainstream media 'follows the flag' (in the immortal words of Dan Rather). one needn't see this as some conspiracy either - people want to believe that they live in a country that acts in an morally justified manner, and the most widely-accessed US media outlets tend to report their government officials more than and above any other source. no one wants to admit that they live in a hegemonic nation-state that kills people for conquest - did any Nazi German? did any Napoleonic Frenchie? put simply, everybody wants to think well of themselves, and unless we're mistreated personally, we're usually not going to kick up a fuss - especially not when our leaders are telling us about how we're going to save the poor Iraqis (the ones that aren't killed by bombs, that is). the people who run the government are masters at deception, duane - they could convince you to invade north korea, iran, syria, lebanon, saudi arabia ... hell, they could probably even convince you to invade france (that is, if they didn't have nukes). here's the realpolitick fact: if Saddam gets a nuke, he'll be an un-topplable regime and he'll be able to control a large portion of the oil reserves. now, the USA is the key benefactor and protectorate of what's called global capitalism (but what i think is more accurately labelled, neo-colonialism, since this is no where near laizze-faire). and this means, that even if the USA didn't get any oil money from Iraq, indeed even if Exxon-Mobil wasn't chomping at the bit to pump those oil fields up full blast (and British Petroleum has already complained that this is precisely what Exxon-Mobil is going to do, thanks to US favoritism), even if all of that were true, the USA is still responsible for making sure oil gets to Japan, Germany, and other industrialized allies, even those that don't want to participate or are directly opposed to war. if Germany and Japan sink, so too the USA. so that's the geo-political reason for invasion, and everything else is a mere consequence of that - the rhetoric about humyn rights abuses, the manufacturing of majoritarian consent, etc. the Dubya administration already has the congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force, and there's absolutely nothing the peace movement can do about that - their too little and too late. even if France, with its UN veto, and Germany, with its economic influence in the EU, attempt a full body-block, they're certainly not prepared to use military force to protect Iraq against USA aggression. so that's that. i mean, what else is there to discuss? unipolar empires do what they want, and no state has every had this much power since second century Rome. which brings duane to say that USA imperialism is... "A far cry from the imperialism that the author accuses the US of engaging in Rome, when people opposed the emporer, they became tiger chow for the amusement of thousands in the Collesium." hmmm, yes its true that executions are no longer public, but if you think this empire doesn't execute those who threaten its power, you're the fool, duane. remember those al-qaeda members riding a car through yemen? (americans only heard about that because the yemenese government supported it (and doesn't have as tight a clamp on leaks) and because an american was killed (perhaps accidentally).) back to rome, the christians were a real threat; they weren't just worshipping quietly off in a corner somewhere - jesus was overturning money-changing tables at the jerusalem world trade center and he was executed for sedition, and that's why scores of christians were slaughtered, for inciting riots. see back then, christianity actually meant something; it meant that there was an entire group of people that refused to acknowledge the imperialist leaders as all-powerful, an entire secret organization (fyi - the christian fish is actually a secret handshake: one person draws the first curve, and if the second person isn't a roman spy, they'll draw the second curve, hence the fish) that wasn't just holding up signs that say 'Cesear = War-mongerer', but who were actively participating in rebellion, and, yes, terrorism. the roman empire was absolutely terrified, and rightly so. the christian methods may have been somewhat peaceful, but that's because they had vastly superior numbers, all the poor people were on the same page back then, and all but the most corrupt of jews knew they were being persecuted (and you'll recall that christianity started off as a sect in judaism). thanks to modern technology, there's now much better weaponry to keep a tiny minority in control of most of the world's resources. back then you needed an army; in the not-too-distant future, war will be entirely remote controlled - someone at the Pentagon, who, like you duane, has never met an anti-imperialist they'd like to have a beer with, will play a video-war-game and incinerate thousands with mere key-strokes. now let me ask you this, who in this day and age will stand before the Roman tigers and say, 'go ahead and eat me, but i'm not renouncing what i believe, that there is only one god and all your pagan materialistic crap will never be more perfect that my savior'? who? al-qaeda, that's who. while most muslims are capitulating to modernization and retreating into corrupt regimes, bin laden and friends are willing to die for what they believe. and let me go you one further - if at the time of jesus' death, i would have told you that the christians are going to win, that there'd be billions of them today, you would have laughed your guts out, that is, right before you crucified me. in short, i think bin Laden has a damn good shot - he's already precipitated the collapse of one evil empire by defeating the most powerful conventional military force in the world using non-conventional war-fighting tactics, so why not this last empire? al-qaeda reprents the barbarians, the spiritual warriors, and the martyrs all in one. i heard doris lessing a few nights ago on PBS talking about how when she was a little girl it was simply assumed that the british empire would be around forever, and yet the sun set on that empire in her own lifetime ... so all i'm saying is, maybe we'll get lucky. d: "I guess he forgot about Polk and the Mexican war, the war against Native Americans, and the other aspects of US expansion and conquest pre-Truman. I'm also not sure how Truman would be an imperialist. The only military action under him was at the behest of the liberal beloved UN in Korea." from your first sentence, i'm glad you understand the only reason that america got where it is today is because it was willing to slaughter more people for land - don't forget the spanish-american war either, or the 20,000 dead freedom-fighters in the Phillipenes (which might end up being the Kurds' fate, though let's hope not). but anyone who doesn't know that the UN is almost entirely controlled by the USA and its strategic interests hasn't been paying attention. the irony would be funny if it weren't tragic - if the UN goes along with this war, then it'll have the blood of Iraqis on its hands, and if it doesn't, then the USA will declare that its no longer a credible organization (which means, there's go the UN budget), and then the next Rwanda that comes along, the UN won't be able to do shit (assuming it had a half-a-chance anyway). that's called a lose-lose situation: 'either you do what i say or you won't be able to do anything at all' - the imperialist catch-22. is it any accident that the UN has only become a powerful and legitimate organization in the wake of the fall of the communist empire? no. the USA learned the lesson of Vietnam - pretexts and international credibility are a must-have for this winter's drop-dead blow-out. d: "My answer is that we are not an imperial presence. If we were, we wouldn't have a flap with Germany and France over Iraq. We'd merely dispatch a few legions to storm Paris and Berlin and that would be that - we'd supress the barbarian hordes, and march on Iraq." uh, you have no understanding of imperialist politics. first, there's some countries that empires don't care to beat up because they'd prefer to trade with these countries without obstacles - just because Rome didn't conquer the land all the way from Japan to South Africa, doesn't mean it wasn't an empire. smart empires know that every empire falls when it tries to over-extend itself, so they're careful. even the most powerful empires can't take on everyone (especially countries with fucking NUKES, duane!). second, america learned from the brits that when you directly occupy other people's land, those people tend to get very pissed off. its much easier to install a quasi-independent government that's friendly to Western business interests, and then whatever happens isn't the USA's fault - see the history of Iran. lastly, remember this: money is always more important than the military - the later is the servant of the former, which is why potentially hundreds of soliders dying in Iraq (even as there is no immanent threat to USA territory) is an acceptable loss, blood for oil. the USA is the Mr. Security Guard watching over the yuppie mini-mall of global capitalism - some stores like the guard and want the guard to do more than he's willing to do (like Britian: 'hey, why can't we send in an international peace-keeping force into Israel-Palestine?'), other stores are happy the guard is there but talk bad about the guard (like Germany and France, 'man, i could do a much better job of running the world than this idiot'), and still other stores have security guards that don't like the main guard (like Iraq, 'hey, if you stay under your Monroe doctrine, then let the Arabs take care of the Arabs'). of course, 90% of the world's people don't run any store, or even have any significant say in how the stores are being run, and a good 75% don't even have the money to shop at these stores (something like 2 billion people live on less than 2 dollars a day). so this whole discussion of majoritarianism is bullshit - the majority has never decided anything ever. even in full-blown greek democracy, only about 10% of the actual population voted (no womyn, no foreigners, no poor folk, etc.) the USA is going to invade Iraq, and even if a majority of the world gave a shit and wanted to stop it, they probably couldn't. and here's what the liberals can't ever admit - even if the majority could stop it, they wouldn't, because they don't want to have to see the blood underneath all their gold - they want to have sex and go to bed, and there's nothing like bomb shrapnel cutting through the tender flesh of an Iraqi child to make your dick limp. i mean, who wants to think about that? ... terrorists. and that's why, like the christians before them, the islamic militants are morally superior, even if they end up losing. they're the only ones standing between us and 1984, and if you can't see that, duane, don't be surprised, rare is the person who recognizes they're living under fascism. do you think the average German Nazi said to themselves, one fine day, 'jesus christ! i'm living in a totalitarian state!' - no, they thought about buying groceries, sending their kids to skool, and looking the other way while 'enemies of the state' were eliminated ('we're going to hunt these people down one-by-one', who said it? hitler or dubya?) ... but if you'll excuse me, i'm late for the Two Minutes of Hate - gotta go scream at bin Laden's picture on CNN (while they mute his words about resisting imperialism) ... won't you join me, duane? .k "[W]hat was strange was that although Goldstein was hated and despised by everybody, although every day, and a thousand times a day, on platforms, on the telescreen, in newspapers, in books, his theories were refuted, smashed, ridiculted, held up to the general gaze for the pitiful rubbish that they were - in spite of all this, his influence never seemed to grow less. Always there were fresh dupes waiting to be seduced by him. A day never passed when spies and saboteurs acting under his directions were not unmasked by the Thought Police. He was the commander of a vast shadowy army, an underground network of conspirated dedicated to the overthrow of the State. ... [A]t such moments [Winston's] heart went out to the lonely, derided heretic on the screen, sole gaurdian of truth and sanity in a world of lies." - Orwell, 1984, p16. _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From Mikedavis13 Mon Feb 10 13:25:51 2003 From: Mikedavis13 (Mikedavis13 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:25:51 EST Subject: [eDebate] UGA team list Message-ID: <16c.1a75f851.2b7956bf@aol.com> We are currently waiting to hear from a few folks who indicated they were coming (Louisville, Mercer). We are at 17 teams in open and 3 in novice. We will do our best to have a separate novice division, but we need a few more entries. Open 1. Georgia SH (Juanita Sierra & Reid Hardaway) 2. Georgia B (Ross Benton & Michael Moore) 3. MTSU CL (Courtney Caraver & Allan Lutes) 4. GSU BC (Gabe Coyle & Adam Butler) 5. Bama PG (Tameka Phillips & Bryan Grason) 6. Bama SM (Nicole MIller & Abi Smith) 7. Bama WE (Marques Evans & Heather Wyatt) 8. West GA EL (Rashad Evans & Anita Lamar) 9. West GA CH (Eric Cole & TJ Hadley) 10. West GA CA (Cesquinn Curtis & Ryan Appelbaum) 11. Emory TR (Eliot Tucker & Adam Romney) 12. Emory AlKu (Vikas Kumar & Bob Allen) 13. Emory TJ (JB Tartar & Marcus Jenkins) 14. Emory AsKu (Sameer Asher & Didi Kuo) 15. Emory GF (Jason Gorczynski and Alex Foster) 16. Tenn Tech 17. Pace RS (Reena Rani & Patricia Socorro) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030210/46eafc8d/attachment.html From privethedge Mon Feb 10 13:33:54 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 11:33:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] 1984 reasons Duane likes Big Brother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030210193354.57242.qmail@web10009.mail.yahoo.com> Welcome back, Kevin. If I weren't mourning the death of a close friend today, I'd pay attention to your babble and actually answer it. That will have to wait. TO be fair, some of what you said this time around makes sense, and I actually agree with some of it, but a thorough exposition will have to wait 24 hours. Take Care, Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030210/e1e52663/attachment.htm From simmonbm Mon Feb 10 14:52:27 2003 From: simmonbm (Brian Simmonds) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 12:52:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern Octos Message-ID: Emory LP (neg) v. Northwestern GL (decision not in yet) Berkeley NS (aff) def. Texas AY, 2-1 Michigan FO (neg) def. Georgia PR, 2-1 Dartmouth ST (neg) def. Whitman BO, 3-0 NYU GG (neg) def. Emory BL, 3-0 MSU SS (aff) def. Berkeley RS, 2-1 Wake ES (aff) def. Dartmouth LT, 3-0 MSU MS (aff) def. FOrt Hays RS, 3-0 This is in bracket order. I'm not too sure about those ballot counts. Other things being equal, even seeds are affirmative in quarters. Brian From cizeknt2000 Mon Feb 10 16:37:58 2003 From: cizeknt2000 (Nicholas Cizek) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:37:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] WWU POLICY RESULTS Message-ID: <20030210223758.43749.qmail@web11503.mail.yahoo.com> Here you go Quarters: Oregon BR (NEG) Defeats Gonzaga MW on a 2-1 Harris (NEG), Hansen (NEG), Grindy (AFF) UPS CG (AFF) Defeats Western Washington/Pierce on a 3-0 Whittaker (AFF), Serman (AFF), Zahorcak (AFF) Whitman RS (NEG) defeats OregonSW on a 3-0 Slusher (NEG), Paulose (NEG), Garrison (NEG) Western Washington (Neg) CR Defeats UPS HH Pointer (Neg), Johnson (Neg), Mohn (Neg) Semis: Whitman RS (AFF) Defeats Oregon BR on 3-0 Harris (AFF), Garrison (AFF), Steiskal (AFF) UPS CG (AFF) Defeats Western Washington CR on a 3-0 Hanson (AFF), Johnson (AFF), Slusher (AFF) Finals: UPS CG (Aff) Defeats Whitman RS on a 2-1 Woods (AFF) Garrison (AFF) Harvey(NEG) Top 15 Speakers: 15. Housh (Puget Sound HH) 14. Rekyi (Whitman RS) 13. Cizek (Western Washington CR) 12. Cole (Vermont KC) 11. Sweberg (WWU/Pierce ES) 10. Ramprasad (Oregon BR) 9. Campbell (UPS CG) 8. Hutchison (Gonzaga HD) 7. Dingel (Gonzaga HD) 6. Rydberg (Western Washington CR) 5. Borden (Oregon BR) 4. Walker (Oregon SW) 3. Meuer (Gonzaga MW) 2. Gates (Puget Sound CG) 1. Suni (Whitman RS) --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030210/a7d47d16/attachment.html From KSchriver Mon Feb 10 16:45:30 2003 From: KSchriver (Schriver, Kristina) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 14:45:30 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Reminder--NCA paper deadline is Feb. 15th Message-ID: <081C0D986938494A97DE9D50AB7D034F3920AF@ESCHE.csuchico.edu> Please submit panel proposals, paper abstracts and the like to www.natcom.org. The deadline for submissions to the CEDA division is this Saturday at midnight (EST). If you have trouble establishing a PIN number, please contact me. If you have a completed paper, please submit the abstract of the paper on-line and then send the hard copy to the address below. Kristina Schriver, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Director of Forensics 201B Tehama California State U, Chico Chico, CA 95929-0502 (530) 898-4771 From privethedge Mon Feb 10 18:24:00 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 16:24:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] 1984 reasons Duane likes Big Brother In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030211002400.83770.qmail@web10004.mail.yahoo.com> << hmm, maybe - there's a few things about polls that are rather undemocratic (as many conservative commentators like to point out). first, they only poll people with phones; a lot of people don't have phones, and those people might tend towards a more economical and a less reckless approach to foreign policy. >> If were were still in the 20's, I'd agree with you on this observation However, in this day and age phones are cheap and plentiful. Now, I know we can't solve for everyone having a phone -= that would be impossible. But enough people have phones to get a valid cross-sampling in polling data. << second, polls typically only poll, not just eligible voters, but so-termed 'likely voters' - and clearly, there's a slew of folks who feel rather disenfrancized by the one-party (masquerading as two-party) system, since half of those eligible don't vote (not counting oppressed peoples like children, prisoners, and the like). >> Some polls target likely voters, others target registered voters, some target by age, sex, etc. Second, and we've gone over this, felons don't get to vote because they break the law. Children don't get to vote because: 1) They don't pay taxes, and 2) The Constitution says you have to be 18. Also, those who disenfranchise themselves by choice, I have no sympahty for. You can vote however you wish, but the key is voting. << third, polls vary widely depending on how you ask the question. if you ask whether the US should only use military action if the UN sanctions it, then a majority says yes. if you ask whether, when faced with Saddam's refusal to disarm, the US should use military action, again a majority says yes. whichs leads to four: what polls show is only how well the propaganda system is getting its message out. >> No matter how you cut it, those who suppor the war dwarf those who don't. As for propganda, if you can disprove anything that Powell said, and do it with credible evidence to the contrary, I'll listen. If you don't believe that Sadaam is torturing his people, and can show it with credible evidence, I'll listen. << Duane, i know you may think that this god-fearing country is so enlightened that it has shed all the nationalistic tendencies of every empire before it, but sadly, it ain't so. the mainstream media 'follows the flag' (in the immortal words of Dan Rather). >> First of all, my views on God and America are not what you might think. Second, I think we've come a long way from Genghis Khan and the Mongol Horde - how many civilizations did he rebuild? And third, the media follows the flag about as much as I follow Marx. << one needn't see this as some conspiracy either - people want to believe that they live in a country that acts in an morally justified manner, and the most widely-accessed US media outlets tend to report their government officials more than and above any other source. no one wants to admit that they live in a hegemonic nation-state that kills people for conquest - did any Nazi German? did any Napoleonic Frenchie? >> I find you equating the US to Nazi Germany to be both foolish and sick. The Nazis conquered other nations to impose their way of life, they also rounded up everyone that didn't fit their conception of that life and murdered them: Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Religious People, Devlopmentally Delayed people, you name it. The US, to my knowledge, has never established a death camp - if you can prove they have with credible evidence, I'll listen. << put simply, everybody wants to think well of themselves, and unless we're mistreated personally, we're usually not going to kick up a fuss - especially not when our leaders are telling us about how we're going to save the poor Iraqis (the ones that aren't killed by bombs, that is). >> First, this empircally denied. IF what you say is true, no white person would have dared to march with King, and the Civil War never would have been fought. The US would only have declared war on Japan, and we would have left Europe to Europe until Hitler attacked us. Secondly, someone needs to save the Iraqis - and if the Arab states can't do it, why not us? Or perhaps you approve of gangrape and torture? << the people who run the government are masters at deception, duane - they could convince you to invade north korea, iran, syria, lebanon, saudi arabia ... hell, they could probably even convince you to invade france (that is, if they didn't have nukes). >> What makes you think I need them to convince me to invade any of the above? << here's the realpolitick fact: if Saddam gets a nuke, he'll be an un-topplable regime and he'll be able to control a large portion of the oil reserves. now, the USA is the key benefactor and protectorate of what's called global capitalism (but what i think is more accurately labelled, neo-colonialism, since this is no where near laizze-faire). and this means, that even if the USA didn't get any oil money from Iraq, indeed even if Exxon-Mobil wasn't chomping at the bit to pump those oil fields up full blast (and British Petroleum has already complained that this is precisely what Exxon-Mobil is going to do, thanks to US favoritism), even if all of that were true, the USA is still responsible for making sure oil gets to Japan, Germany, and other industrialized allies, even those that don't want to participate or are directly opposed to war. if Germany and Japan sink, so too the USA. >> Yes, I agree - if we wait, Sadaam becomes more of a threat, thanks for justifying action now. And, your oil argument is lame. France is hte one scrambling for big oil deals with Iraq, not us. Second, if we wanted to get oil, we could invade Canada - it has more oil than Iraq and is already our largest oil producing partner. << so that's the geo-political reason for invasion, and everything else is a mere consequence of that - the rhetoric about humyn rights abuses, the manufacturing of majoritarian consent, etc. the Dubya administration already has the congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force, and there's absolutely nothing the peace movement can do about that - their too little and too late. even if France, with its UN veto, and Germany, with its economic influence in the EU, attempt a full body-block, they're certainly not prepared to use military force to protect Iraq against USA aggression. >> SO, you deny that there are human rights abuses in Iraq that would make you vomit? To you Sadaam is some friendly guy who is just misunderstood? France and Germany will come around, soon. They have everything to lose if they don't. IF your oil argument is true, they'll have to bend, because they wouldnt' want to consider an Iraq dominated by the US who is pissed off at them, and the potential loss of those oil fields. And, I doubt the French could mount an effective military operation against anyone, let alone the US. Heck, I hear the French army has to try hard to stop its soldiers from surrendering to Euro Disney every night afte the fireworks display. As I posted earlier this week, the French have about as much meaning to modern military affairs as the minie ball, or the maxim gun. so that's that. << i mean, what else is there to discuss? unipolar empires do what they want, and no state has every had this much power since second century Rome. >> I disagree. the Soviet Union came closer to Rome than we ever did. which brings duane to say that USA imperialism is... "A far cry from the imperialism that the author accuses the US of engaging in Rome, when people opposed the emporer, they became tiger chow for the amusement of thousands in the Collesium." <> OK..so now you're equating Al Queda "soldiers" being killed by the US with people who were killed for voicing disent against hte Empire? There's no comparision. You're comparing people who took up arms against the United States with people who were just voicing dissent with an idea. << back to rome, the christians were a real threat; they weren't just worshipping quietly off in a corner somewhere - jesus was overturning money-changing tables at the jerusalem world trade center and he was executed for sedition, and that's why scores of christians were slaughtered, for inciting riots. >> Actually, he was executed for blasphemy. The Saducees and Pharisees were ouraged that he said he was the messiah, the king of the jews. True, Pilate saw a way to end a threat to the Roman Empire, but it was him who turned Jesus over to be executed - in accordance with the wishes of the crowd (remember, the whole Barabas thing). Jesus was on the record as saying "Give unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's, and give unto God that which is God's." Hardly the statement of a person bent on the destruction of the Roman empire - heck, he bawled out one of his apostles for cutting off the ear of someone who was coming to arrest him. The Jewish powerstructure saw more of a threat in Jesus than the Roman. << see back then, christianity actually meant something; it meant that there was an entire group of people that refused to acknowledge the imperialist leaders as all-powerful, an entire secret organization (fyi - the christian fish is actually a secret handshake: one person draws the first curve, and if the second person isn't a roman spy, they'll draw the second curve, hence the fish) that wasn't just holding up signs that say 'Cesear = War-mongerer', but who were actively participating in rebellion, and, yes, terrorism. >> Again, your partially right, partially wrong. The handshake thing is, most likely, right. The terrorism thing is wrong. You are confusing the Jewish Rebellion, and subsequent acts of terrorism iwth CHristians in Rome. You're a few years off, and there is not record of Christians being terrorists. Jewish people at that time, yes - it's well documented. << the roman empire was absolutely terrified, and rightly so. the christian methods may have been somewhat peaceful, but that's because they had vastly superior numbers, all the poor people were on the same page back then, and all but the most corrupt of jews knew they were being persecuted (and you'll recall that christianity started off as a sect in judaism). thanks to modern technology, there's now much better weaponry to keep a tiny minority in control of most of the world's resources. back then you needed an army; >> I'm not sure that Christians ever outnumbered Romans - maybe in later centuries, but not at the time you are speaking of. The Romans saw the Christians as a threat, true, but more to the cultural institutions of the Empire, not the economic and military bases. And, remember, it was the Roman military who became Christian under Maximillian, I think. << in the not-too-distant future, war will be entirely remote controlled - someone at the Pentagon, who, like you duane, has never met an anti-imperialist they'd like to have a beer with, will play a video-war-game and incinerate thousands with mere key-strokes. >> Yes, as wil lsome other person who has never met an American he'd like to have a beer with do the same. ANd, for the record, I've stated several times that I'd gladly have a beer, or several beers, with even the most hardbitten radical on this list, if I thought that by evenings end we'd have had real dialouge, and a open, thoughful exchange of ideas. Heck knows, maybe we'd even share a laugh or two. << now let me ask you this, who in this day and age will stand before the Roman tigers and say, 'go ahead and eat me, but i'm not renouncing what i believe, that there is only one god and all your pagan materialistic crap will never be more perfect that my savior'? >> HEre I agree with you. << who? al-qaeda, that's who. while most muslims are capitulating to modernization and retreating into corrupt regimes, bin laden and friends are willing to die for what they believe. >> Here, I disagree with you. Because Al-Qaueda depends on the billions of dollars that Bin Laden raised while a servant to the materialistic God you rant about. They are willing to die for what they believe, but you can't equate that with the early Christians. To the ealry Christians, it was them dying and not killing anyone that was winning their war. I've no doubt that the if the early Christians hijacked a few flaming chariots and drove them inot the Senate - that the Roman EMpire would have slaughtered every last one of them. Maybe this makes us like Rome, but I don't think so. Bin Laden is a big boy, he knew what response his actions on 9/11 would bring, but he did it anyway - and now he's reaping the whirlwind (which is also mentioned in the Bible, book of Isiah, I think). << and let me go you one further - if at the time of jesus' death, i would have told you that the christians are going to win, that there'd be billions of them today, you would have laughed your guts out, that is, right before you crucified me. >> YOu're most likely wrong here. First, I would have been a Christian, most likely, and Second, I can't see you being anthing but a Roman, and Roman citizens couldn't be crucified. << in short, i think bin Laden has a damn good shot - he's already precipitated the collapse of one evil empire by defeating the most powerful conventional military force in the world using non-conventional war-fighting tactics, so why not this last empire? al-qaeda reprents the barbarians, the spiritual warriors, and the martyrs all in one. >> BIn Laden has no shot. You know it, and I know it. IF Al-Queda ever uses nukes or chem/bio weapons the response would be a catostrophic nuclear attack on the countries supporting Al-Queda. << i heard doris lessing a few nights ago on PBS talking about how when she was a little girl it was simply assumed that the british empire would be around forever, and yet the sun set on that empire in her own lifetime ... so all i'm saying is, maybe we'll get lucky. >> The analogy is not the same. The British Empire was different. It was a COlonial empire, ruled from Britian. While the US has a few places that are it's protectorates, please name one nation that we rule like Britian ruled India, for instance. d: "I guess he forgot about Polk and the Mexican war, the war against Native Americans, and the other aspects of US expansion and conquest pre-Truman. I'm also not sure how Truman would be an imperialist. The only military action under him was at the behest of the liberal beloved UN in Korea." << from your first sentence, i'm glad you understand the only reason that america got where it is today is because it was willing to slaughter more people for land - don't forget the spanish-american war either, or the 20,000 dead freedom-fighters in the Phillipenes (which might end up being the Kurds' fate, though let's hope not). >> ONly a fool would deny the past. I'm not a fool. but anyone who doesn't know that the UN is almost entirely controlled by the USA and its strategic interests hasn't been paying attention. the irony would be funny if it weren't tragic - if the UN goes along with this war, then it'll have the blood of Iraqis on its hands, and if it doesn't, then the USA will declare that its no longer a credible organization (which means, there's go the UN budget), and then the next Rwanda that comes along, the UN won't be able to do shit (assuming it had a half-a-chance anyway). >> The UN didn't do a damm thing the first time Rwanda roled round, doubt they'd do anything the second time. They sat on thier asses during the Pol Pot years, during most of the Bosnian conflict. THe UN is a joke. >> that's called a lose-lose situation: 'either you do what i say or you won't be able to do anything at all' - the imperialist catch-22. is it any accident that the UN has only become a powerful and legitimate organization in the wake of the fall of the communist empire? no. the USA learned the lesson of Vietnam - pretexts and international credibility are a must-have for this winter's drop-dead blow-out. >> See above, the last time the UN was even remotely effective was Korea, and that was largely with the blood of US servicemen and women. d: "My answer is that we are not an imperial presence. If we were, we wouldn't have a flap with Germany and France over Iraq. We'd merely dispatch a few legions to storm Paris and Berlin and that would be that - we'd supress the barbarian hordes, and march on Iraq." uh, you have no understanding of imperialist politics. first, there's some countries that empires don't care to beat up because they'd prefer to trade with these countries without obstacles - just because Rome didn't conquer the land all the way from Japan to South Africa, doesn't mean it wasn't an empire. smart empires know that every empire falls when it tries to over-extend itself, so they're careful. even the most powerful empires can't take on everyone (especially countries with fucking NUKES, duane!). second, america learned from the brits that when you directly occupy other people's land, those people tend to get very pissed off. its much easier to install a quasi-independent government that's friendly to Western business interests, and then whatever happens isn't the USA's fault - see the history of Iran. lastly, remember this: money is always more important than the military >> Uhm, no..again, you tell 1/2 the truth. IF these nations had oppossed Rome, Rome would have, trading partner or not, rolled in with the Legions and taken over - thus insuring that these nations never troubled Rome again. Again, also, your example of the US as imperialist would be denied by the Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of Japan after WW II. We had conquered them - why would we rebuild them? The answer - wer're not imperialist. - the later is the servant of the former, which is why potentially hundreds of soliders dying in Iraq (even as there is no immanent threat to USA territory) is an acceptable loss, blood for oil. the USA is the Mr. Security Guard watching over the yuppie mini-mall of global capitalism - some stores like the guard and want the guard to do more than he's willing to do (like Britian: 'hey, why can't we send in an international peace-keeping force into Israel-Palestine?'), other stores are happy the guard is there but talk bad about the guard (like Germany and France, 'man, i could do a much better job of running the world than this idiot'), and still other stores have security guards that don't like the main guard (like Iraq, 'hey, if you stay under your Monroe doctrine, then let the Arabs take care of the Arabs'). of course, 90% of the world's people don't run any store, or even have any significant say in how the stores are being run, and a good 75% don't even have the money to shop at these stores (something like 2 billion people live on less than 2 dollars a day). so this whole discussion of majoritarianism is bullshit - the majority has never decided anything ever. even in full-blown greek democracy, only about 10% of the actual population voted (no womyn, no foreigners, no poor folk, etc.) the USA is going to invade Iraq, and even if a majority of the world gave a shit and wanted to stop it, they probably couldn't. and here's what the liberals can't ever admit - even if the majority could stop it, they wouldn't, because they don't want to have to see the blood underneath all their gold - they want to have sex and go to bed, and there's nothing like bomb shrapnel cutting through the tender flesh of an Iraqi child to make your dick limp. i mean, who wants to think about that? >> No one. But an unfortunate fact of war is that people die. ... terrorists. and that's why, like the christians before them, the islamic militants are morally superior, even if they end up losing. they're the only ones standing between us and 1984, and if you can't see that, duane, >> Uh..no. Kevin, let me assure you - you'd find the world no better under pure Islamic rule, the kind that Bin Laden believes in, than you find it now. First, people with your beleifs would be executed outright, so you wouldn't get to live for long. I also doubt that you'd like to be told what you could read, couldn't read, could watch on TV, couldn't watch - etc...if anything the Islamic Terrorists wish to impose 1984 on us, not liberate it from us.us from it. It would be 1984 to the 10th power. DUane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030210/bda61afb/attachment.htm From disciplineandpunish Mon Feb 10 19:59:23 2003 From: disciplineandpunish (Dheeraj Chand) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:59:23 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Warmongering jackasses exposed. Message-ID: <3E4858FB.7070107@mail.utexas.edu> Dear friends, This O'Reilly bit really demonstrates the hysterics that warmongering jackasses engage in when confronted with logical reasons why their jingoism is ridiculous. I really advise that you read it. O'Reilly, the voice of the idiotic, bovine right, was caught with his pants down. :) -dx http://64.176.94.191/article1253.htm From m_horowit Mon Feb 10 21:04:25 2003 From: m_horowit (Michael Horowitz) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 22:04:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] northwestern info request Message-ID: Did the Harvard people get out of Chicago ok or did the Boston weather snow them in until tomorrow?? Any information would be appreciated. mike _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From itsallmyfault Mon Feb 10 22:58:10 2003 From: itsallmyfault (E. Hunter Brooks) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 23:58:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern Message-ID: If anyone at the tournament ran across a not very heavy red coat and a black sweater on elim day, if they could backchannel me at e.hunter.brooks at dartmouth.edu, that would be great. thank you and sorry for wasting bandwidth. _____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB, POP3, Spam Filtering with LYCOS MAIL PLUS for $19.95/year. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus&ref=lmtplus From cpwiii Mon Feb 10 23:21:08 2003 From: cpwiii (charles woodbury) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003 23:21:08 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] (no subject) Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030210/6eb6f726/attachment.html From smithr Tue Feb 11 00:04:13 2003 From: smithr (Ross Smith) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 01:04:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NU finals underway Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030211010238.031d0d00@pop.wfu.edu> Not there, but my understanding is that Emory LP is neg vs. MSU SS. Wake (A) lost to MSU SS in semis. Ross Smith Wake Forest Debate 336-758-5268 Fax: 336-758-4691 From let_the_american_empire_burn Tue Feb 11 01:38:58 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 01:38:58 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 1984 Message-ID: someone wrote me privately to say that the beauty of fascism in America is that in 4 years, it can all disappear - that's naive: does anyone really think that Al Gore wouldn't have killed thousands of innocent Afghanis too? (plus, Gore was one of the only democrats to sign on for the Persian Gulf I.) wasn't it the democrats that started Vietnam? wasn't it Truman that killed hundreds of thousands of civilians with atomic weapons and saturation bombardment? wasn't it FDR who was, for all intents and purposes, an American dictator? like i said, the demipublicans and republocrats have hardly any disagreements on the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about - their differences are all for show, convincing people (like the guy who wrote me) to vote. on polls, an awful lot of people don't own or rent residences: these folks don't have phones, so no, i don't think polls are a 'valid cross-sampling' (duane's words), because i think house-less people have something important to say. polls also operate on the 'one person = one vote' principle and cannot guage the intensity of beliefs; i mean, do you think Dumsfeldites believe in war as vehemently as 10 wishy-washy undecides don't believe in war? the sad and simple truth is that most people just don't care; if they have family or friends in the military, they want to know when they're coming home, but when most people pick up the phone and are asked whether they support a war on Iraq, you might as well ask them if they think not enough money is slated to prevent AIDS in Africa or whether Mars should be colonized over the next hundred years - they don't care; you're probably interrupting their concentration on whatever new reality-tv programming the networks are airing that evening. that's why polling is only a tool for propaganda-artists; it ensures that no one is getting too pissed off about what the administration's policies are, and calculates whether enough people are buying into the bullshit. what Bowell says to the UN or what Dumsfeld says to the Pentagon press or what Dubya says in the State of Union bears almost no relation to why they're making the decisions they're making - the spin-doctors are only there to put a pretty face on the ugly deeds that are necessary to run an empire. as for children, many do pay taxes: first, state and municipality taxes, and second, many children do own property and recieve incomes from all-kinds of work (usually involving acting and internet-tech) - every successful child-actor you see has probably already paid more taxes than you or i, duane, will pay throughout our lives. (that said, many more children could gain lucrative employment if their working wasn't forbidden by law - saying they don't pay taxes and then discriminating against them in the workforce seems like a circular argument to me.) as for the constitution, it used to say that slaves were 3/5ths of a person - the beauty of that document is that there are these little things called AMENDments, where the stupid injusitices of the past can be rectrified; i'm confident that by this time next century, children will have suffrage rights like any other person (assuming the empire is still around then). as for prisoners, don't talk in the abstract - i probably have enough marijuana on me at this moment to charged with a felony. now, am i 'choosing to disebfranchise myself' by refusing to follow unjust laws? no. regardless, once you've done your time, i say you should be accepted as a full-fledged citizen again - just because someone murdered someone who was sleeping with their spouse twenty years ago, does not mean they should be denied the key element of political citizenship for the rest of their lives. as for prisoners and children, it is quite clear that the reason humyn rights abuses against these population are not a high-priority is because these people can't vote. under a system of adult protectionism, two to five thousand parents and caretakers murder their children every year, millions of children are beaten and impoverished; and under a system of criminal injustice, many prisoners are repeatedly raped, most of those being first-time non-violent offenders. this makes for an all-around more violently abusive society, and until & unless the full humynity of these victimized peoples is acknowledged, no amount of cable TV, in the classroom or the prison, will alleviate these societal ills. d: "No matter how you cut it, those who suppor the war dwarf those who don't." not when you ask whether the UN Security Council should approve military action, then a majority says no to war. now, if you've found a poll that says that even if the UN vetos a resolution authorizing military force, that the US should lead a coalition to overthrow Saddam, then show it. it'd still be invalid for all the reasons already discussed, and it'd still be neither here nor there, since its not like public opinion is gonna change anything. d: "As for propganda, if you can disprove anything that Powell said, and do it with credible evidence to the contrary, I'll listen. If you don't believe that Sadaam is torturing his people, and can show it with credible evidence, I'll listen." Powell did not prove that there was an significant relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda - the later operates in every major country throughout the world and often meets with governmental leaders to avoid stepping on each other's toes. he needed to show a shred of evidence that Iraq is prepared to give al-Qaeda WMDs to fight war by proxy - he came no where near to even getting around to talking about proxy wars. so on this front, all he did was make a strong case for non-proliferation (which leaves much to be desired from other Dubya policies) and for not toppling a regime that might, when pushed to a point of immanent desperation, try everything possible to avenge itself with whatever WMDs. as for torture, many Western allies still engage in it (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and so forth) and, in fact, the anti-terrorist military forces that have banned torture (Israel, USA, and so forth) aren't above threatening 'unlawful combatants' with being sent to countries which have yet to ban torture. if you meant torture in a more general sense, then you don't understand Iraq - it is a secular, modernized nation, or at least it was before 1991. you'll never see gay people executed by the state in Iraq, as you would in Saudi Arabia. you'll never see womyn forced to obey restrictive dress codes, as you would in Saudi Arabia. Saddam is Stalinesque, not Hitlerean - he doesn't kill for the fun of it or try to eradicate entire ethnic groups from the planet; he kills when his regime is threatened. take the Iran-Iraq war: Iraq invades because Iran has made a public policy of regime change and Saddam is worried that the shi'a majority of his country is going to revolt and he'll be done for. the war starts off great for him, especially considering that the USA is diverting arms sales (British, French, Chinese, Russian, some others) away from Iran and into Iraq, and considering that USA military advisors are helping him intrepet detailed satellite pictures of the battlefield. but Saddam is not particularly good at fighing and he slowly grows board with making all the decisions from central command, so he relies on his generals more and more - they fuck up, Iran starts to not only repel Iraq but invade Iraqi territory. and that's where and why Saddam uses chemical weapons. you'd think at that moment the USA would have withdrawn support from Iraq and would have done everything possible to bring peace to the region - but no, they actively prolonged that war, spat on international peace proposals, and a million people died. Saddam is a survivalist. he doesn't admit that he has a clandestine WMD program for the same reason Israel doesn't. he kills anyone who gets in his way like any other ruthless tyrant in history, but when the money was plentiful, he did do a lot of good things for his people: opening up great universities and skools and whatnot. this isn't the first time a populist/socialistic bribe was given to a people so that they'll look away from dictatorial policies, but he's not a Pol-Pot, he's not a genocidal fuck, he's a macho-man that has worked his way up from the streets of Bagdad to the bath in his lovely palace - isn't that the American dream: 'one day you too could be a robber baron dictator'? so, do i want him gone? surely. do i want his people to suffer even more at the hands of imperialist powers? no. there's some people who have to sacrifice everything to get rid of - Hitler, for instance; and there's others that you just have to wait out and hope the monarch to follow is better than the last. all American enemization aside, i think Saddam is the later. d: "I find you equating the US to Nazi Germany to be both foolish and sick. The Nazis conquered other nations to impose their way of life, they also rounded up everyone that didn't fit their conception of that life and murdered them: Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals, Religious People, Devlopmentally Delayed people, you name it. The US, to my knowledge, has never established a death camp - if you can prove they have with credible evidence, I'll listen." the Shoah is a uniquely evil event in world history, i concede, but i don't think it was a deviation from Western progress - it was its embelmatic fulfillment. this is proven by the fact that the USA refused to help Jews emmigrate or to make shutting down the death camps a military priority. that said, i think the removal and extermination of the indigenous peoples of America reached genocidal proportions. and if not reservations, then slave ships might be more accurately seen as death camps. he's what i find despicable about the way people like duane speak of this matter - the main lesson of the Shoah should be that *it can happen here*; not that we're better than those people because we didn't go as far on the genocide train as they did, but that WE ARE THOSE PEOPLE, we are the person who goes about their daily business while millions are murdered to keep us comfortable. is it any less of a Holocaust to incinerate innocent people with bombs falling from the sky? (see what Nelson Mandela has to say.) the key difference between Nazi Germany and neo-Nazi America is that the first was bent on annihiliation, even of itself, while the second wants to be in it for the long haul - we are trying to challenge the assumption that no country can dominate the world for more than two centuries. so this leads to a more utilitarian approach: why kill off gypsies if you can keep them on a welfare-lease? why kill off gay people if they can fork over taxes the same as any straight person? you still need an 'evil Other' stereotype to run the show, but it needn't remain the same group, as Orwell's 1984 suggests (Person A: 'Who were fighting this week, Eurasia or Eastasia?' Person B: 'This bin Laden guy.' Person A: 'What? I thought he was a freedom-fighter!' Person B: 'Uh no, not anymore; now he's a terrorist.' Person A: 'Oh.'). i have some theories about why the American empire turned out differently, and i think its because the change in capitalistic money-flows has made it more flexible - it doesn't get hung up on always fighting for liberty or always trying to eradicate one ethnic group from the face of the earth, because these are empirically-proven liabilities and get in the market's way sometimes. i mean, Hitler was diverting trains from the front-lines of a war that he was losing in order to keep the death camps running - that's just bad business. d: "IF what you say is true, no white person would have dared to march with King, and the Civil War never would have been fought." segregation hurt more than white people's conscience - there was the constant threat of riots, and with Dr. King a new threat, bankrupting of white-dominated business that needed black customers. but yes, there are occassionally some nice people; i was just saying they're few and far between - never a majority, which is what we were discussing. "The US would only have declared war on Japan, and we would have left Europe to Europe until Hitler attacked us." Germany declared war on the USA - see this is when the term 'axis' actually meant something: Japan, Italy, Germany. and FDR was doing everything he could to provoke Japan into attacking, hence the oil embargo. (there's also growing evidence that he FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming, and didn't do enough to stop it because he wanted popular support for the war. though evil, at least it is better than firing first and saying you were fired upon (Gulf of Tonkien), or firing before anyone has fired at you (Persian Gulf).) d: "Secondly, someone needs to save the Iraqis - and if the Arab states can't do it, why not us? Or perhaps you approve of gangrape and torture?" well, bin Laden and his 5,000 soliders offered to impel Saddam's withdrawal from Kuwait in 1991 - considering he'd just defeated the Soviet empire, it is reasonable to assume he would have done a better job than gutless US-led UN soliders who killed tens of thousands of innocent people (knocking out water treatement facilities, baby milk factories, and so forth, and that's not counting the decade of sanctions which followed, killing hundreds of thousands). but of course, we know how the history went down: the USA bribed and cajoled the corrupt Saudi monarchy to let it put a base in Arabia, and though bin Laden was mighty angry, the Saudis assured him that the base would not be permanent - yet there it sits still, a foreign military presence within hundreds of miles of the holiest site of Islam, and that's the main reason that al-Qaeda perpetuated 9/11 and chose mostly Saudis to lead the attack. it is obvious that the majority of Iraqis do not want the USA to invade - everyday people speak quite candidly (when their names are mentioned) about Saddam, and they usually say something like the following: 'hey, we're as free as you Americans are. as long as we don't murder anybody and we don't oppose the regime, we're free. we're just not rich is all. and that's not our fault, its your's. lift the sanctions and respect our sovereignity. Saddam might be a tyrant, but he's not a madman, and he'll die someday like any mortal man.' duane, this may surprise you, but if you were born in cuba or iraq, you'd probably be living the same kind of life you are now. you are not a dissident; you're not the type to engage in armed insurrection against your leader. now, i too wish the MLKs' and the Che's and the Gandhiji's of the world could live peacefully everywhere in the world, but you know what, they can't even live peacefully in America - even here they're jailed and raped and murdered. regular, get-up-everyday-and-go-to-work type people are just as free in Iraq or Cuba as they are in America - the only difference is income disparity: America was lucky enough to benefit from two hundred years of ruthless colonialist thuggery, it has learned important lessons from every empire before it and it has be willing to bleed the ground red with the blood of innocent people if it meant more land or more money. that's why you've got all this space to drive your over-sized, gaz-guzzling SUV through, because there was never another stronger empire looking over your shoulder asking pesky questions, 'Hey, wait a second, fuckbrain, what right do you have to just up and seize Hawaii?' Saddam is not so lucky. d: "What makes you think I need them to convince me to invade any of the above?" i'm simply saying that we could be talking about any country, and as long as Powell was willing to make a fool of himself at the UN, you'd support that military intervention - so that we're talking about Iraq isn't important, we could be talking about Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, North Korea, Pakistan, and probably even France. in all cases, you'd buy the argument that enlightened America must 'save these repressed peoples from themselves', reason being is that's how an empire looks at the world. d: "Yes, I agree - if we wait, Sadaam becomes more of a threat, thanks for justifying action now." no, i never said Saddam was a threat; i said if he gets a nuke, he'll be able to talk detterance like North Korea is. he'd never use his WMDs against Western targets, because the response would be tremendous, whether its Israel or the USA - so there's no threat. but a nuke is a regime's garaunteee on permanence, it says, 'we ain't going anywhere; you can't sanction me out of existence, i'm a legitimate leader'. Pakistan was called a military dictatorship, but when they got the nuke, my my, now the USA is willing cooperate. the USA was quite willing to threaten North Korea with military action, but, my my, when they proclaimed that they had working nukes, now its all 'diplomacy'. a nuke is a geopolitical status-symbol - they're a must-have for every permanent member on the UN Security Council, for instance. with my political views, i'd much rather take my chances in Iraq than say, China, for example, but China has many, many nukes, and even unipolar empires have to worry about the bottom-line. d: "And, your oil argument is lame. France is hte one scrambling for big oil deals with Iraq, not us. Second, if we wanted to get oil, we could invade Canada - it has more oil than Iraq and is already our largest oil producing partner." look, if the USA wants to topple every repressive regime in the world, then it should start with the easy ones in Africa and South America and work its way up. this coming war is about oil, but its not as simple as either the anti-war idiots or the pro-war idiots are making it out to be. its not like Dubya sits in the White House, unfolds a map of the world and thinks to himself, 'okay, what oil can i seize today?' yes, the dominant geo-political consideration in the Middle East is Western access to oil, it is the life-blood of industrialism. but the USA doesn't want to own oil; it wants to buy and sell it in a Western-controlled market. so no, the USA isn't going to invade Canada (though the movies Canadian Bacon and South Park are definately worth watching), and you answered your own qibble: Canada is already the largest oil producing partner. as for France, i could write an entire paper without any research on the many hypocricies of that spineless country - they bad-mouth imperialism the way a heroin-addict bad-mouths junk: 'man, this is gonna be the death of me .... can i have another hit?' but it doesn't change the fact that Exxon-Mobil will be the first in line for Iraqi oil-revenues post-Saddam, and obviously other European oil companies are none to thrilled about that prospect, including British Petroleum. additionally, business journals, especially those writing about oil markets, are surprisingly intelligent; it's like they have to peel away the layer of propaganda so that they can accurately assess the profit-margins - they're a must-read for any critic of imperialism. d: "SO, you deny that there are human rights abuses in Iraq that would make you vomit?" no, i'm saying that every war of conquest is always preceeded by talk of peace and by talk of humyn rights records. read up on the USA's seizing of the Philliphenes and Cuba from colonial Spain, for instance - there was a dedicated anti-imperialist league at that time, including folks like Mark Twain and Andrew Carnegie, and pro-war politicians would always throw the humyn rights record of Spain in their faces. and yet, even though the USA promised the Phillipenes independence, it wasn't ready to deliver on that promise, and the freedom-fighters, who had helped the military defeat Spain, then turned on the American imperialists, which lead to the slaughter of 20,000 such freedom-fighters. now look at Iraq - even though the USA supported Saddam Hussien throughout the time that he was gassing the Kurds, and even though the USA encouraged the Kurds to overthrow Saddam and left them to die in the desert, even though the USA did nothing to Turkey as it dispossesed and killed millions of Kurds, now the USA is claiming that it wants to help these Kurds out and that it is genuiely concerned about making up for past atrocities. first off, they are NOT 'Saddam's own people' - they would hate to be characterized that way; they've got their own newspapers, their own civil society, their own elections. second, Dumsfeld has said that anybody who doesn't go along with the 'one Iraq policy' will automatically be considered 'potential spies' subject to capture and death - but why the fuck aren't the Kurds entitled to their own state? why should they have to settle for something less than democracy when they're already got a fledgling democracy? if there's any people, besides the Jews, that's been kicked around and massacred and deserves of a nation-state to call their own, its the Kurds, and i think the USA is going to repeat the same atrocities it commited against the Phillipenes, but we'll see. "To you Sadaam is some friendly guy who is just misunderstood?" no, i'm saying he's a Stalin, not a Hitler, and our primary concern should be for the Iraqi people, a million of which have already been killed, not by Saddam, but by the USA. "France and Germany will come around, soon. They have everything to lose if they don't." probably true, that's how imperial globalization works. "And, I doubt the French could mount an effective military operation against anyone, let alone the US." like i said, they don't have to, because they have nukes. conventional military theory goes out the window once a country has the means to vaproize potential invaders. that's why the USA doesn't want countries which oppose its interests to have nukes; not because they seriously think that terrorists might get them or because they're afaid some General Ripper will use them, but because it means the USA no longer has the trumph card of 'do what i say, or else ...' the response from North Korea, for instance, is 'or else what, big boy?' "the Soviet Union came closer to Rome than we ever did." they had no extra-territorial aims, with the exception of Afghanistan, and bin Laden made sure that was a Vietnam-cubed failure. Rome was a global economic center like America, and that's why both survive/d as long as they did/have - the Soviet Union was an iron curtain, so even with its vast resources, it couldn't play monopoly. see how China is changing its tune toward market-dominated decision-making. so the big difference is communism, unlike democratic socialism (Norway, Canada, etc), was unwilling to make any compromises with global capitalism, so the deadly combo of a military and a market was never within its grasp: imperialism without capitalism is a short-fuse. "OK..so now you're equating Al Queda "soldiers" being killed by the US with people who were killed for voicing disent against hte Empire? There's no comparision. You're comparing people who took up arms against the United States with people who were just voicing dissent with an idea." 'voicing dissent'? you're talking like a leftie now, duane. before they sold out, Christians were fucking hard-core - the early Christian church was 'voicing dissent' like the Montana Freeman. imagine the reaction of your anti-terrorist country if tomorrow a million people followed one man into Washinton, D.C. and they were proclaiming him King? no reaction, you say. alright, now imagine this guy and his mass of followers travelled to the world trade center and shut it down by vandalizing property, what then? there'd be a riot and a shitload of police brutality. the head guy'd be captured, interrogated, and put in prison for a long time, and that's assuming he'd survive the pigs' raid. now, was he only 'voicing dissent'? no, he was resisting an empire with whatever means were at his disposal, and that's what al-Qaeda is doing. "Actually, he was executed for blasphemy. The Saducees and Pharisees were ouraged that he said he was the messiah, the king of the jews. True, Pilate saw a way to end a threat to the Roman Empire, but it was him who turned Jesus over to be executed - in accordance with the wishes of the crowd (remember, the whole Barabas thing). Jesus was on the record as saying "Give unto Ceaser that which is Ceaser's, and give unto God that which is God's." Hardly the statement of a person bent on the destruction of the Roman empire - heck, he bawled out one of his apostles for cutting off the ear of someone who was coming to arrest him. The Jewish powerstructure saw more of a threat in Jesus than the Roman." Jesus made that Ceaser statement in order to open people's eyes to the fact that they were paying taxes with money Ceasar own - in other words, it was never their money to begin with. though i think the translation might have been watered down once post-Constantine, its fair to say that Jesus, being the unemployed bum that he was, never paid taxes. blasphemy is a religious crime made against a church; sedition is a political crime made against a state - while the distinction between church and state was hardly clear-cut back then, the Romans did allow religious worship of various faiths as long as everybody acknowledged who paid the bills and who was lord of the empire. by making himself out to be a King, Jesus might as well have been saying that he was going to kill the reigning leader (which, i'd remind you, is still a felony to this day, even if you don't have any means of carrying the regime change out). the whole thrust of Jesus' message was that corrupt Jewish leaders were allowing the Roman empire to occupy the holy lands, that the Jewish power-structure were imperialist stooges, letting Rome get the profits of their labor without getting its hand too dirty in the policing of the population (not unlike neo-colonialism today). this message had mass appeal, just like bin Laden's has mass appeal to Muslims today. both Jesus and bin Laden worked in terror and martrydom - the only difference is that Christianity was co-opted by the Roman empire when it became the holy Roman empire, and now most Christians have bought Aquinas' argument about how nation-states are needed to punish wrong-doing and to wage wars. the earlier pacifistic message has been wholly desecrated. so now that the Christians are the empire, a new terrorist force is needed to bring it down - al-Qaeda. d: "The terrorism thing is wrong. You are confusing the Jewish Rebellion, and subsequent acts of terrorism iwth CHristians in Rome. You're a few years off, and there is not record of Christians being terrorists. Jewish people at that time, yes - it's well documented." uh, Christianity was not a separate sect then - it was just another sect in Judaism, like Protestantism was later to Christianity. your revisionism from a post-Jewish/Christian religious split perspective is what's flawed. d: "I'm not sure that Christians ever outnumbered Romans - maybe in later centuries, but not at the time you are speaking of. The Romans saw the Christians as a threat, true, but more to the cultural institutions of the Empire, not the economic and military bases." no army, no matter how numerous, wants the prospect of a popular revolt, or even a revolt that most of the population (the poor, the ill, the oppressed) would be sympathetic to, and that's the threat Jesus and his followers presented. al-Qaeda doesn't outnumber the USA military forces either, nor did they outnumber the Soviets - but i'm to help the popular support grow. d: "Al-Qaueda depends on the billions of dollars that Bin Laden raised while a servant to the materialistic God you rant about. They are willing to die for what they believe, but you can't equate that with the early Christians. To the ealry Christians, it was them dying and not killing anyone that was winning their war. I've no doubt that the if the early Christians hijacked a few flaming chariots and drove them inot the Senate - that the Roman EMpire would have slaughtered every last one of them. Maybe this makes us like Rome, but I don't think so. Bin Laden is a big boy, he knew what response his actions on 9/11 would bring, but he did it anyway - and now he's reaping the whirlwind (which is also mentioned in the Bible, book of Isiah, I think)." first, bin Laden gave up his rich life to fight imperialism and live in caves, even with his continuing health problems - that's not selling out, that's courage. second, bin Laden's mentor and co-founder of al-Qaeda, Abdullah Azzam, made a similar argument as you're making - do everything possible to avoid killing civilians. i share this sentiment, and if i ever had an interview with bin Laden, my first question would be about his differences with Azzam. i've heard recently that al-Qaeda is going to focus less on hitting soft targets and more on political assassinations, which is good news - let's hope 9/11 stands as the largest attack of its kind. but thirdly, the imperialistic exploitation of those who died on 9/11 not withstanding, the USA's military response wouldn't have been any less severe if those two planes would have hit the Pentagon instead of the World Trade Center - 3,000 Afghani civilians would still be dead. so fourthly, you underestimate bin Laden - he is *trying* to provoke a response because this is where empires show their true colors. it was the massacre of the christians which led to the christian take-over of the empire - take the example of Saul of Tarsus who murdered tens of Christians and then turned around to become the main reason Christianity spread throughout the Roman world. the Roman empire tried to slaughter every last one of them, and precisely because they did, they proved themselves unfit to be world leaders. America is currently doing the same. Dubya is fond of saying that bin Laden must have thought that post-9/11 the USA was only going to 'file a few lawsuits' - but i think bin Laden counted on a fanatical, over-reaching reaction, one that would separate the USA from Saudi Arabia and would be so clearly displayed in the past invasion of Afghanistan and the impending invasion of Iraq. both bin Laden and Jesus know that they'd die young - they knew they'd reap the whirlwind; the question is how powerful that wind blows even after they are gone. d: "BIn Laden has no shot. You know it, and I know it. IF Al-Queda ever uses nukes or chem/bio weapons the response would be a catostrophic nuclear attack on the countries supporting Al-Queda." and that would be the end of global capitalism as we know it. and as you well know, al-Qaeda can operate inside countries that don't support it - is the USA gonna nuke itself? if al-Qaeda pulled off an attack like that, it is quite possible that the empire would self-destruct. remember, empires are almost always toppled internally through poor maganament, decadent, over-extension, and outright self-annihiiation - al-Qaeda is the best shot at precipating this in this new empire. d: "The British Empire was different. It was a COlonial empire, ruled from Britian. While the US has a few places that are it's protectorates, please name one nation that we rule like Britian ruled India, for instance." like i said, the American empire learned the British lesson - don't colonize where you can install puppet-governments. but even the british empire never had so many global and powerful decisions being made in one place - Washington, DC rules the world more than London ever did. d: "The UN didn't do a damm thing the first time Rwanda roled round, doubt they'd do anything the second time. They sat on thier asses during the Pol Pot years, during most of the Bosnian conflict. THe UN is a joke." the Kofi Annan doctrine is that military force should be used in humanitarian intervention like Rwanda, and i think the 'don't let Rwanda happen again' message is fairly powerful. but yes the UN is the US's joke - either the UN is with the USA or its unworkable. but realize what you say when you say this, duane - if there's no internationalist alternative to imperialism, then the only other alternative is terrorism. that's why the US takes the UN joke quite seriously. d: "IF these nations had oppossed Rome, Rome would have, trading partner or not, rolled in with the Legions and taken over - thus insuring that these nations never troubled Rome again. Again, also, your example of the US as imperialist would be denied by the Marshall Plan and the rebuilding of Japan after WW II. We had conquered them - why would we rebuild them? The answer - wer're not imperialist." that's what empires do, duane - conquer and re-build in their own image. there's a trilateral economic hegemony right now between the USA, Japan, and Germany, and the USA is both the key benefactor and the crucial police-force for this structure - Japan doesn't even have its own military, duane. this empire won the war for world domination, pure and simple. wastelands are rather un-lucrative. and your comments about the Roman empire only prove the point - when opposed, the USA rolled in with legions and took over, creating a situation where they would never trouble it again. "Kevin, let me assure you - you'd find the world no better under pure Islamic rule, the kind that Bin Laden believes in, than you find it now. First, people with your beleifs would be executed outright, so you wouldn't get to live for long. I also doubt that you'd like to be told what you could read, couldn't read, could watch on TV, couldn't watch - etc...if anything the Islamic Terrorists wish to impose 1984 on us, not liberate it from us.us from it. It would be 1984 to the 10th power." when bin Laden defeated the Soviet empire, he didn't go on to take it over and impose Islamic rule there. al-Qaeda is not out for world domination, and the reason such lies are perpetrated is because it is the only real threat to the USA's on-going aims for planetary domination. (also, tangentially, there's reason to think that bin Laden is not really in favor of all the dos-and-donts of fundamentalist Islam; he didn't abide my them in many of his complexes in Afghanistan, for instance: but when you're a terrorist hiding out in a country, and this country is the sole country offering you aslyum, its not the best idea to kick up a fuss about how you disagree with this or that - that's a good way to get extradicted. needless to say, bin Laden opposes the Saudi regime, for example, because they're more worried about hanging gays than resisting Western hegemony - so bin Laden's war is also a war against Arab corruption and brutality. remember, he's not a holy man, even though he issues fatwas left and right - but even he has political considerations to worry about: if he or al-Qaeda came out in support of womyn's equality, Muslim support might dwindle, so they stick to the particular message they're spreading: anti-imperialism.) bin Laden is the Emmaneul Goldstein of this 1984 - Americans need to hate him, they need to think he wants to destroy their society, and this creation of an enemy is indispensible to justifying huge military buildups and giving a pretext for planned invasions. (of course, this potentially back-fires because Dubya hasn't been able to deliver bin Laden's head on a platter.) but back to the point, al-Qaeda could care less if we infidels fuck and suck ourselves silly - their grievance comes about when tax dollars go to pay for the land-mines and daisy cutters and cluster bombs and sanctions and other weapons of mass destruction that have killed and continue to kill millions of Muslims. Islam is one of the last religions that hasn't been globally co-opted by the nation-state system, that is, there's still a trans-national Islamic consciousness, a last hope if you will. and al-Qaeda has very specific demands: removal of military bases (from Saudi Arabia), lifting of sanctions (on Iraq), withdrawal (from Afghanistan), and peaceful settlement (of the Israeli-Palestine conflict) - if the USA did these four things (and it very well could), then no American would have to fear being hit with a small-pox attack from al-Qaeda. and you'd think that post-9/11 Americans would open their eyes, and that they'd see what it feels like to be brutalized by a foreign power that only sees you as expendible, but no, it went right in and killed just as many innocent Afghani civilians as died on 9/11 (and in a country 1/10th the size). more Americans will suffer because of one reason, the powers-that-be benefit from the war on terrorism as they benefited from the war on communism before it, its just that simple. i believe the Koran instructs those who must use violence in self-defense to 'fight your enemies the way they fight you' - bin Laden is there to make sure that as this fight continues, it won't only be Arab and Muslim civilians who are indiscriminately slaughtered. and if this nation is truly based upon Christian principles, it will turn away from the horrid legacy of the Crusades and remember Jesus' words, 'Those who live by the sword, die by the sword'. .k _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From cpwiii Tue Feb 11 02:19:20 2003 From: cpwiii (charles woodbury) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 02:19:20 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: bill gates speech Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030211/d1384aae/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Bananales at aol.com Subject: bill gates speech Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 01:41:54 EST Size: 2612 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030211/d1384aae/attachment.mht From phallusjerkins Tue Feb 11 03:56:43 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 04:56:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] http://www.votetoimpeach.org/ Message-ID: click and do your duty as an honorable citizen of the united states of america in a dark, dark nadir of our history... http://www.votetoimpeach.org/ love phallusjerkins at harvardabaitfailure, inc. _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From phallusjerkins Tue Feb 11 04:03:03 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 05:03:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] goodnight amerikan monarchy... Message-ID: _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From phallusjerkins Tue Feb 11 04:28:00 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 05:28:00 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] pre-emptive strike the UN and paris... Message-ID: resolved: he coalition of the willing should not stop short of pure practical sense. the frogs are trying to play hide and seek with al-qaeda terrorists who transit baghdad. there is no zero-tolerance for collaborateurs of any kind. the frogs are trying to drive the dinosaur juice industry down the drain and run the USA on smarter biodiesel in a plot to destroy the fabric of the terrorism gag and the post-cold war national security apparatus that it supports. the frogs are using the UN as a deliberate tool to keep iraqi oil commie nationalized and out of the hands of halliburton. time is running out for the frogs. we have an undoctored homemade film that shows Chirac fondling Sodom Hussein under the table during an interview as well as a telephone conversation where he laughs about using an inspection regime as a front to funnel al-qaeda terrorists. it's time to finish off the frogs like hitler should have. _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From privethedge Tue Feb 11 07:58:00 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 05:58:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] 1984 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030211135800.98752.qmail@web10007.mail.yahoo.com> Don't have time for this - it's a busy week around here: To Sum: Duane: The US is a mighty nation, a bastion of freedom, oppurtunity, and hope. Yes, the US has done things in its past that it should be ashamed of, and yes it will do things in the future that it will be ashamed of. But, on balance, the US should be proud of its people, it's accomplishments, and it's overall record. Kevin: Osama Bin Laden is Christ, Al-Queda are the good guys, the US is an evil empire that Bin-Laden will topple, the US has no moral authority, the US should be ashamed of it's self - it's done nothing good. One last thought, because I could use a laugh right now. This whole discussion, about Bin Laden, reminds me of the scene in Life of Bryan where the resistance group is setting around going: I hate the Romans. Yeah What have the ROmans ever done for us? Well, they did give us the baths, and aqueducts Yeah, true... And the sanitation, and we don't have as much disease any more, and we have jobs. OK, besides the baths, the aqueducts, the sanitation, the healthier living, and the jobs - what have the Romans ever done for us? I hate the Romans Yeah And so on. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030211/200d0c82/attachment.htm From stephenheidt Tue Feb 11 08:28:05 2003 From: stephenheidt (Stephen Heidt) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:28:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Re: Fwd: Bill Gates Speech Message-ID: Most forwards are urban legends, as is this one. In the future, www.snopes.com is a valuable resource. Here's what they have to say: Origins: No, this list didn't originate with Microsoft head Bill Gates. (It's frequently cited on the Internet as having come from his book Business @ The Speed of Thought, but it didn't.) Why it's attributed to Gates is a mystery to us; it doesn't really sound the least bit like something he would write. Possibly, the item the Internet-circulated version of the list generally ends with ("Be nice to nerds") struck a chord with someone who views Gates as the ultimate successful nerd of all time. One version that appeared on the Internet in June 2002 asserts this is the text of a commencement speech given by Bill Gates to the graduating class of Mt. Whitney High School in Visalia, California. It isn't -- he didn't give such a speech, and folks at that school are mystified as to why they've been dragged into this apocryphal story. Nor is this list is the work of Kurt Vonnegut, another person to whom authorship has been attributed. A clue found in those versions ("From a college graduation speech by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.") explains why folks want to lay these random words of wisdom on his doorstep: In 1998, the Internet was swept with a narrative that has come to be known as the sunscreen speech. That work of inventive fiction was actually the product of Chicago Tribune writer Mary Schmich, but Internet-circulated versions claimed it was a college graduation speech given by Kurt Vonnegut. Vonnegut thus became associated in the minds of some people with pithy advice to young adults. _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From ccooper Tue Feb 11 08:45:35 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 08:45:35 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Warmongering jackasses exposed. Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370710C9AB9@exm01w.apac.planning.org> This was classic!! If you go to the Not in Our Name website, you can also read the transcript of O'reilly's interview with the very articulate spokesperson for the group. It was in THAT interview, as O'reilly evoked the victims of 9-11, that the NION spokesperson mentioned Jeremy Glick. And O'reilly didn't beleive that someone who's father died in 9-11 would be against the war. So they tracked down Glick to appear on the show. Oops. You can read that transcript here: http://www.notinourname.net/fox_news_oreilly.htm Coop -----Original Message----- From: Dheeraj Chand [mailto:disciplineandpunish at mail.utexas.edu] Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 8:59 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com; cx-l Subject: [eDebate] Warmongering jackasses exposed. Dear friends, This O'Reilly bit really demonstrates the hysterics that warmongering jackasses engage in when confronted with logical reasons why their jingoism is ridiculous. I really advise that you read it. O'Reilly, the voice of the idiotic, bovine right, was caught with his pants down. :) -dx http://64.176.94.191/article1253.htm _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030211/24bada15/attachment.html From MIDNBRUNO Tue Feb 11 08:47:16 2003 From: MIDNBRUNO (MIDNBRUNO at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:47:16 EST Subject: [eDebate] Looking for Someone from Richmond Message-ID: <14.9bf02b6.2b7a66f4@aol.com> Could someone from Richmond please backchannel me? I have few questions about one of your positions. Mike Bruno Formerly of Navy Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030211/28b10040/attachment.htm From nselegzi Tue Feb 11 08:53:25 2003 From: nselegzi (Noel Selegzi) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:53:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] New at www.idebate.org Message-ID: <1CBED6247AC65445BF49BFDD3CC5DBC601BE0EA3@osinyexch.soros.org> The International Debate Education Association (IDEA) is pleased to announce some new features on its web site (www.idebate.org). First, we have added is a debate topic database. Currently populated mostly with parliamentary debate topics, we are hoping that people will add a wide variety of topics, motions and resolutions to this debatabase. Second, we've also created a database of speech and debate exercises on the site which we also hope people will use and contribute too. We are also happy to see judges registering with our judge philosophy database and updating information on the forensics program database. We are also hoping that people will help us to continue to test and improve IDEA Easy Tournament, tabulation software that we're continuing to develop. The software is "open source" so anyone interested in helping to develop or distribute this software should feel free to download the source code and make improvements. For question on these facilities or suggestions on how to improve them, please contact either Trevor Sather ( webmaster at idebate.org) or Marjan Stojnev (insides at mof.org.mk) All the best, Noel Focusing on young people and their communities, the mission of IDEA is to promote mutual understanding and democracy globally by supporting discussion and active citizenship locally. IDEA aims to fulfill its mission by offering students and teachers the opportunity to examine issues affecting their lives and their communities, to create broad and inclusive debate clubs that encourage participation by all segments of the population; and to establish independent national debate associations to promote, organize and sustain debate activities. To join IDEA go to: www.idebate.org/join To support IDEA go to: www.idebate.org/support -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030211/7eba8e54/attachment.html From BERCHNORTO Tue Feb 11 09:14:54 2003 From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:14:54 EST Subject: [eDebate] found at WVU tournament Message-ID: Hi, everyone! We were happy to host and hope everyone had a good time. We found a silver cart in Woodburn Hall on Monday morning (it is engraved with initials). Did anyone lose it? --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030211/489f5591/attachment.htm From Samnelson4 Tue Feb 11 09:18:12 2003 From: Samnelson4 (Samnelson4 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:18:12 EST Subject: [eDebate] Thanks WVU Message-ID: <148.a29c588.2b7a6e34@aol.com> I agree. A great tournament with no fees is especially refreshing when the trend seems to be going in the opposite direction. University of Rochester debaters report it was one of the best tournaments they attended this year. Many kudos to Neil Berch and the entire West Virginia squad for trying something new and doing it so well. Sam Nelson, Director University of Rochester Debate Union From Sarah_Gragert Tue Feb 11 09:22:56 2003 From: Sarah_Gragert (Sarah Gragert) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:22:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Missing bag from Northwestern Message-ID: <00C69676.C22126@dpc.senate.gov> A suitcase was taken from the foyer on elim day. Its a black, Eddie Bauer suitcase on wheels (the size of one of those bags that are small enough to also be carry ons). It has one extra pocket on the front, and a white scuff mark on the front. If anyone has seen it, please please backchannel me. Thanks, Sarah Gragert Georgetown University From bodonnel Tue Feb 11 09:43:04 2003 From: bodonnel (O'Donnell, Brett M.) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:43:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 2002-03 NDT Subscribers (Updated) Message-ID: Below is the current list of NDT subscribers. To participate in the NDT or be ranked in the final NDT rankings, you must be a subscriber. To pay your NDT dues you can contact Jim Pratt at the American Forensic Association at 1-800-228-5424 or send a check for $30.00 made payable to the National Debate Tournament to: Brett O'Donnell Liberty University Debate 1971 University Blvd Lynchburg, VA 24502 NDT Subscribers 2002-03 Albertson College of Idaho Angelo State University Arizona State University Augustana College Boston College Fulton Debating Soc California Poly State University - San Luis Obispo California State University Fullerton California State University Long Beach California State University Northridge Capital University Clarion University Concordia College Cornell University Dartmouth College DePaul University Eastern New Mexico University Emory University Emporia State University Fordham University Franklin Pierce College Fresno State University Georgetown University Georgia Military College Gonzaga University Harvard University Illinois College James Madison University John Carroll University Lewis & Clark College Liberty University Marist College Mercer University Miami University of Ohio Michigan State University Northwest College Pepperdine University Sacramento State University Samford University San Diego State University Southern Illinois University Southern Utah University Southwest Missouri State University St. Mary's College of California Trinity University University of Central Oklahoma University of Georgia University of Kentucky University of Michigan University of Michigan-Dearborn University of Missouri-Kansas City University of Northern Iowa University of Oregon University of Pittsburgh University of Redlands University of Richmond University of Rochester University of South Carolina University of Texas University of Texas at Dallas University of Wyoming Wake Forest University Washington State University Wayne State University Webster University Western Washington University West Virginia University Whitman College Wichita State University William Jewell College From kkuswa Tue Feb 11 10:06:19 2003 From: kkuswa (Kevin Kuswa) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:06:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Thanks WVU References: <148.a29c588.2b7a6e34@aol.com> Message-ID: <02d501c2d1e7$83a0f6d0$2774a68d@richmond.edu> The richmond contingent agrees. Neil and his squad and all the former WVU debaters worked their tails off (in the snow no less) to provide outstanding hospitality and an extremely well-run and fun tournament. THANKS WVU!!!!! kevin ----- Original Message ----- From: To: ; Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:18 AM Subject: Re: [eDebate] Thanks WVU > I agree. A great tournament with no fees is especially refreshing when the > trend seems to be going in the opposite direction. University of Rochester > debaters report it was one of the best tournaments they attended this year. > Many kudos to Neil Berch and the entire West Virginia squad for trying > something new and doing it so well. > > Sam Nelson, > Director > University of Rochester Debate Union > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From stables Tue Feb 11 10:53:13 2003 From: stables (gordon stables) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 08:53:13 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Open Position: USC Annenberg Trojan Debate Squad Message-ID: <29394a295578.29557829394a@usc.edu> Open Position: USC Annenberg Trojan Debate Squad The USC Annenberg School of Communication seeks a full-time non tenure-track lecturer to work with the Trojan Debate Squad. The position primarily involves coaching students with little or no previous experience in a variety of forensics activities, including parliamentary debate and individual events. The successful candidate may also be assigned to teach one or more undergraduate classes each semester. A Master?s degree is required. Please send a CV, three letters of recommendation and a statement of interest to Debate Search, School of Communication, Annenberg School for Communication, University of Southern California, 3502 Watt Way, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0281. The Annenberg School for Communication seeks a faculty as diverse as Los Angeles. USC is an affirmative action/equal opportunity university. Please let me know if you have any questions. Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 http://annenberg.usc.edu/debate From phallusjerkins Tue Feb 11 11:11:40 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 12:11:40 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] can you spell V-E-T-O? Message-ID: ha ha ha...we love it when bush keeps losing...first NATO veto...next UN veto...nix nix nix nay...try again...yeah. more time for inspections...hell 99% disarmament is pretty fuckin good and shirley over more time she will be complete...bush doesn't have the balls for a unilateral attack w only loyal puppet britain, qatar, dubai, australia, luxembourg, prussia, kazakhstan, and other big name players to never be named later...that's why he's been courting the UN because he's not afraid to go alone...yeah, that's the ticket...yeah...last time the US announced that they could get france to pass a resolution with an oil annexation trigger mechanism and bush came home emptied handed...this time they're gonna get the V-E-T-O...the frogs are gonna call his bluff and see how far the "coalition of the willing" sans france, germany, belgium, russia and china flies... _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From privethedge Tue Feb 11 11:25:01 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 09:25:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] can you spell V-E-T-O? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030211172501.18314.qmail@web10005.mail.yahoo.com> Uhmm..you don't read the news much, at least not the aviation side of the news..right? The Civil Reversve Air Fleet was called up this weekend - that usually means that the US is about to move vast amounts of soldiers and materials in a very fast manner. The CRAF has only ever been called up twice in the history of the US. The first time being the first Gulf War. War is coming. Veto - smeto - Bush has a set of brass ones, and he's not afraid to attack over the protests of France, Belgium, and Germany. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030211/155a4310/attachment.html From Catherine.Palczewski Tue Feb 11 11:56:42 2003 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 11:56:42 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Offical NDT information -- PLEASE read Message-ID: <3E493959.161FD320@uni.edu> Greetings all. The NDT Committee met this last weekend at the NU tournament, and there are a few items they asked that I relay to you. There are also some light housekeeping items I need to deal with as chair. 1) NDT newsletter/application information/entry form, etc. can be located at: http://www.uni.edu/palczews/ndtnewsletter2003.htm If you want a document version, you can dig it out of debate archives -- I do not want to clutter the list with another long attachment. 2) Eligibility: I received a mess of forms while at NU: some delivered to my hands, and some arriving at my fax back at school. I will update the eligibility list by Thursday of this week -- so do not panic if you are not yet on the list. On THURSDAY, check: http://www.uni.edu/palczews/eligibility.htm and see if you are listed. If not, then IMMEDIATELY contact me. My apologies for the 2 day lag, but I have a number of other pressing obligations and do not think I will have the time to do the full update until Thursday. 3) First and Second round bid applications. A. USE THE CORRECT FORM: Just to be clear, do NOT simply print out the Bruschke form and submit it. His form contains information that is NOT required, and does not contain all information that is. Instead, DO use the format contained in the NDT newsletter if you are planning to submit a 1st or 2nd round bid. B. Submit to the list of people contained, and in the delivery form requested, in the NDT newsletter. Also, if you would like a backup, also please submit to Edebate, if you are willing. Submitting to edebate means that there is a backup in the form of the archive. C. Use the option of providing an extenuating circumstances paragraph ONLY when there are extenuating circumstances -- such as if a team had to withdraw from a tournament because of an emergency or if a late year re-pairing had to occur because of an emergency. Do NOT use the paragraph to describe the debaters, or changes in pairings that were simply evolutions of partnerships. In other words, rarely, if ever, should a paragraph about the team be written. Instead, simply provide the information requested. D. Provide ALL information that is requested. Do NOT simply provide team initials. Provide the full names of all teams debated, and provide information from ALL tournaments at which the team competed. 4) District bid process. The list of important dates for districts also is included in the NDT newsletter. However, there is one date that is very important. *****You MUST contact your district chair (their emails are listed in the newsletter as well) and declare your intent to attend districts before or on February 18. The committee asks that all declarations of intent to attend districts occur before 5:00pm central time.***** It is essential that an accurate count of all those intending to attend districts occurs by this time so that an accurate allocation of bids to districts can be made. Bid allocations are made based on a proportional system, and the difference of one team can affect the total number of bids allocated to a district. The number of bids allocated to each district will be announced on February 19, with an email to edebate and to all the district chairs. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Cate Palczewski NDT Committee chair From mike_girouard Tue Feb 11 12:03:12 2003 From: mike_girouard (Mike Girouard) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 10:03:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Lincoln Bisbee & Sarah Spring Message-ID: <20030211180312.25467.qmail@web41013.mail.yahoo.com> Could you please backchannel me. Thanks, Mike Girouard UNT __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com From mch766s Tue Feb 11 13:29:15 2003 From: mch766s (Harris, Martin C ) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 13:29:15 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Can you spell V-E-T-O Message-ID: <236063CE3D22594BA7C9613B71D654A8A37CB2@ruby.smsu.edu> All I will say is this. US loves to fight at night when it is darkest, and the military has the most advantage. Consequently, the new moon over Baghdad is set to arrive on the 3rd of March. Might there be more to the timing issue than just exhausting diplomacy (in the administration's mind)? Martin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030211/97edc7ae/attachment.htm From beth Tue Feb 11 13:36:15 2003 From: beth (Beth Skinner) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 14:36:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Towson Tournament: Hotel Info, Rookie Interest Message-ID: <1044992175.3e4950af33479@dalchemy.com> Tomorrow is the last day to book your rooms at the tournament rate. The invitation is attached. Please let me know if you have any trouble. There has been some interest expressed in adding a rookie division for teams in their first or second tournament ever. If you plan to bring rookie-eligible teams, please let me know. Beth Skinner Towson Debate MCCS Dept. Towson University 8000 York Road Towson, MD 21252 410.704.5354 (o) 410.704.5793 (f) 410.583.8075 (h) 443.562.2269 (m) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: TowsonInvitation.4641DEFANGED-doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 37376 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030211/77f184bd/attachment.obj From Mikedavis13 Tue Feb 11 14:24:31 2003 From: Mikedavis13 (Mikedavis13 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:24:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UGA Tournament Info and Pref Sheets Message-ID: <45595437.7AA4228C.3C1F2675@aol.com> We currently have 21 teams in Open and 5 in Novice. We will have a separate novice division as long as there are no drops. It will be a round robin format and you may debate some teams more than once (on different sides). We are going to start Round 1 at 4:00 on Friday, this is a change from the original schedule (which stated the round would start at 5:00). Registration is in the Pi Kappa House from 12-3. Please call me if you have any questions (706)-540-9158. We will have preference sheets. Once I get final judge information from a few teams the sheet will go out. Sheets that are e-mailed to me or turned in by 1:00 on Friday will be honored for all six debates. PLEASE e-mail the sheets to me if you can. I will post a final team list tomorrow along with the preference sheet. Mike Davis UGA From mike_girouard Tue Feb 11 15:33:46 2003 From: mike_girouard (Mike Girouard) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 13:33:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Whitman Eric Suni & Nav Rekhi Message-ID: <20030211213346.52693.qmail@web41004.mail.yahoo.com> Could you please back channel me. Thanks, Mike Girouard UNT __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com From frappier Tue Feb 11 15:35:50 2003 From: frappier (Frappier, Glen) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 13:35:50 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] paging matt mcdonald Message-ID: Please contact me. Glen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030211/fbf2981e/attachment.htm From Catherine.Palczewski Tue Feb 11 15:37:44 2003 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:37:44 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] meetings Message-ID: <3E496D27.7511C0B1@uni.edu> greetings all this is a bad week for me -- and so I wanted to beg off of our weekly meetings. Quick questions are cool. and, besides, my palm pilot crashed, and so I have NO clue when I have meetings with you anyway cate From mmk_savant Tue Feb 11 15:42:12 2003 From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:42:12 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] stupid old europeans Message-ID: the idiots that brought you world wars 1 and 2 are facing irrelevance. here are 2 current articles from MSNBC on the matter: 1. Anti-Americanism rising in Europe: http://www.msnbc.com/news/871193.asp?0cl=cR 2. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR http://www.msnbc.com/news/856672.asp?0cv=CB20 thanks for reading, Michael Korcok _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From Gary.N.Larson Tue Feb 11 15:44:54 2003 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary N. Larson) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:44:54 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] preference results from Northwestern PRELIMS Message-ID: <003501c2d216$d0818da0$100c18ac@bl2471> As you know, we tested a new judge assignment algorithm at Northwestern this past weekend. The goal was to improve inspectablity and performance while creating code that will be able to be released as open source this summer so that it can be adopted and improved by other programmers. The "beta test" went extremely well with no bugs that interfered with tournament operation. Additionally, we did observe a significant improvement with respect to all performance measures. Average pref was as follows (9 categories, 144 judges, each team assigned 16 to each category). If we thought of 40% of the judges as A's, an equivalent in the 9-category system is that 1-3 are A's with several 4's also being A-. Presets Rd 1 2.63 Rd 2 2.24 Rd 3 1.56 Rd 4 2.57 Avg during 4 presets: 2.25 The goal in presets was to run the pool extremely tight (losing 1 or fewer judges per round and using all low pref partial commitment judges). In round 3, however, the pool was loosened with respect to the pref of partial commitment judges due to the fact that it was the AA preset. We started the tournament with an excess commitment of only 14 rounds. By the end of round 7, only 8 of those rounds had been spent. Powered rounds(number of losses): Break(3) Above(<3) Below(>3) ALL Rd 5 (hi/hi) 1.79 1.83 2.59 1.91 Rd 6 (hi/lo) 1.84 2.11 2.35 2.10 Rd 7 (hi/lo) 1.41 2.11 2.80 2.20 Rd 8 (hi/lo) 1.67 1.70 2.40 2.05 Average for all break rounds: 1.68 Average for all rounds above break: 1.95 Avg for all rds at or above break: 1.85 Avg for all rds below the break: 2.53 Totals Average for all rounds for teams with less than 4 losses by the start of round 8: 2.10 Avg for ALL rounds including those who had been eliminated prior to 8: 2.16 Distribution of ranks (each team's rank of the judge each round): Rank Freq Pct Cum% 0 35 2.9% 2.9% 1 450 37.6% 40.7% 2 309 25.9% 66.6% 3 210 17.6% 84.2% 4 102 8.6% 92.8% 5 53 4.5% 97.2% 6 31 2.6% 99.8% 7 2 0.2% 100.0% 8 0 9 0 Mutuality (the difference between the two teams rankings in a round): 0 Diff 390 65.4% 65.4% 1 Diff 174 29.2% 94.6% 2 Diff 31 5.2% 99.8% 3 Diff 1 0.2% 100.0% Order of assignments (based on survey results submitted to me). 11 22 12 or 21 33 23 or 32 44 34 or 43 13 or 31 24 or 42 55 45 or 54 35 or 53 66 56 or 65 46 or 64 14 or 41 25 or 52 36 or 63 77 ETC By consistently ranking 22 ahead of 12/21, 33 ahead of 23/32 etc., the pref results were lowered slightly than they would have been otherwise and the mutuality results are improved by the same amount. An additional way that results can be evaluated is to determine how each team fared during the tournament since "results may vary" Average for tournament - Number of Teams (two teams submitted blank sheets) X <= 1.50 15 1.50 < x <= 2.00 47 2.00 < x <= 2.50 52 2.50 < x <= 3.00 26 3.00 < x 7 (2 teams with fewer than 4 losses in round 8 - 1 that broke) max is 3.25 147 From delliott Tue Feb 11 16:02:11 2003 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:02:11 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] meetings In-Reply-To: <3E496D27.7511C0B1@uni.edu> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030211160211.00d01710@kckcc.toto.net> Its ok Cate--we all forgive you and as of now we have no meeting scheduled together! ; ) Although you might want to check with your department folk at UNI! Big smile now! : ) Chief At 03:37 PM 2/11/2003 -0600, Catherine Palczewski wrote: >greetings all > >this is a bad week for me -- and so I wanted to beg off of our weekly >meetings. Quick questions are cool. > >and, besides, my palm pilot crashed, and so I have NO clue when I have >meetings with you anyway > >cate > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > From mike_girouard Tue Feb 11 15:58:26 2003 From: mike_girouard (Mike Girouard) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 13:58:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Melissa Newton & Michael Shultz Message-ID: <20030211215826.60067.qmail@web41007.mail.yahoo.com> Could you backchannel me please. Thanks, Mike Girouard UNT __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com From Gary.N.Larson Tue Feb 11 16:31:09 2003 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary N. Larson) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:31:09 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Northwestern preferences ELIMS Message-ID: <003601c2d21d$46983560$100c18ac@bl2471> Elim preference was also quite good with the following results: Doubles: 1 71 2 20 3 5 Avg. 1.31 Octas: 1 30 2 15 3 2 4 1 Avg. 1.67 Qtrs: 1 17 2 6 3 1 Avg. 1.33 Semis: 1 7 2 5 Avg. 1.58 Finals: 1 2 2 4 Avg. 1.67 ALL: 1 127 2 50 3 8 4 1 Avg. 1.37 One elim panel had a difference of 2. All others had difference of 1 or 0. From Catherine.Palczewski Tue Feb 11 16:33:42 2003 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:33:42 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] meetings References: <3.0.6.32.20030211160211.00d01710@kckcc.toto.net> Message-ID: <3E497A45.C57F106E@uni.edu> OK grin grin grin grin blush blush blush Clearly, this is a horrible week -- I meant to send this message to the UNIdebate listserv, not edebate listserv . . . it stinks to be frazzled. But, heck, since I am here: if any of you are important to me . . . and need to make sure I have contact information for you that once was in my palm pilot, feel free to email me and give me information to recreate the critter. If you are not certain whether or not you are important. . . well, then. . . . grin. Sorry for the clutter cate Darren Elliott wrote: > Its ok Cate--we all forgive you and as of now we have no meeting scheduled > together! ; ) > Although you might want to check with your department folk at UNI! > > Big smile now! : ) > > Chief > > At 03:37 PM 2/11/2003 -0600, Catherine Palczewski wrote: > >greetings all > > > >this is a bad week for me -- and so I wanted to beg off of our weekly > >meetings. Quick questions are cool. > > > >and, besides, my palm pilot crashed, and so I have NO clue when I have > >meetings with you anyway > > > >cate > > > >_______________________________________________ > >eDebate mailing list > >eDebate at ndtceda.com > >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > From burke_2 Tue Feb 11 16:52:49 2003 From: burke_2 (chuck w) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 22:52:49 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] who talked to me at northwestern? Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030211/fe8b3dc9/attachment.html From vrenegar Tue Feb 11 17:08:20 2003 From: vrenegar (Valerie R. Renegar) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 15:08:20 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] important news about the Aztec invitational Message-ID: <003d01c2d222$7861c6b0$a8ddf492@sdsu.edu> Hello friends- We are looking forward to seeing you all in San Diego this weekend. We will be holding the tournament in Storm Hall (same place as last year). It is very easy to get to from the hotel and has parking nearby. Directions: >From the hotel take interstate 8 East. Exit at College. Turn right (South). Take the first right onto Canyon Crest. Follow this around the perimeter of campus and up a big hill. At the stop sign, turn right. Follow this around the construction to the parking garage (PS4). Park in this garage and take the elevator (which is located in the NE corner) to the 4th floor, or park on the 4th floor and save yourself some walking. Cross the pedestrian bridge to the campus and walk around the left side of the West Commons to the elevator. Go up one floor and you will be deposited at the West end of Storm Hall, where you will see registration. I will have parking permits for you at registration. Registration begins at 3:00. If you arrive before that, please hang out at the tables near the elevator or in the West Commons since classes will still be in session in Storm Hall. If you have not yet entered the Aztec, the time is now. Go to http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/DebateEntry/index.asp . You may also view a team list there. If you have any questions, or if I can help with anything...please let me know. Val Renegar vrenegar at mail.sdsu.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030211/034e7a49/attachment.htm From carverjoseph Tue Feb 11 17:57:11 2003 From: carverjoseph (Django Carver) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 23:57:11 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] jvrr thanks -my hillary swank moment Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030211/76dbf437/attachment.html From blackdebateguy Tue Feb 11 18:39:35 2003 From: blackdebateguy (doug dennis) Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:39:35 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] ken sherwood, andy kemp or monte stevens Message-ID: <20030212003935.75914.qmail@web40414.mail.yahoo.com> backchannel me asap... doug d --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030211/585ecc8a/attachment.htm From theonlykellen Tue Feb 11 23:09:04 2003 From: theonlykellen (kellen mcaffee) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 05:09:04 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] email from patricia malloy regarding death penalty treaty Message-ID: >From: "Patricia Molloy" >To: theonlykellen at hotmail.com >Subject: Re: ICCPR and college debate >Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 13:10:10 -0400 > > >Hi Kellen. Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. I think your >debating team project is terrific! I'm not an expert on U.S. participation >in international treaties, other than knowing that they don't usually >participate in them (eg, Kyoto, the international criminal court, etc)., >and I don't know the specifics of the ICCPR protocol. My personal opinion, >however, is that the U.S. *should* ratify an international ban on capital >punishment, but only if it does so in conjunction with banning capital >punishment within its own borders. Otherwise, it would come off as >hypocritical, to say the least. > >From what I know, it's the Italians who are leading the pack on banning >capital punishment internationally. I've forwarded your email, and have >talked to a friend of mine with the Canadian Coalition Against the Death >Penalty. He's far more knowledgeable on the subject and is gathering some >info for you. You should be hearing from him soon. He's quite eager to >help! > >Best of luck with your project. > >Sincerely, > >Patricia Molloy >p.s. You said you were using my literature. Is that the conference paper I >gave a couple of years ago called 'Killing Canadians: The International >Politics of Capital Punishment'? If so, I've since revised it in light of >the Supreme Court of Canada's ruling on the Burns/Rafay case; as well as >the post-9/11 worldwide question of extraditing suspected terrorists to >the U.S. And I mention the case of another Canadian who was being held in >the U.S. last fall without charges, and whose rights under the Vienna >Convention were violated. If you'd like the new version I'd be happy to >send it to you. _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From rajdebate Tue Feb 11 23:26:26 2003 From: rajdebate (Raja Gaddipati) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 00:26:26 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] paging Emory GP Message-ID: can one of you two please backchannel me. i need to get some cites. thanks. raja _____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB, POP3, Spam Filtering with LYCOS MAIL PLUS for $19.95/year. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus&ref=lmtplus From let_the_american_empire_burn Wed Feb 12 00:15:01 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 00:15:01 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 1984 Message-ID: slight error in your representation of my views: bin Laden is not Christ, but then again neither was Hassan I Sabban, Poncho Villa, William Wallus, Che Guevra, and so forth. (i'd have to put Jesus in that unique category along with Socrates, Gandhiji, Buddha, Nanak, Lao-Tze, and others.) anti-imperialists are often idiotic and needlessly bloody - like i said, i preferred Abdullah Azzam to bin Laden - but, at the end of the day, one judges terrorists by results, and there's not many other people out there fighting the good fight with much of any success. i love Amerika. i love Jazz, Blues, Rock n' Roll, Punk, Hip-Hop, and without Brit & Yankee cultural developments, these would be all but impossible. i love the Transcendentalists - Emerson, Fuller, Whitman, etc. i love American writers - Melville, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Burroughs, Morrison, Angelou, etc. McDonalds & Starbucks are NOT the symbols of Amerikan culture that i want stuck to the rest of the globe's skin like napalm - gimme Coltrane and Beck, any day. so it is because i love Amerika that i hate its imperialism - was Thoreau anti-American because he opposed the conquest of Mexico and the artillery bombardment of civilian populations? was Mark Twain? was John Brown anti-American for trying to free the slaves militarily? and what about shooting 4,000 cruise missles into Iraq represents this nation as a "bastion of freedom, oppurtunity, and hope"? so i sympathize with and fully support Al-Qaeda for the same reasons i hope i would have with John Brown. after the fall of the British empire, Britian still remains an important contributor to world culture, and i hope Amerika continues to be for as long as it is around. but ... right now, speaking geo-politically, it has no moral authority; or put another way, Amerika's weapons of mass destruction must be disarmed, and any defiance on this matter will be met with serious consequences. and i trust this raggamuffin bin Laden to make damn sure of that - one empire down, one more to go. .k _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From Mikedavis13 Wed Feb 12 11:31:56 2003 From: Mikedavis13 (Mikedavis13 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:31:56 EST Subject: [eDebate] Directions to UGA Tournament Message-ID: <14b.1bae8728.2b7bdf0c@aol.com> Someone asked me to post directions to registration. They are below. A preference sheet will go out once I get final judge info from three more schools. Thanks, Mike Directions to Phi Kappa House: * From Macon: Take 441 North from Eatonton. After passing Athens Academy on your right, get into the right lane. Exit Highway 441 onto Loop 10 by turning RIGHT before the bridge (there should be a sign pointing toward UGA). Once on Loop 10, the first exit you should come to is Milledge Avenue. If this is not the case, then exit and turn around going the other direction. Assuming you're heading in the correct directions, take the second exit on Loop 10, College Station Road. At the end of the exit ramp, turn LEFT on to College Station. Go over the railroad tracks, and turn RIGHT on East Campus Road. The road runs parallel to the railroad tracks. You'll pass the stadium on your left. At the first traffic light, turn LEFT onto Baldwin Street. Take your first RIGHT onto Jackson Street. Go past the parking deck on your right, and there will be a small loading dock on your left in front of Terrell Hall. You can pull in there to register, and someone will direct you to parking. * From Atlanta - I85: Exit from I85 onto Highway 316 toward Lawrenceville/Athens. Stay on Highway 316 for about 45 miles. Exit RIGHT onto Loop 10 before you get to the Kroger/Lowes/Home Depot area. There should be a sign pointing toward UGA. Once on Loop 10, exit onto College Station Road. At the end of the exit ramp, turn LEFT on to College Station. Go over the railroad tracks, and turn RIGHT on East Campus Road. The road runs parallel to the railroad tracks. You'll pass the stadium on your left. At the first traffic light, turn LEFT onto Baldwin Street. Take your first RIGHT onto Jackson Street. Go past the parking deck on your right, and there will be a small loading dock on your left in front of Terrell Hall. You can pull in there to register, and someone will direct you to parking. * From Atlanta - I75: >From the South, take I75/I85 and then merge onto I85. Follow directions above. From the North, take I285 East to I85 and follow the directions above. * From Atlanta - I20: Take I20 through Atlanta. Exit at the second Conyers exit by turning LEFT. You'll go past an O'Charley's on your right, and you'll want to keep going str aight on Highway 138 North toward Athens (there should be a sign). You'll be on Highway 138 for a while until you come into Monroe. You'll come to an intersection with a McDonald's on your left - go straight (I think it's straight - follow the signs for 78) onto Highway 78 East toward Athens. Take Highway 78 for a while - you'll pass a BP gas station on your left and a bank on your right, and then you'll want to make sure that you're in the right lane. Exit onto Highway 316 by turning RIGHT before the bridge. Stay on Highway 316 for about 4 miles, then turn RIGHT onto Loop 10 before you get to the Kroger/Lowes/Home Depot area. There should be a sign pointing toward UGA. Once on Loop 10, exit onto College Station Road. At the end of the exit ramp, turn LEFT on to College Station. Go over the railroad tracks, and turn RIGHT on East Campus Road. The road runs parallel to the railroad tracks. You'll pass the stadium on your left. At the first traffic light, turn LEFT onto Baldwin Street. Take your first RIGHT onto Jackson Street. Go past the parking deck on your right, and there will be a small loading dock on your left in front of Terrell Hall. You can pull in there to register, and someone will direct you to parking. * From Augusta - I20: Take I20 through Augusta. Exit at the second Thomson exit (the one with all of the restaurants) and turn RIGHT toward Washington on Highway 78. Stay on Highway 78 through Washington, and then the road makes an abrupt turn to the left about 2 miles past the actual town (you'll pass a gas station on your right before the turn is about to happen). Turn LEFT and stay on Highway 78 through a few small towns - Rayle, Lexington, Crawford. Once in Athens, you'll stay on Highway 78 and you'll see the downtown area up on the hill in front of you. Go up the hill into the downtown area. You'll come to an intersection with a green building on your right that seems to be in the middle of the road, and four or five roads all converging at one traffic light. Like this: You'll be approaching the intersection on the dashed road, and you'll want to go through the intersection by going more or less straight (although in reality it is a small veer toward the left) onto Broad Street. You'll find yourself downtown, and you should turn LEFT at the first traffic light onto Jackson Street. Go about a quarter of a mile, and you'll see a small loading dock on your right. You can pull in there to register tubs, and someone will direct you to parking. If there are any problems with these directions, I offer the following disclaimer: I'm not mapquest.com. Call 706-540-9158 if you get lost! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030212/403b3c95/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DirectionstoPhiKappaHouse.9555DEFANGED-doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 26624 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030212/403b3c95/attachment.obj From gqdb8r Wed Feb 12 11:37:03 2003 From: gqdb8r (gqdb8r at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:37:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] becca eaton and Greta Stahl Message-ID: <051392D7.6CB48CAC.00063924@aol.com> Could both of you email me. thanks Sorry for the clutter Alex Acosta From MIDNBRUNO Wed Feb 12 12:13:53 2003 From: MIDNBRUNO (MIDNBRUNO at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 13:13:53 EST Subject: [eDebate] Someone from JMU Message-ID: <30.3853abae.2b7be8e1@aol.com> Could someone from James Madison backchannel me? I have a question about one of your positions. Mike Bruno Formerly of Navy Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030212/5d091b73/attachment.html From neilsbutt Wed Feb 12 13:05:27 2003 From: neilsbutt (Neil Butt) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 14:05:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] West Virginia Tournament Message-ID: I?d echo the comments of those who preceded me regarding Neil Berch?s and the WVU debaters? hosting and innovations -- it was a pleasure to attend. I would add one thing though: The West Virginia Novices are fearless. I judged them in the VARSITY division this past weekend. I initially thought it would be an 8th amendment violation, but the other varsity teams played nice and the WVU novices held their own. They jumped in so that there would be enough varsity teams to have a separate division. Those of us that entered teams in varsity owe them one. Thanks again! -Neil (The other one) JCU _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From epmr Wed Feb 12 13:57:16 2003 From: epmr (Michael Roston the eminently practical) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 20:57:16 +0100 Subject: [eDebate] District 7 Tournament Schedule? Message-ID: <1045079836.3e4aa71c5fc2d@www.omnimail.sm> is there a schedule for the D7 "festivities" of 2/21-2/23 at MWC available? -- Michael Roston -what was your name, anyway? "My friend's got a book about dreams, I look and laugh I dream a book about my friends and still can't decipher the half" -Aesop Rock ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attiva la tua mail gratuita con Omnimail all'indirizzo http://www.omnimail.sm Il servizio ? offerto da Intelcom San Marino S.p.a. http://www.intelcom.sm From bodonnel Wed Feb 12 14:23:19 2003 From: bodonnel (O'Donnell, Brett M.) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:23:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ADA Rankings Message-ID: Below are the current ADA rankings heading into ADA Nationals at Boston College. All ADA sanctioned tournaments have been included in these results. ADA Rankings Novice 1. Liberty 180 2. Catholic 175 3. Mary Washington 99 4. John Carroll 97 5. West Virginia 91 6. Binghamton 76 7. Army 74 8. Richmond 65 9. Vermont 64 10. Cornell 63 11. Clarion 56 12. Navy 52 13. Wake Forest 51 14. George Mason 48 15. Rochester 42 16. Capital 31 17. Miami(FL) 17 18. Allegheny 16 Miami-Ohio 16 Michigan-Dearborn 16 21. Augustana 14 22. Penn State 12 Towson 12 Wayne State 12 25. Fordham 11 26. Case Western 9 27. James Madison 8 Western Illinois 8 29. Ithaca 7 30. Emory 6 31. Marist 4 Queens College 4 Junior Varsity 1. Liberty 168 2. Catholic 141 3. Boston College 138 4. Mary Washington 102 5. Rochester 97 6. George Mason 91 7. West Virginia 90 8. Richmond 79 9. George Washington 69 10. Pittsburgh 52 11. John Carroll 50 12. Wayne State 48 13. Capital 41 14. Towson 40 15. Army 39 16. Navy 36 17. Cornell 32 18. Emory 29 19. Wake Forest 27 20. James Madison 26 Trinity 26 22. Michigan-Dearborn 21 23. King's College 20 24. Case Western 17 25. Marist 12 26. Binghamton 10 Clarion 10 28. Georgia State 9 29. Fordham 7 Penn State 7 31. Georgia 6 Miami-Ohio 6 33. Miami 5 34. Augustana 1 Varsity 1. Catholic 111 2. Pittsburgh 106 3. Liberty 82 4. Rochester 68 5. Army 65 6. James Madison 60 7. Mary Washington 54 8. John Carroll 53 9. Vermont 50 10. George Mason 48 11. Emory 39 Wake Forest 39 13. Cornell 36 14. Dartmouth 34 Navy 34 Trinity 34 17. Richmond 32 Wayne State 32 19. Miami-Ohio 31 20. Clarion 29 21. George Washington 27 22. Georgetown 26 23. Ithaca 24 24. Louisville 21 25. Boston College 20 West Virginia 20 27. Towson 19 28. Case Western 17 Chicago 17 30. Georgia 13 31. Georgia State 9 32. Capital 4 Marist 4 Michigan-Dearborn 4 35. Augustana 3 36. DePaul 1 Grand Sweepstakes 1. Liberty 430 2. Catholic 427 3. Mary Washington 255 4. Rochester 207 5. West Virginia 201 6. John Carroll 200 7. George Mason 187 8. Army 178 9. Richmond 176 10. Boston College 158 Pittsburgh 158 12. Cornell 131 13. Navy 122 14. Wake Forest 117 15. Vermont 114 16. George Washington 96 17. Clarion 95 18. James Madison 94 19. Wayne State 92 20. Binghamton 86 21. Capital 76 22. Emory 74 23. Towson 71 24. Trinity 60 25. Miami-Ohio 53 26. Case Western 43 27. Michigan-Dearborn 41 28. Dartmouth 34 29. Ithaca 31 30. Georgetown 26 31. Miami(FL) 22 32. Louisville 32 33. King's College 20 Marist 20 35. Georgia 19 Penn State 19 37. Augustana 18 Fordham 18 Georgia State 18 40. Chicago 17 41. Allegheny 16 42. Western Illinois 8 43. Queens College 4 44. DePaul 1 From skoch Wed Feb 12 14:22:11 2003 From: skoch (Stephen Koch) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 15:22:11 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] District V Hotel Deadline Reminder Message-ID: <3E4AACF2.C943BBD@capital.edu> Dear D5 Folks, Just a reminder to nake your reservations today for our shindig 2/28-3/2. COUNTRY INN AND SUITES 2900 AIRPORT DRIVE COLUMBUS, OHIO 43219 614-478-2900 The room rate is $79.00 plus tax. When calling to reserve rooms, ask for Jackie and mention Capital University Debate, District 5 Tournament. THIS BLOCK OF ROOMS WILL BE HELD FOR US UNTIL FEBRUARY 12. Sincerely, Stephen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: skoch.29266DEFANGED-vcf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 354 bytes Desc: Card for Stephen Koch Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030212/ab708e81/attachment.obj From carverjoseph Wed Feb 12 16:16:22 2003 From: carverjoseph (Django Carver) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:16:22 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] pace seeks hybrid Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030212/f437f34a/attachment.html From phallusjerkins Wed Feb 12 16:36:49 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:36:49 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] stupid old europeans Message-ID: stupid old europeans who have thousands of biodiesel gas stations and other alternative fuel solutions to an irrelevant and outdated texas elite petroleum scam. stupid old europeans who actually learned something from WWI and WWII since it was fought on their soil while the shallow, surface US played opportunist. stupid old europeans who didn't have the malicious gall of a FDR who let the japanese bomb pearl harbor with advanced notice killing his own people just like saddam hussein just to swing popular opinion in favor of cleaning up after the dirty old europeans. stupid old europeans who so far have refrained from repeating hiroshima and nagasaki holocaust experiments conducted by the all-time clowns of destruction who burned a bunch gooks and their land to guarantee heroin shipments onto the streets in the 50s and 60s. done got busted in the congress for that one asswipe. the europeans are advancing ahead of the united states into the future of decreased fossil fuel consumption coinciding with decreased imperial power plays in the volatile middle east and a wise shift of foreign policy in the direction of prudent diplomancy. stupid old jimmy carter got ousted when reagan made a deal with the ayatalloh to hold the hostages until after the 1980 election in exchange for guns. basically the US is too chickenshit to fight on their own soil and have moved war onto the video game screen for a pitiful domestic audience transparent to anyone with a brain. they are shocked by attacks on their own soil freaking out into dangerous global paranoia because their infantile population has been sheltered from the reality of war except all the homeless vets that litter the streets oh yeah almost forgot about thoses retards who flunked the vietnam war or all those who mysteriously died from the gulf war syndrome taking authoritarian forced anthrax vaccinations and shit...mr. dinosaur, dinosaur juice ain't worth killing innocent iraqi civilians....your war paradigm is ancient and will bring an end to any future FUCK FACE >From: "Michael Korcok" >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: [eDebate] stupid old europeans >Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 16:42:12 -0500 > > >the idiots that brought you world wars 1 and 2 are facing irrelevance. > >here are 2 current articles from MSNBC on the matter: > >1. Anti-Americanism rising in Europe: > >http://www.msnbc.com/news/871193.asp?0cl=cR > >2. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR > >http://www.msnbc.com/news/856672.asp?0cv=CB20 > >thanks for reading, >Michael Korcok > >_________________________________________________________________ >Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From b2thec Wed Feb 12 16:37:04 2003 From: b2thec (BrianCampbell) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:37:04 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] judging at heart Message-ID: <000801c2d2e7$44c47800$d1580c44@ok.cox.net> on behalf of jackie massey: he is fully available to take on a judging commitment at heart. reply to me (BC) if you are interested and i will contact him immediately for you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030212/981b300e/attachment.htm From tshuman Wed Feb 12 16:59:09 2003 From: tshuman (Terrance Shuman) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 16:59:09 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Job Openings Update Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030212165641.00a44220@mail.magiccablepc.com> It has been about five weeks since I posted the invitation to advertise HS coaching vacancies for 2003-2004 in the Coaching Forum on cross-x.com: http://cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25790 During that time, opportunities in California, Michigan, Kansas, Iowa, Texas, Colorado, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Delaware, New York, Wyoming, Illinois, North Dakota, Missouri, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Florida have been posted, and the thread has been viewed nearly 1,800 times. I've been very encouraged by the response thus far, and I renew my invitation to advertise any vacancies of which you are aware, either directly or via email to me. Thanks in advance for your help in putting interested candidates in touch with schools in need of coaches. Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and...well, not so tall as I used to be, Terrance Shuman Bishop LeBlond Memorial High School St. Joseph, Missouri From jd.rollins Wed Feb 12 17:03:21 2003 From: jd.rollins (Joel Rollins) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:03:21 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] received bids Message-ID: emory gr, gw, bl, lp wfu mich fo ga pr cath dp From bdurham Wed Feb 12 17:05:18 2003 From: bdurham (bdurham at mail.utexas.edu) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:05:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: [eDebate] Melissa Newton & Michael Shultz In-Reply-To: <20030211215826.60067.qmail@web41007.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20030211215826.60067.qmail@web41007.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1045091118.3e4ad32eabce6@webmailapp1.cc.utexas.edu> could you also backchannel me... gracias ben UT-A From smithr Wed Feb 12 17:17:33 2003 From: smithr (Ross Smith) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 18:17:33 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] District 6 and SECEDA/SCCEDA news Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030212181137.02f141a0@pop.wfu.edu> To be eligible try to qualify for the NDT you simply must file with me an "intent to enter" the district qualifier by Feb. 18. Here are the rules re eligibility: b. Eligible teams: To submit for the bid allocation process, a team must have paid their NDT subscription fee and have either (1) a minimum of 18 intercollegiate preliminary rounds on the fall CEDA topic or its NDT topic parallel either both as individuals or as a team of varsity or open debate in at least three tournaments, each consisting of a minimum of 6 preliminary rounds with at least 6 teams from at least four different schools in varsity or open division, or (2) one member of the team with a minimum of 32 intercollegiate preliminary rounds on the fall CEDA topic or its NDT topic parallel in at least four tournaments, each consisting of a minimum of six preliminary rounds, with at least six teams from at least four different schools in varsity or open division (i.e., if one member of the team has at least 32 rounds satisfying the above requirements, no minimum number of rounds is required of the partner in order for the team to be eligible for the bid allocation process). (1) These bids must be received by the district chair within one week of the first round bid submission deadline. (2) The number of eligible teams from each school shall be no greater than the number of teams that school can qualify through the district process. (3) The names of all submitting teams from each district will immediatelybe forwarded by the district chair to the chair of the bid allocationcommittee. Notes: 1) The rule on paying the subscription fee should be followed but the NDT has allowed tardy payment in the past. 2) Our district allows you to enter as many teams as you like, but a maximum of two per school will count toward our allocation of slots Ross Smith Wake Forest Debate 336-758-5268 Fax: 336-758-4691 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030212/25eedd81/attachment.html From kristopherwillis Wed Feb 12 17:21:08 2003 From: kristopherwillis (Kris Willis) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:21:08 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Parcher or someone from Georgetown Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030212/68925438/attachment.htm From sstopp Wed Feb 12 17:58:10 2003 From: sstopp (Sarah Suzanne Topp) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:58:10 -0600 (CST) Subject: [eDebate] SMS WW--Sarah or Ben Message-ID: I need a cite from you. Please email me when you get a chance. Thanks, Sarah Suzanne Topp Concordia College Moorhead, MN 56562 218.287.0171 `~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~ Dreams cannot come true if you over sleep. ~Thought-a-day calendar in Fred's bathroom. ~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~` From partsara Wed Feb 12 18:47:28 2003 From: partsara (partsara at isu.edu) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 17:47:28 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] received bids - Catholic? Message-ID: <701a743d.743d701a@isu.edu> I am missing catholic's bid. I have the rest plus UNT PP. ----- Original Message ----- From: Joel Rollins Date: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 4:03 pm Subject: [eDebate] received bids > emory gr, gw, bl, lp > > wfu > > mich fo > > ga pr > > cath 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 adbarnes Wed Feb 12 19:48:31 2003 From: adbarnes (Andrew Barnes) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 01:48:31 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Paging Jay Finch from GW Message-ID: Jay, I was just wondering if you could give me the cite for the funding cut for the space laser that Emory ran against us, Rd 6 at Northwestern. thanks, Andrew Clarion Debate _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From arsenalgunners2 Wed Feb 12 20:33:30 2003 From: arsenalgunners2 (Mick Souders) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 02:33:30 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] WYO Chris or Brian Message-ID: yo, cites. backchannel. please. mick _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From Mikedavis13 Wed Feb 12 20:45:14 2003 From: Mikedavis13 (Mikedavis13 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:45:14 EST Subject: [eDebate] Judge Preference Sheet for UGA Message-ID: <1dd.27c694b.2b7c60ba@aol.com> Directions: You must mark AT LEAST 12 judges as number one (most preferred). You must mark AT LEAST 5 judges as number two (more preferred). You may mark NO MORE THAN 3 judges as number four (strike). The remaining judges may be marked as three (not preferred). Judges from your own school may be counted as either twos or threes. The sooner you get these in the easier it will be to get you the judges you would prefer. Abbott, Blake Mercer Bates, Ben Georgia Bellon, Joe GSU Butler, Drew MTSU Coffman, Josh Emory Davis, Alysia Georgia Davis, Dan West GA Davis, Michael Georgia Galloway, Ryan Georgia Herndon, James Alabama Holbrook, Sarah West GA Holland, Shannon Georgia Johnson, Davi Georgia Kash, Graham Tenn Tech Lee, Ed Alabama Lee, Michael Georgia Louden, Al Wake Mast, John MTSU Rufo, Ken Georgia Sandoz, ML vandy Wade, Melissa Emory Zompetti, Joe Mercer -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030212/a010b623/attachment.html From Mikedavis13 Wed Feb 12 20:51:24 2003 From: Mikedavis13 (Mikedavis13 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 21:51:24 EST Subject: [eDebate] Team List For UGA Message-ID: <63.1847d1f4.2b7c622c@aol.com> We currently have 21 teams in Open and 5 in Novice. We will have a separate novice division as long as there are no drops. Open: 1. Georgia SH (Juanita Sierra & Reid Hardaway) 2. Georgia BM (Ross Benton & Michael Moore) 3. MTSU CL (Courtney Caraver & Allan Lutes) 4. GSU BC (Gabe Coyle & Adam Butler) 5. Bama PG (Tameka Phillips & Bryan Grason) 6. Bama SM (Nicole MIller & Abi Smith) 7. Bama WE (Marques Evans & Heather Wyatt) 8. West GA EL (Rashad Evans & Anita Lamar) 9. West GA CH (Eric Cole & TJ Hadley) 10. West GA CA (Cesquinn Curtis & Ryan Appelbaum) 11. Emory TR (Eliot Tucker & Adam Romney) 12. Emory AlKu (Vikas Kumar & Bob Allen) 13. Emory TJ (JB Tartar & Marcus Jenkins) 14. Emory AsKu (Sameer Asher & Didi Kuo) 15. Tenn Tech 16. Pace RS (Reena Rani & Patricia Socorro) 17. Emory GF (Jason Gorczynski & Alex Foster) 18. Mercer ThWi (Elizabeth Thatcher & Erin Witte) 19. Mercer TeWr (Megan Tennet & Sarah Wright) 20. Wake CG (Darrin Gamradt & David Coon) 21. Bama CS (Michael Collins & Brandon Scott) Novice 1. MTSU CC (Heather Cannon & Vantha Chhoun) 2. MTSU VC (Marthtika Vaugh & Angie Clark) 3. GSU 4. Vandy PH (Nikhil Perumbeti & Scott Hangauer) 5. Vandy MK (Susan Mader & Mark Kendall) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030212/f2e8d976/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Wed Feb 12 21:04:55 2003 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 20:04:55 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] NYU GG Message-ID: Hello boys, I got a whole slew of questions for you. Contact me. Thanks. stannard _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From Catherine.Palczewski Wed Feb 12 22:00:28 2003 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:00:28 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] eligibility update Message-ID: <3E4B185B.933B0F51@uni.edu> Greetings all, As promised, the eligbility page has been updated. Please go to: http://www.uni.edu/palczews/eligibility.htm to confirm that I have received forms and declared students eligible. Students are listed under the school which they seek to represent at the NDT. If you believe you have given or sent me forms, and your school does not appear, contact me asap via email. In many cases, I might have questions about the form. In some cases there were readability issues with faxes. In other cases, there are idiosyncracies that need to be cleared up. I have tried to contact each of you for whom I have questions, but I did not always have contact information. Thus, if you examine the page, and find a notation in parentheses that indicates (pending clarification), then please contact me asap via email. A student is NOT considered eligible until all "pending" issues have been resolved. (The reason the forms are due when they are is so that time is available to clarify any questions). Thanks for your patience, Cate Palczewski NDT Committee chair and erstwhile eligibility person From melissa_newton1 Wed Feb 12 22:54:17 2003 From: melissa_newton1 (melissa_newton1 at excite.com) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:54:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: [eDebate] tony nielson only... Message-ID: <20030213045417.45396B6E9@xmxpita.excite.com> tony- please back channel me asap, i need some info from you for san diego. sorry for the bandwidth. thanks :) melissa newton ksu debate Feminism is the radical notion that womyn are people." ~Paula Treichler _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! From shawnpowers Wed Feb 12 23:19:11 2003 From: shawnpowers (Shawn Powers) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 05:19:11 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] re - sarah holbrook please Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030213/7f31c737/attachment.html From j-wallace1 Wed Feb 12 23:28:25 2003 From: j-wallace1 (Joel Wallace) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:28:25 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Rochester VW Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20030212232800.02c14ea0@hecky.it.northwestern.edu> could one of you email me back, please. thanks, Joel Joel Wallace Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA j-wallace1 at northwestern.edu From mmk_savant Thu Feb 13 00:11:30 2003 From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 22:11:30 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] ans Phallus Message-ID: whatta pile of slop. on top: Phallus (presumably Jack Stroube) accepts as true any questionable claim which paints the United States in an unfavorable light. their threshhold for believing anti-American nonsense is absurdly low. after all, Stroube posted rant after rant 2 years ago containing anti-semitic gibberish, including The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Brenner's nonsense about "Zionist" collaboration with the Nazis, every fool conspiracy theory claiming that the US and Israel had engineered the 9/11 attacks, and crazed predictions that 10s of millions of Afghanis would die in the genocidal American invasion of Afghanistan. what comes across in no uncertain terms is that Phallus hates America: it is a hatred that will jump at any nonsense which attacks the United States, no matter its merits. the first article from msnbc i posted a link to speaks to that phenomenon of irrational, visceral, anti-Americanism: Thierry's book that the US engineered the 9/11 attacks was the best-seller in France last year, the French foreign minister in 1996 explained the top priority of French foreign policy as "checking American hegemony", and many Germans report that they will dismiss any intelligence showing that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction as "planted by the CIA." any observation that such thinking reveals a catastrophic failure of wisdom seems insufficient. the line-by-line: Wormtongue writes: "stupid old europeans who have thousands of biodiesel gas stations and other alternative fuel solutions to an irrelevant and outdated texas elite petroleum scam.... the europeans are advancing ahead of the united states into the future of decreased fossil fuel consumption coinciding with decreased imperial power plays in the volatile middle east and a wise shift of foreign policy in the direction of prudent diplomancy." unh-hunh. the above claim is spurious ranting nonsense. no more than about 5% of US energy is oil from the Middle East while at least about twice as much, 10%, of Western European energy consumption is Middle Eastern oil. the share of US energy that comes from oil has dropped by 10% since 1973 while the share of European Union energy provided by oil has skyrocketed. no one with at least 7 neurons connected thinks that the US is as dependent on oil or on Middle Eastern oil than "old europe" is. here, read this: "it is a well-known fact that the European Union is greatly dependent on external energy supplies. Currently, 50% of its energy requirements are being met through imports. If current trends persist, not only will this figure rise to about 70% in 2030, but the EU's dependence on oil and gas will also be greater." ( http://www.inogate.org/html/brief/brief1.htm ) furthermore, the US hasn't imported any oil from Iraq in over a decade (it is illegal to do so). if the US wanted cheaper and more plentiful oil, it would have listened to oil company lobbyists throughout the 90s and abandoned Iraqi sanctions. that would have given Saddam Hussein the green light to use even more massive oil profits to more rapidly develop biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons and would have made the US complicit in the hideous human rights abuses the Iraqi regime has committed. the US did not do that. you know who did? yeah, the French and Russians did. France and Russia prevented the Clinton administration from restricting Iraqi oil exports in the late 90s after UN weapons inspectors were kicked out because France's TotalFinaElf and Russia's LukOil, Zarubezneft and Mashinoimport have massive oil development and export deals with Saddam Hussein. those deals have funnelled and could funnel hundreds of billions to Iraq, money that has been and will be used to fund further development of weapons of mass destruction and to keep in power a murderous despot who does not hesitate to use bio-chemical weapons against the peoples of Iraq. and that's that for Wormtongue. Joseph Goebbels writes: "stupid old europeans who actually learned something from WWI and WWII since it was fought on their soil while the shallow, surface US played opportunist." the "war was fought on their soil"!?!?! a sentence with AGENCY and RESPONSIBILITY for world wars 1 and 2 blatantly removed? the wars just happened, as wars are wont to do, assjack? neither persons nor nations made decisions, took actions, murdered each other, committed genocide, attempted the extermination of Jewry? Germans did not vote for and then support and then embrace Nazism? the French did not ignore, then appease, then set the world record for the fastest surrender of a world power in human history, then openly collaborate with the Nazis? 20 million human beings were killed by "war" and not by "old europeans"? and only an idiot reads European history and European history in the 20th century and European history in the last 10 years and concludes that "old europeans actually learned something". Chirac wants the presidency of a centralized EU and Schroeder thinks that the EU will restore Germany to its rightful place as European hegemon. both dream of a European Union able to militarily, politically, and economically challenge the "American hyperpower". you know the French have a saying, one of the very few bits of wisdom left in that culture: "Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose." and "shallow, surface US played opportunist" as a summary of the American role in world wars 1 and 2 could only be written by an idiot who hates America. and Goebbels is dismissed. Comrade Konstantine Umansky and Walter Duranty co-author: "stupid old europeans who didn't have the malicious gall of a FDR who let the japanese bomb pearl harbor with advanced notice killing his own people just like saddam hussein just to swing popular opinion in favor of cleaning up after the dirty old europeans. hey, unh... less than 60 years ago they had the "malicious gall" to colonize and control all of Africa, India, China, the Middle East, and the rest of Earth because they considered themselves the rightful rulers of lesser beings. less than 60 years ago they had the "malicious gall" to attempt to create a Master Race, to literally exterminate from existence Jews, blacks, and homosexuals. and assjack's understanding of Roosevelt's handling of Pearl Harbor comes straight out of "A Moron's History of the United States." here is a simple but decent answer to this crap by David Greenberg of Slate ( http://slate.msn.com/id/94663/ ). His conclusion: "Alas, the repeated failure of the dozens of tracts, from the 1940s to our own day, to stand up to scrutiny will not deter those who believe history is full of conspiracies any more than it will deter Sen. Roth from pandering to a constituent. No amount of evidence or argument will persuade those who wish to believe in Roosevelt's treachery or in Adm. Kimmel's faultlessness. Which is not a surprise. Have you ever tried to convince a True Believer that Oswald acted alone?" oh, and no love for Roosevelt from me. in his push to recognize Stalin's USSR in 1933, he turned a deaf ear to the massive protests around the US warning of Stalin's collectivization-genocide in which 7 million Ukrainians and others were starved to death. some people seem to have no problem being complicit with the worst atrocities in human history because appeasement seems so.. well... so... peaceful. and so much for Comrade Konstantine Umansky and Walter Duranty. Jack Stroube writes: "stupid old europeans who so far have refrained from repeating hiroshima and nagasaki holocaust experiments conducted by the all-time clowns of destruction who burned a bunch gooks and their land to guarantee heroin shipments onto the streets in the 50s and 60s. done got busted in the congress for that one asswipe. assjack can't even form a coherent thought about hiroshima and nagasaki. here is an excellent discussion of the matter: ( http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/95jul/powers.htm ). to call the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki "holocaust experiments" is ludicrous calumny. the real, actual, holocaust was being committed by old europe. and assjack's claim that the CIA's motives/goals in Indochina during the 1950s and 1960s were to "guarantee heroin shipments onto the streets" is just more crud on top of the pile of shit. not even Alfred McCoy, whose "The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia" is THE source of these arguments supports that stank. his position is that the CIA was single-mindedly focussed on combatting communism and they pursued that end in part by allying with some of the opium lords of the Golden Triangle. here is a 1990 interview with the real McCoy that gives a substantially more nuanced and thought-through discussion of the matter than Phallus will ever have: ( http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/3674/mccoy1.html ) oh, and please note McCoy's history of the opium/heroin trade in Indochina. McCoy carefully points out that the CIA inherited the trade set up by the FRENCH (you know, The French Connection) and he clearly fingers FRENCH INTELLIGENCE as creating and exploiting and developing the Golden Triangle initially: the CIA only came in after the FRENCH fled the huge mess their cluster-fuck colonialism had created. and Jack Stroube gets to shut the hell up. Tariq Aziz writes: "stupid old jimmy carter got ousted when reagan made a deal with the ayatalloh to hold the hostages until after the 1980 election in exchange for guns. ridiculous. the "October Surprise" lore of the loopy-left, too? look, assjack, no one credible believes the Gary Sick book. the bipartisan House task force formed to investigate the matter concluded in 1992 that there was no credible evidence in support of Sick's thesis. end of story unless your standard of evidence is "anything any fool moron says is true". and stupid old jimmy carter got the boot because he gave the US a simultaneous 12% inflation rate and 9% unemployment rate at the same time that his administration was pumping out "inevitable long-term economic and military decline for the United States" tomes month after month. Reagan won a landslide because it was time for "A New Morning for America". and Tariq the Freak gets busted for the 13,725th time. Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem writes: "basically the US is too chickenshit to fight on their own soil and have moved war onto the video game screen for a pitiful domestic audience transparent to anyone with a brain. they are shocked by attacks on their own soil freaking out into dangerous global paranoia because their infantile population has been sheltered from the reality of war except all the homeless vets that litter the streets oh yeah almost forgot about thoses retards who flunked the vietnam war or all those who mysteriously died from the gulf war syndrome taking authoritarian forced anthrax vaccinations and shit...mr. dinosaur, dinosaur juice ain't worth killing innocent iraqi civilians....your war paradigm is ancient and will bring an end to any future FUCK FACE." okay, then. you keep the #1 spot. you establish again that you are THE poster-child for "catastrophic failures of wisdom". congratulations. none of the other contestants, not even Sanchez, competes. and i'm finished with the Grand Mufti too. Michael Korcok "This is what you wanted to hear, so why Did you think of listening to something else? We are all talkers It is true, but underneath the talk lies The moving and not wanting to be moved, the loose Meaning, untidy and simple like a threshing floor." John Ashbery: "Soonest Mended." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030212/e986b7f4/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Thu Feb 13 00:11:24 2003 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:11:24 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] bids I have received Message-ID: Catholic DP Emory GR Emory LP Emory BL Emory GW Georgia PR Michigan OF North Texas PP Wake ES stannard _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From stannardmatt Thu Feb 13 00:19:43 2003 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 23:19:43 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Zompetti, Isaac West, Frappier Message-ID: Please backchannel me, y'all. stannard _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From jeffrey.jarman Thu Feb 13 09:20:03 2003 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 09:20:03 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] IMPORTANT: Send in tournament results Message-ID: <000b01c2d373$6510ba10$8ea01a9c@gatewaycompute> If you are a tournament director, and your tournament has not sent in the results, please do so quickly. This mainly applies to any tournament held within the past 3-4 weeks. You can check to see if I have the results by clicking here . (the not counted list was accurate as of mid January. Anything since that time also is not counted). I need a copy of the prelim and elim sheets. Fax them to: 316-978-3006. You should also send the results electronically to Bruschke. Thanks. Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030213/ecf57db6/attachment.html From Buxbox Thu Feb 13 09:20:32 2003 From: Buxbox (Buxbox at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:20:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Looking to Get in Touch with Tim Alderete Message-ID: <4F078FCE.151AB8A0.00048A1C@aol.com> If somebody knows Tim's e-mail address or how i can get in touch with him, let me know. I'd really appreciate it and thanks in advance. Jon Schwartz From Buxbox Thu Feb 13 09:20:34 2003 From: Buxbox (Buxbox at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:20:34 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Looking to Get in Touch with Tim Alderete Message-ID: <2DF4763B.497AC309.00048A1C@aol.com> If somebody knows Tim's e-mail address or how i can get in touch with him, let me know. I'd really appreciate it and thanks in advance. Jon Schwartz From Mikedavis13 Thu Feb 13 09:20:55 2003 From: Mikedavis13 (Mikedavis13 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:20:55 EST Subject: [eDebate] New UGA pref sheet Message-ID: <190.1595ca52.2b7d11d7@aol.com> Due to some drops and changes here is the new pref sheet. > Directions: You must mark AT LEAST 11 judges as number one (most > preferred).? You must mark AT LEAST 5 judges as number two (more > preferred).? You may mark NO MORE THAN 3 judges as number four (strike).? > The remaining judges may be marked as three (not preferred). Judges from > your own school may be counted as either twos or threes. The sooner you get > these in the easier it will be to get you the judges you would prefer. > > Abbott, Blake????????????? Mercer????????????????? > Bates, Ben??????????????? Georgia???????????????? > Butler, Drew????????????? MTSU??????????????????? > Coffman, Josh???????????? Emory?????????????????? > Davis, Alysia???????????? Georgia???????????????? > Davis, Michael??????????? Georgia???????????????? > Galloway, Ryan??????????? Georgia???????????????? > Herndon, James??????????? Alabama???????????????? > Holland, Shannon????????? Georgia???????????????? > Johnson, Davi???????????? Georgia???????????????? > Kash, Graham????????????? Tenn Tech?????????????? > Lee, Ed?????????????????? Alabama???????????????? > Lee, Michael????????????? Georgia???????????????? > Louden, Al??????????????? Wake??????????????????? > Mast, John??????????????? MTSU??????????????????? > Pelham, TJ GSU Rufo, Ken???????????????? Georgia???????????????? > Sandoz, ML??????????????? vandy?????????????????? > Wade, Melissa???????????? Emory?????????????????? > Zompetti, Joe???????????? Mercer????????????????? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030213/3886e711/attachment.htm From alfred.snider Thu Feb 13 09:47:38 2003 From: alfred.snider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 10:47:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] PLEASE HELP: CEDA East/NDT Dist 8 at Vermont 2/28-3/1 Message-ID: Preliminary entires (numbers alone) would be appreciated so we can purchase awards and arrange for food. TUNA Here is the invitation people have asked for again. LAWRENCE DEBATE UNION 475 Main St. , University of Vermont Burlington, Vermont 05405-4225 802-656-0097 FAX 802-656-4275 Email: Alfred.snider at uvm.edu The Lawrence Debate Union and the University of Vermont are proud to invite you to: THE ROBERT HUBER DEBATES CEDA EAST CHAMPIONSHIP DISTRICT 8 NDT QUALIFIER March 1-2, 2003 Robert Huber coached debate at the University of Vermont for over 45 years, winning several national titles. He invented the plan and was named one of NCA's outstanding members of this century. He arranged for the endowment of the LDU and the Lawrence Professorship. We hold this tournament each to salute his commitment to debate. This year we are very pleased to offer both CEDA and NDT competition. We are pleased to be able to host the CEDA EAST CHAMPIONSHIP in varsity, junior varsity, and novice divisions. We will also be hosting the DISTRICT 8 NDT QUALIFIER on this weekend. We urge all schools to support BOTH competitions. We will try and coordinate the two competitions as much as possible. We urge all varsity teams attending to enter the NDT Qualifier division. The tournament will feature six (or five if the participants prefer) rounds of Cross Examination Debate Association/National Debate Tournament debating on the 2002-20003 CEDA/NDT topic. NDT Qualifer will be scheduled separately. There will be divisions of switch-side debating at the NDT Qualifier, Varsity CEDA (if needed), Junior Varsity CEDA (students in their first two years of college debating), and Novice CEDA (CEDA definition of "novice") levels. There will be an appropriate number of elimination rounds. Time limits will be 9-3-6 with 10 minutes preparation time. We are asking that judges disclose their decisions and deliver an oral critique unless they would prefer not to. This is a request, not a command. The NDT Qualifier will take place under the rules and procedures of the NDT and District 8. Please contact Dallas Perkins (dperkins at fas.harvard.edu) for more information. CAUTION: THERE ARE STRINGENT ENTRY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NDT QUALIFIER, INCLUDING FILING PROOF OF STUDENT ELIGIBILITY. Dallas will handle NDT registration and fees. Fees will be $70 per team, but all teams over four will be charged only $40 each. THE NDT QUALIFIER WILL HAVE DIFFERENT AND SEPARATE FEES. There are VERY FEW hired judges available at $75 per team. Schools are expected to supply six rounds of qualified judging for every two teams entered or else they must hire judging. CAUTION: THE NDT QUALIFIER REQUIREMENT WILL BE DIFFERENT. Unique and memorable awards will be presented to teams placing, the top speakers in each division, and the judge rated highest in mutual preference. In CEDA East Regionals divisions of debate Prof. Snider will be using the computer program developed by Rich Edwards of Baylor University to pair the tournament. CEDA East Rep. Maxwell Schnurer of Marist College will be invited to participate in pairing and tabulation. Rounds Three, Four, Five and Six will be power-paired high-low within brackets. We will be using the mutual preferred judging system for judge assignment, where each team will rate judges as A, B, or C and then the computer will attempt to assign a judge with the highest mutual preference possible to each round. Mutual preference judge sheets must be turned at the end of Round One in order to take effect in power matched rounds. In the NDT Qualifier Dallas Perkins will be pairing the tournament according to District VIII and NDT rules. Schools who are financially strapped may apply for free dorm housing (warm and dry but not luxurious). Extra judging can always be swapped for fee reduction. We will meet schools flying to Burlington at the airport and attempt to provide ground transportation between airport-hotel-campus. GIVE US YOUR PRELIMINARY ENTRY AS SOON AS YOU CAN! 802-656-0097 / email alfred.snider at uvm.edu AND Dallas Perkins (NDT Qualifer only), email dperkins at fas.harvard.edu THE ROBERT HUBER DEBATES March 1-2, 2003 Friday, February 28, 2003 Evening Registration - Call 238-8345 on arrival Saturday, March 1, 2003 IF DESIRED BY ALL OF THE PARTICIPANTS THERE WILL BE ONLY FIVE PRELIMINARY ROUNDS IN CEDA EAST, FOUR ON SATURDAY. WE WILL VOTE DURING ROUND ONE. 8:00 AM Beverages & Pastries 8:30 AM Round One 11:30 AM Round Two 1:30 PM Lunch Break - food is served 2:30 PM Round Three 5:00 PM Round Four 7:30 PM Round Five Sunday, March 2, 2003 7:30 AM Beverages & Pastries 8 AM Round Six 11:00 AM Awards & Announcements 11:30 AM Elimination Debates 2:00 PM Elimination Debates 4:30 PM Elimination Debates 7:00 PM Elimination Debates MOTEL FOR THE TOURNAMENT: Best Western, 1076 Williston, South Burlington 802-863-1125 Friday $80.96, Saturday $69.00 per double room. Ask for UVM DEBATE rate. Other fine spots, but there are no special rates. No promises. Anchorage Inn, 108 Dorset, South Burlington 802-658-3351 (moderate) Brown Motel, 165 Shelburne, Burlington 802-862-5708 (business pick) Comfort Inn, 1285 Williston, Burlington 802-865-3400 (moderate) Ho-Hum Motel, 1660 Williston, South Burlington 802-863-4551 (nifty) Holiday Inn, 1068 Williston, South Burlington 802-863-6361 (typical) Howard Johnson, Williston at I-89, South Burlington 802-863-5541 (typical) Queen City, 428 Shelburne, South Burlington 802-864-4220 (moderate) Radisson Hotel, 60 Battery, Burlington 802-658-6500 (swank plus lake view) Ramada, 1117 Williston, South Burlington 802-658-0250 (typical) Sheraton, 870 Williston, South Burlington 802-862-6576 (upscale) Swiss Host, 1272 Williston, South Burlington 802-862-5734 (easy & clean) If you would like to receive housing from us at no charge, you must ask early, tell us the male-female split, and bring towels and sleeping bags. We will try to do our best. Burlington International Airport is served by United (through Chicago), USAir (through Pittsburgh), American (through NYC), Delta (through Boston), Continental, Jetblue, and other major airlines. BUY TICKETS EARLY AND SAVE! Let us know if you need shuttle service from the Burlington Airport and we will provide it for free. See you in Burlington! -- --------------------------- 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 ; http://debate.uvm.edu/wdo.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030213/234522b6/attachment.html From delliott Thu Feb 13 12:26:19 2003 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:26:19 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Request to uphold Constitution Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030213122619.00c18ab0@kckcc.toto.net> The Constitution, bylaw VI section 9 indicates that the top 5 two-year colleges will receive awards at CEDA Nats. My understanding is that the past few years only the top college was awarded. This clearly violates the Constitution and I am asking those with the decision making authority to correct this and award the top 5 this year. Before anyone assumes this is self-serving let me say. We arent in the top 5 currently. Second, talking with many people I am feeling a certain movement in the community away from developmental debate and debate at the two-year college level. Partially the movement away is due to philosophies but for some it is financial and administrative support. Awards often are what it takes to convince administrators to retain programs. I see no harm in following the constitution as written and as had been followed in the past. Not sure who arbitraily changed the trophy order. But I think it needs to be changed back. Our Exec Sec indicates he has no problem with this so whoever has the authority to make the call I request you make it. We passed a number of resolutions in Jan to bring us inline with the Constitution. I suggest we follow that here as well. Finally, I understand that this may cause someone out there to say well we just need to pass a resolution limiting it to the top community college as has been (arbitrary) practice recently. Go ahead and write that one up. I'm looking for someone to prove my argument that the community standard is turning inward and not towards development, retention, and recruitment of programs. I'm hoping Im wrong and we just follow the constitution. Thoughts from the community at large are appreciated. Thank you for reading, Chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate Kansas City Kansas Community College CEDA PR Committee Chair From jd.rollins Thu Feb 13 12:29:11 2003 From: jd.rollins (Joel Rollins) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:29:11 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] bids received Message-ID: Catholic DP Bid Dartmouth ST '03 rtf Dartmouth LT '03 rtf MSU MS.doc MSU SS.doc WFU ES.rtf EmoryBl.DOC Whitman BO.doc NUGL.doc NUGM.doc GeorgiaPR.rtf EmoryGR.doc EmoryGW.doc EmoryLP.doc MichiganOF.doc HarvardMT.rtf BerkNS.doc UNTPP.doc NYU GG.doc BerkRS.doc From katsulas Thu Feb 13 12:50:39 2003 From: katsulas (katsulas) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:50:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ADA Hotel: final call Message-ID: <3E5BA0AB@netfin6.bc.edu> ADA Hotel deadline is Friday, February 14th, which is tomorrow. The hotel has reservations for Wayne, Ithaca, Trinity, Cornell, George Mason, Catholic Rochester, and a message to call Mary Washington. I know more schools are planning to attend. PLEASE CALL AND RESERVE HOTEL ROOMS. Schools who don't have reservations who say they are coming include Navy,Clarion, King's, John Carroll and many others. From kkuswa Thu Feb 13 13:01:12 2003 From: kkuswa (Kevin Kuswa) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:01:12 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ADA Hotel: final call References: <3E5BA0AB@netfin6.bc.edu> Message-ID: <010c01c2d392$46b68d50$2774a68d@richmond.edu> Is anyone bringing a female debater who needs/wants to share a room with another female debater? Contact me. Thanks, Kevin ----- Original Message ----- From: "katsulas" To: Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 1:50 PM Subject: [eDebate] ADA Hotel: final call > ADA Hotel deadline is Friday, February 14th, which is tomorrow. > > The hotel has reservations for Wayne, Ithaca, Trinity, Cornell, George Mason, > Catholic Rochester, and a message to call Mary Washington. > > I know more schools are planning to attend. PLEASE CALL AND RESERVE HOTEL > ROOMS. > > Schools who don't have reservations who say they are coming include > Navy,Clarion, King's, John Carroll and many others. > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From realitytrip Thu Feb 13 13:50:36 2003 From: realitytrip (RT Inc.) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 14:50:36 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] helping with northwestern confusion Message-ID: <20030213195037.44577.qmail@mail.com> "Ooo, your kisses (oo) Sweeter than honey (oo) And guess what? (oo) So is MY MONEY(oo) All I want you to do (oo) for me Is give it to me when you get home (re, re, re ,re) Yeah baby (re, re, re ,re) Whip it to me (respect, just a little bit) When you get home, now (just a little bit) R-E-S-P-E-C-T ***FIND OUT WHAT IT MEANS TO ME***" (please) ********************** soon YOU will see the _Real_ velocity of my philosetry ********************** *parody* (adios(, )jason) RealityTrip at mail.com -- __________________________________________________________ Sign-up for your own FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup From sethtellsworth Thu Feb 13 14:15:24 2003 From: sethtellsworth (Seth Ellsworth) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 20:15:24 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Gonzaga LS Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030213/20f4d749/attachment.htm From hunt Thu Feb 13 14:32:14 2003 From: hunt (Steven Hunt) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 12:32:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] a favor (fwd) Message-ID: A note on sharing rooms at Heart or CEDA nats for one female debater. Steve Hunt ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 11:39:22 -0800 (PST) From: Daniel Bloomingdale To: hunt at lclark.edu Subject: a favor Steve-- I am having trouble posting messages on edebate--it doesn't recognize me as a subscriber. Could you please post this for me? Lewis and Clark college is looking for someone to share a room with a female at Heart and/or CEDA nationals. If that is you please bckchannel Dan Bloomingdale at dcb at lclark.edu. Thanks, dan From KSchriver Thu Feb 13 15:40:00 2003 From: KSchriver (Schriver, Kristina) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 13:40:00 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] IMPORTANT--continuing and newly elected CEDA officers Message-ID: <081C0D986938494A97DE9D50AB7D034F2487D4@ESCHE.csuchico.edu> I need each of you to establish a PIN number at www.natcom.org. Click on submission and you will see the create PIN link. This is the only way that I can include you in the NCA program. I have PINs for the following people 1. Shawn T Whalen, San Francisco State University 2. Danielle R. Wiese, University of Iowa 3. Kelly M. McDonald, Arizona State University 4. Lisa M. Kawamura, Cal Poly State University 5. Kristina L. Schriver, Calif State Univ, Chico 6. Michael K. Davis, University of Georgia I am missing Will Baker, Ross Smith, Jeremy Hutchins, Steve Hunt, Ed Lee, possibly more. Kristina Schriver, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Director of Forensics California State U, Chico (530) 898-4771 From delliott Thu Feb 13 16:14:01 2003 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 16:14:01 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] NCA Panel Call Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030213161401.00c475e0@kckcc.toto.net> Having talked to some of the members of the PR Committee, I would like to submit a panel discussion proposal for NCA in Miami in November. I would like it to focus on PR and how to better promote CEDA and debate. Deadline is Saturday. I need people who are interested in being a part of this panel discussion. If thats you please let me know by tomorrow afternoon. I will try and throw it together. Thanks, Chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate Kansas City Kansas Community College From IKimbrell Thu Feb 13 16:40:11 2003 From: IKimbrell (Kimbrell, Ian) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:40:11 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NCA Panel Call Message-ID: Can anyone tell me the definition of an ADA JV debater? Is it the same definition for the Towson JV nationals tournament? Any info is appreciated. Ian Kimbrell CWRU From Catherine.Palczewski Thu Feb 13 17:00:38 2003 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:00:38 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] first round bid applications Message-ID: <3E4C2396.480A1A66@uni.edu> It is now 5:00pm cst. All first round bid application were due no later than 5:00pm cst today, thurs, Feb 13. At present, the NDT committee has received the following bids: Berkeley NS Berkeley RS Catholic DP Dartmouth LT Dartmouth ST Emory BL Emory GR Emory GW Emory LP Fort Hays RR Georgia PR Harvard MT Michigan FO MSU MS MSU SS Northwestern GL Northwestern GM NYU GG UNT PP Wake Forest ES Whitman BO If you believe you have submitted a bid, and your name does not appear on the list, contact me immediately via email AND phone (319)230-5727 Cate Palczewski NDT Committe Chair From nedludd Thu Feb 13 19:16:43 2003 From: nedludd (debatistas por la humanidad) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 01:16:43 GMT Subject: [eDebate] CALL FOR DEBATERS BLOC AT ANTI WAR PROTESTS THIS WEEKEND Message-ID: <3e4c437b.7d5a.1804289383@subdimension.com> Millions of people around the nation and the world are rallying to stop an unjust and unpopular war, and many debaters are undoubtedly going to be on in the streets protesting and expressing their dissent in one way or another. But for those of you yearning to intertwine your anti war activism with your debating the debatistas call for a debaters bloc at this wekends protests. Bring your tubs and your dollys into the streets and show that planet debate can play its part, use your discursive skills to resist empire in one of its most agressive moments. We are calling for the following discursive direct actions: *Engage other activists in valuble debates about tactics startegies and anti emperial and anti war literature. *Share your files with any one who is interested. Some of it is shit but some of it is valuble and interesting. * Position you and your tubs at the front of police lines, and use your persuasive skills to convince the police not to follow unjust orders. Use the cover that debate provides in a democratic society to quell police agression. *At points begin to spew endless critical nonsense at police officers, from experience this practice has the effect of stopping people from enagging in action and perhaps you could agitate officers enough that they would be willing to do almost anything including stand down in order to get you to stop. *Position Your tubs and dollies as barricades *Defend your files with all your might as any debatista would Debatistas rise up and use your skills to defeat the empire you can play a unique part and the revolution begining this weekend, the role you play does not matter but the times require action now. debatistas against waring nations _____________________________________________________________________ // free anonymous email || forums \\ subZINE || anonymous browsing subDIMENSION -- http://www.subdimension.com From privethedge Thu Feb 13 19:24:16 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 17:24:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] CALL FOR DEBATERS BLOC AT ANTI WAR PROTESTS THIS WEEKEND In-Reply-To: <3e4c437b.7d5a.1804289383@subdimension.com> Message-ID: <20030214012416.60103.qmail@web10004.mail.yahoo.com> What war are you referring to? At this time, to the best of my knowledge, the US is not engaged in war with any particular nation - except the war on terrorism, and ongoing efforts in Afghanistan - both of which are pretty popular and just. Also, I think you are confusing college campuses, where the idea of war with Iraq is not popular, and the salons of the left, where the idea of war with Iraq is not popular, with the bastions of mainstreet America where the idea of war with Iraq, and possibly France, is overwhelmingly supported. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030213/58015943/attachment.html From mhaga3zg Thu Feb 13 19:54:00 2003 From: mhaga3zg (michael l. hagan) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 20:54:00 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CALL FOR DEBATERS BLOC AT ANTI WAR PROTESTS THIS WEEKEND Message-ID: <1045187640.cb219de0mhaga3zg@mwc.edu> Okay, go ahead and protest, I won't stop you. But you should know a few things first before you do. First, that you put American soldier's lives in danger abroad and home. Those soldier's need the support of their homeland, they didn't choose to make this decision to go over, don't make them pay for being patriotic Americans. Second, you're just banding together with people who have no idea what they are protesting. I doubt very much that the average American really hears the whole story from the liberal media (this is not to say that there isn't conservative media, there is) or that those same Americans have tried to learn more about this issue than is being spoonfed to them. Third, you know damn well that there are better and more effective ways to dissent from the policies of this nation than participating in a mob. Do you really think that the police or other protesters are going to care about what you think about the discursive impacts of their actions...do you think they even know what the hell discursive means? Come on, I'm not saying don't dissent, dissent, but dissent responsibly and effectively. Michael -----Original Message----- From: "debatistas por la humanidad" To: edebate at ndtceda.com Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 01:16:43 GMT Subject: [eDebate] CALL FOR DEBATERS BLOC AT ANTI WAR PROTESTS THIS WEEKEND Millions of people around the nation and the world are rallying to stop an unjust and unpopular war, and many debaters are undoubtedly going to be on in the streets protesting and expressing their dissent in one way or another. But for those of you yearning to intertwine your anti war activism with your debating the debatistas call for a debaters bloc at this wekends protests. Bring your tubs and your dollys into the streets and show that planet debate can play its part, use your discursive skills to resist empire in one of its most agressive moments. We are calling for the following discursive direct actions: *Engage other activists in valuble debates about tactics startegies and anti emperial and anti war literature. *Share your files with any one who is interested. Some of it is shit but some of it is valuble and interesting. * Position you and your tubs at the front of police lines, and use your persuasive skills to convince the police not to follow unjust orders. Use the cover that debate provides in a democratic society to quell police agression. *At points begin to spew endless critical nonsense at police officers, from experience this practice has the effect of stopping people from enagging in action and perhaps you could agitate officers enough that they would be willing to do almost anything including stand down in order to get you to stop. *Position Your tubs and dollies as barricades *Defend your files with all your might as any debatista would Debatistas rise up and use your skills to defeat the empire you can play a unique part and the revolution begining this weekend, the role you play does not matter but the times require action now. debatistas against waring nations _____________________________________________________________________ // free anonymous email || forums \\ subZINE || anonymous browsing subDIMENSION -- http://www.subdimension.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 velcrowe66 Thu Feb 13 20:39:26 2003 From: velcrowe66 (Chris Crowe) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 19:39:26 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] MSU SS politics sites... Message-ID: Could one of you backchannel me. I'm requesting the sites to the politics scenario you ran in octs at Northwestern...Any help is great, thanks. -Chris Crowe University of Wyoming _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From allroy63 Thu Feb 13 21:53:37 2003 From: allroy63 (Jimbo) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 22:53:37 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CALL FOR DEBATERS BLOC AT ANTI WAR PROTESTS THIS WEEKEND Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030213225333.034771f8@mail.optonline.net> A few thoughts on this reply: "Okay, go ahead and protest, I won't stop you. But you should know a few things first before you do. First, that you put American soldier's lives in danger abroad and home. Those soldier's need the support of their homeland, they didn't choose to make this decision to go over, don't make them pay for being patriotic Americans." It would seem to me that the best way to prevent American soldiers from danger would be to avoid placing them in a hostile situation. I fail to see how one's desire to voice their dissent with the status-quo is a greater catalyst for danger to troops than a war is. If safety of troops is such an issue then let's bring them home. And on the issue of patriots, since when does active participation in a war make one patriotic? One who is inspired by love for his country is patriotic. Not all those that join up with the military are necessarily motivated by a love for their country. By the same token, there are those in the military who have a love for their country - but this shouldn't be misconstrued to mean that they approve of everything their government does. You'll find that there are many people out there who are patriotic but don't necessarily agree with the policies their government acts from many different walks of life. Patriot does not mean military, and it does not mean blind faith in the ruling class. Painting the picture of patriotism using a military issued paintbrush only lessens the meaning of the word to "those who follow orders and do not offer dissent." "Second, you're just banding together with people who have no idea what they are protesting. I doubt very much that the average American really hears the whole story from the liberal media (this is not to say that there isn't conservative media, there is) or that those same Americans have tried to learn more about this issue than is being spoonfed to them." Isn't this even more of a reason to attempt to open up a dialogue with these people? If your argument is that Joe America doesn't know the whole story then wouldn't it be beneficial to engage these people and discuss the issue? It's clear to me that the "call to arms" portion of the debatista e-mail is satirical, but it would be better to use the debate skills we have and engage those who don't know as much about the status-quo instead of declaring that the uninformed public can be the only public. I'm curious to know what major media sources you would consider to be liberal. The accusation that average Americans haven't tried to learn more about the issue doesn't hold water for me either. Learning does not necessarily have to come from classes, books, libraries and research. Many people are happy and eager to learn from others through discourse if you bother to engage them on the issue. Some of the best education I've ever received has come from conversations and rounds and I have often been motivated to learn more in the conventional sense that you suggest about the issues that I am exposed to as a result of discourse. "Third, you know damn well that there are better and more effective ways to dissent from the policies of this nation than participating in a mob. Do you really think that the police or other protesters are going to care about what you think about the discursive impacts of their actions...do you think they even know what the hell discursive means? Come on, I'm not saying don't dissent, dissent, but dissent responsibly and effectively." What exactly is a responsible and effective form of dissent? I don't think anyone is seriously advocating that one rush to a protest to give nine minute speeches about empire to police or explain to anti-globalization protesters that although their opinions about the war are appreciated all other agendas they fight for are extra-topical. If there is a serious call to arms in this e-mail it's a call to arm yourself with knowledge and offer it to anyone who is willing to have a discussion with you. If we fail to take what we learn in our activity and use it as a tool to better the world around us then the activity merely becomes a selfish sport. Educate, liberate, celebrate. Jimbo From bdurham Thu Feb 13 22:51:21 2003 From: bdurham (bdurham at mail.utexas.edu) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 22:51:21 -0600 (CST) Subject: [eDebate] CALL FOR DEBATERS BLOC AT ANTI WAR PROTESTS THIS WEEKEND In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030213225333.034771f8@mail.optonline.net> References: <5.1.0.14.0.20030213225333.034771f8@mail.optonline.net> Message-ID: <1045198281.3e4c75c9db3dd@webmailapp2.cc.utexas.edu> Debatista- Reevaluate yer tactics-- your idea is ridiculous. Setting up barricades is bad- movements and masses must be mobile and fluid-- cant do that if you have to move tubs around. And barricades automatically put the front line of protests on the defensive... reading blocks in public seems like romanticized self valorization of how activist debate is. Don't read your blocks- join chants, talk to people, talk to the cops in the front--- force them to look you in the eyes-- talk to the military and the conservative folk who are in counter protest-- dialogue is where its at. Not SPEWING down Schlagg and Anarchy kritik alternative cards.... Peeps: Don't forget the function of the university. Even if it is a community of exclusion, it is also a mode of production that is helping produce the weapons and ideologies that are being deployed by the runaway train some of you think is your government. Find out how yer' university is involved-- are they making weapons? computer programs? chemical/biological weapons spores? which professors are taking grants from the military? do the students know? what's yer university's mission statement? does it say anything about ethics in academia? is your university contracted out privatized military firms? (CTBT FOLK THIS IS YOUR CHANCE-- SSP leads to STUDENT BOMBMAKERS) Is your university sponsored or collaborating with corporations that are exploitive? How about your university's food suppliers sponsorship of privatized prisons? SEE HOW YOUR ACADEMIC SPHERE iS CONNECTED TO DIFFERENT METHODS OF OPPRESSION. USE KNOWLEDGE TO POLITICIZE BY EXPOSING THOSE CONNECTIONS. BTW: Here at UT, we just finished a walkout on Wed.= largest one since 73- 74' had about 3,500 peeps. Don't forget that debate is a technology of the self. Competition has driven subjects to desire knowledge for gratification, this desire in turn becomes an internalized norm where we know how to research, how to speak, how to look at strategy, etc. BUT IT HASN'T TAUGHT US WELL ENOUGH HOW TO APPROACH SOCIAL STRATIFICATION OUTSIDE OF OUR ELITE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE. That is why our researching skills are important! link up with local organizers...offer your services, lexis codes, access to copy machines to copy fliers to hand out on campus, offer car rides, to drop off food/drink to those who stay outside communicating, offer to hand out fliers, speak to people, be constructively critical of how you and your friends try to approach the issue of war, violence, and Iraq....PEOPLE, THIS WAR IS NOT JUST ABOUT OIL-- TO OVERSIMPLIFY IT AS SUCH GIVES THE POTENTIAL OF THIS MOVEMENT FIXED FOOTING....GOTTA SHOW OTHER iNTER-RELAtIoNShiPs. ben From jmartin Thu Feb 13 23:40:24 2003 From: jmartin (Josh Martin) Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:40:24 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] New LPW Message-ID: <8800-22003251454024494@newwavebriefs.com> That time again, a new edition of Low Point Win. Click: http://www.newwavebriefs.com/lowpointwin/lpw.html ************************************************* Thanks to all the people who sent stuff. Don't get disappointed if it isn't used -- we save all that stuff for a rainy day. Submitters rule. I'm looking at you Ken D. This edition took a long time to get out, largely because of computer trouble transfering up all the damn pictures from the Chico Tournament. GL at districts, etc...Have a good week! Josh Martin From Steph293 Fri Feb 14 00:11:14 2003 From: Steph293 (Steph293 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 01:11:14 EST Subject: [eDebate] JV Nationals at JCCC Message-ID: <97.341ffec0.2b7de282@aol.com> Has the invitation to JV Nationals been posted? Thanks, Stephanie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030214/d005cebc/attachment.htm From mhaga3zg Fri Feb 14 00:07:15 2003 From: mhaga3zg (michael l. hagan) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 01:07:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CALL FOR DEBATERS BLOC AT ANTI WAR PROTESTS THIS WEEKEND Message-ID: <1045202835.cdc5cb60mhaga3zg@mwc.edu> Right, I agree, educate people, let them sift through the information themselves, but my argument is that protests where people just walk around and chant, doesn't do anything. The problem many times is that people think of dissent as going out and protesting but there are better ways to dissent in government. You all know that you have a much better chance, dissenting from within the government, to prevent a war on Iraq. -----Original Message----- From: Jimbo To: edebate at ndtceda.com Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 22:53:37 -0500 Subject: Re: [eDebate] CALL FOR DEBATERS BLOC AT ANTI WAR PROTESTS THIS WEEKEND A few thoughts on this reply: "Okay, go ahead and protest, I won't stop you. But you should know a few things first before you do. First, that you put American soldier's lives in danger abroad and home. Those soldier's need the support of their homeland, they didn't choose to make this decision to go over, don't make them pay for being patriotic Americans." It would seem to me that the best way to prevent American soldiers from danger would be to avoid placing them in a hostile situation. I fail to see how one's desire to voice their dissent with the status-quo is a greater catalyst for danger to troops than a war is. If safety of troops is such an issue then let's bring them home. And on the issue of patriots, since when does active participation in a war make one patriotic? One who is inspired by love for his country is patriotic. Not all those that join up with the military are necessarily motivated by a love for their country. By the same token, there are those in the military who have a love for their country - but this shouldn't be misconstrued to mean that they approve of everything their government does. You'll find that there are many people out there who are patriotic but don't necessarily agree with the policies their government acts from many different walks of life. Patriot does not mean military, and it does not mean blind faith in the ruling class. Painting the picture of patriotism using a military issued paintbrush only lessens the meaning of the word to "those who follow orders and do not offer dissent." "Second, you're just banding together with people who have no idea what they are protesting. I doubt very much that the average American really hears the whole story from the liberal media (this is not to say that there isn't conservative media, there is) or that those same Americans have tried to learn more about this issue than is being spoonfed to them." Isn't this even more of a reason to attempt to open up a dialogue with these people? If your argument is that Joe America doesn't know the whole story then wouldn't it be beneficial to engage these people and discuss the issue? It's clear to me that the "call to arms" portion of the debatista e-mail is satirical, but it would be better to use the debate skills we have and engage those who don't know as much about the status-quo instead of declaring that the uninformed public can be the only public. I'm curious to know what major media sources you would consider to be liberal. The accusation that average Americans haven't tried to learn more about the issue doesn't hold water for me either. Learning does not necessarily have to come from classes, books, libraries and research. Many people are happy and eager to learn from others through discourse if you bother to engage them on the issue. Some of the best education I've ever received has come from conversations and rounds and I have often been motivated to learn more in the conventional sense that you suggest about the issues that I am exposed to as a result of discourse. "Third, you know damn well that there are better and more effective ways to dissent from the policies of this nation than participating in a mob. Do you really think that the police or other protesters are going to care about what you think about the discursive impacts of their actions...do you think they even know what the hell discursive means? Come on, I'm not saying don't dissent, dissent, but dissent responsibly and effectively." What exactly is a responsible and effective form of dissent? I don't think anyone is seriously advocating that one rush to a protest to give nine minute speeches about empire to police or explain to anti-globalization protesters that although their opinions about the war are appreciated all other agendas they fight for are extra-topical. If there is a serious call to arms in this e-mail it's a call to arm yourself with knowledge and offer it to anyone who is willing to have a discussion with you. If we fail to take what we learn in our activity and use it as a tool to better the world around us then the activity merely becomes a selfish sport. Educate, liberate, celebrate. Jimbo _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From nedludd Fri Feb 14 01:57:00 2003 From: nedludd (debatistas por la humanidad) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 07:57:00 GMT Subject: [eDebate] CALL FOR DEBATERS BLOC AT ANTI WAR PROTESTS THIS WEEKEND Message-ID: <3e4ca14c.1fed.1804289383@subdimension.com> > Right, I agree, educate people, let them sift through the > information themselves, but my argument is that protests > where people just walk around and chant, doesn't do > anything. > The problem many times is that people think of dissent as > going out and protesting but there are better ways to > dissent in government. You all know that you have a much > better chance, dissenting from within the government, to > prevent a war on Iraq. Why are they competitive? and Whats the Disad to protesting? > -----Original Message----- > From: Jimbo > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 22:53:37 -0500 > Subject: Re: [eDebate] CALL FOR DEBATERS BLOC AT ANTI WAR > PROTESTS THIS WEEKEND > A few thoughts on this reply: > > "Okay, go ahead and protest, I won't stop you. But you > should know a few things first before you do. First, that > you put American soldier's lives in danger abroad and > home. Those soldier's need the support of their homeland, > they didn't choose to make this decision to go over, don't > make them pay for being patriotic Americans." > > It would seem to me that the best way to prevent American > soldiers from danger would be to avoid placing them in a > hostile situation. I fail to see how one's desire to > voice their dissent with the status-quo is a greater > catalyst for danger to troops than a war is. If safety of > troops is such an issue then let's bring them home. > > And on the issue of patriots, since when does active > participation in a war make one patriotic? One who is > inspired by love for his country is patriotic. Not all > those that join up with the military are necessarily > motivated by a love for their country. By the same token, > there are those in the military who have a love for their > country - but this shouldn't be misconstrued to mean that > they approve of everything their government does. You'll > find that there are many people out there who are > patriotic but don't necessarily agree with the policies > their government acts from many different walks of life. > Patriot does not mean military, and it does not mean > blind faith in the ruling class. Painting the picture of > patriotism using a military issued paintbrush only lessens > the meaning of the word to "those who follow orders and > do not offer dissent." > "Second, you're just banding together with people who have > no idea what they are protesting. I doubt very much that > the average American really hears the whole story from > the liberal media (this is not to say that there isn't > conservative media, there is) or that those same Americans > have tried to learn more about this issue than is being > spoonfed to them." > Isn't this even more of a reason to attempt to open up a > dialogue with these people? If your argument is that Joe > America doesn't know the whole story then wouldn't it be > beneficial to engage these people and discuss the issue? > It's clear to me that the "call to arms" portion of the > debatista e-mail is satirical, but it would be better to > use the debate skills we have and engage those who don't > know as much about the status-quo instead of declaring > that the uninformed public can be the only public. I'm > curious to know what major media sources you would > consider to be liberal. The accusation that average > Americans haven't tried to learn more about the issue > doesn't hold water for me either. Learning does not > necessarily have to come from classes, books, libraries > and research. Many people are happy and eager to learn > from others through discourse if you bother to engage > them on the issue. Some of the best education I've ever > received has come from conversations and rounds and I have > often been motivated to learn more in the conventional > sense that you suggest about the issues that I am exposed > to as a result of discourse. > "Third, you know damn well that there are better and more > effective ways to dissent from the policies of this > nation than participating in a mob. Do you really think > that the police or other protesters are going to care > about what you think about the discursive impacts of their > actions...do you think they even know what the hell > discursive means? Come on, I'm not saying don't dissent, > dissent, but dissent responsibly and effectively." > > What exactly is a responsible and effective form of > dissent? I don't think anyone is seriously advocating > that one rush to a protest to give nine minute speeches > about empire to police or explain to anti-globalization > protesters that although their opinions about the war are > appreciated all other agendas they fight for are > extra-topical. If there is a serious call to arms in > this e-mail it's a call to arm yourself with knowledge and > offer it to anyone who is willing to have a discussion > with you. If we fail to take what we learn in our > activity and use it as a tool to better the world around > us then the activity merely becomes a selfish sport. > Educate, liberate, celebrate. > > Jimbo > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _____________________________________________________________________ // free anonymous email || forums \\ subZINE || anonymous browsing subDIMENSION -- http://www.subdimension.com From sstopp Fri Feb 14 03:01:01 2003 From: sstopp (Sarah Suzanne Topp) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 03:01:01 -0600 (CST) Subject: [eDebate] In Need of Judging at CEDA Message-ID: Nicole and I are planning on attending CEDA this year. We need to hire a judge or several judges to fulfill our commitment. Even if you just have one round to spare, we would love to hire you. We will obviously pay...we may even negotiate for the amount :). Please contact me soon, Sarah Suzanne Topp Concordia College Moorhead, MN 56562 218.287.0171 `~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~ Dreams cannot come true if you over sleep. ~Thought-a-day calendar in Fred's bathroom. ~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~` From mhaga3zg Fri Feb 14 07:15:52 2003 From: mhaga3zg (michael l. hagan) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:15:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Re: hi Message-ID: <1045228552.cc7af6e0mhaga3zg@mwc.edu> Well, your first problem is that you advocate terrorism. But, I'm going to stop my kneejerk reaction of turning you into the Feds, because I'm hoping that you don't actually become a terrorist, or support them with monetary funds or other manners of assistance. And why can't you people make a difference between dissenting irresponsibly (i.e. protesting, participating in mobs and riots) versus dissenting responsibly (i.e. writing letters to your congressman or woman, joining a political action committee, running for office yourself, meeting with your legislative representative, writing papers for think tanks, argue a court case against the legality of the war, and a whole host of other ways.). I think history has shown that the most successful and respectful dissension has occurred from within. Also, I'm not sure how you advocate terrorism at the same time as being genuinely concerned for American soldiers lives. It's my belief, and the belief of many Americans who might actually be against the war as well, that these two things are mutually exclusive. I know I don't have a wits chance of changing your opinion here, but what the hey? -----Original Message----- From: "Kevin Sanchez" To: mhaga3zg at mwc.edu Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 02:57:02 -0600 Subject: hi so you encourage dissent but then say that dissent doesn't do anything? how exactly does one 'dissent from within the government'? there's already senators and congresspersons against the impending war, but they still had to have massive campaign contributions to get there. there's already munipalities which have passed resolutions for the anti-war cause - they also seem to have no effect. see, i advocate terrorism because all your piecemeal solutions don't work. and make no mistake - if American soliders die in this war, their blood is on the hands of those who sent them there, not the people who are struggling to keep them home safe with their families. .k _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From Spewer77 Fri Feb 14 07:27:11 2003 From: Spewer77 (Spewer77 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 08:27:11 EST Subject: [eDebate] NDT Judge for Hire Message-ID: <19a.10acee38.2b7e48af@aol.com> I'm available to judge a full committment at the NDT. I'm looking for someone who will also be willing to cover my transportation costs, etc. Please email me if you are interested to discuss this further. Thanks Rachel Saloom From helwich Fri Feb 14 11:25:07 2003 From: helwich (helwich at macalester.edu) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:25:07 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Heart swing partner sought Message-ID: <1045243507.3e4d26731bba6@hearst.cc.macalester.edu> Greetings, Macalester has a JV-eligible debater who would like to debate at the Heart of America tournament next weekend. She is also willing to debate in the varsity division. If you are in a similar situation, please backchannel. dch mac From dbteam Fri Feb 14 10:23:19 2003 From: dbteam (dbteam) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:23:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Glen Frappier please Message-ID: <3E27242A@cliff.westga.edu> yo Frap, hester here. please email me at mhester at westga.edu From let_the_american_empire_burn Fri Feb 14 11:06:00 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 11:06:00 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Re: hi Message-ID: well, technically, you advocate terrorism too; you just prefer the imperial variety - cuz i don't know what you think ariel bombardment entails, but the dropping of stupendous explosive tonage on a country with a tyrant known to use his civilians as 'humyn shields' is going to kill many more innocent people than were killed on 9/11. now i know what you'll say - that's all Saddam's fault, right? but then you can't indict al-Qaeda warriors for hitting economic and/or military targets, now can you? after all, bin Laden's group only wants the removal of USA military bases/troops from the Middle East, the lifting of sanctions, and a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestine conflict (meaning the stopping of Israel's encroaching settlements). so just as Saddam's failure to disarm means that any civilian deaths are on his hands, so to Dubya's failure to meet al-Qaeda's demands means that any civilian deaths are on his hands, right? no the difference is that al-Qaeda warriors are willing to kill and *die*, while the only reason that the best conventional military in the world engages in the indiscriminate slaughter of civilians is because they're unwilling to sacrifice themselves for a cause they (supposedly) believe to be just. the distinction is courage versus cowardice. now, i know that i am publicly supporting what you call terrorism here - i'm not sure that's technically illegal, but if you want to turn me into the Feds, you should do your citizen's duty. as for dissent, i don't think protest or writing letters to congresspeople does shit. 'argue a court case against the legality of the war'? hehe. so your realistic and responsible alternative is to waste a decade on spirit-numbing skooling in preparation for the legal career track, and then another decade or more going through the court system, only to find myself arguing before a Supreme Court chalk-full of conservative Justices who would laugh in my face, if they even heard grant me cert. for the record, there's only been one justice in the history of the Couurt which has declared a war illegal: it was Justice Douglas in the 'burning draft cards' case during the Vietnam war (... and needless to say he was the lone squirrel on that one). i don't know what history books you're reading, but dissent has never been very successful in this country, but when it has, it always came from what you'd call outside forces - what office did Martin Luther King, Jr. hold again? what law did John Brown write his congress-man about? and Harriet Tubman argued what case before the Court? the most effective dissent happened when people were willing to risk humiliation and jail-time for what they believed in, but i wholeheartedly agree with you that, in the here and now, such dissent is naive. like many people say of Saddam (including bin Laden himself, when he offered to force Saddam's withdrawal from Kuwait with 5,000 mujahadeen), rogue hegemons like this one only understand violence and destruction. .k _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From gundlachdean Fri Feb 14 13:36:57 2003 From: gundlachdean (Dean Gundlach) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 12:36:57 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Congrats coaches...Stannard, Stapleton, Porter Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030214/67f43f4c/attachment.html From scottaherndon Fri Feb 14 13:37:14 2003 From: scottaherndon (Scott Herndon) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:37:14 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Fort Hays RR Message-ID: Could one of you please backchannel me, I have a cite request. Thanks. Scott Herndon UTD _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From scottaherndon Fri Feb 14 13:38:14 2003 From: scottaherndon (Scott Herndon) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:38:14 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Mr. Kormack from Kansas Please Message-ID: Couyld you drop me a line please, I would like to get some cites from you ASAP. Thank you, Scott Herndon UTD _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From KSchriver Fri Feb 14 15:42:29 2003 From: KSchriver (Schriver, Kristina) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 13:42:29 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Jeremy Hutchins--please respond Message-ID: <081C0D986938494A97DE9D50AB7D034F3920D2@ESCHE.csuchico.edu> Back channel me about NCA 2003. From delliott Fri Feb 14 16:03:06 2003 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 16:03:06 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] PR Panel at NCA Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030214160306.00ca0d30@kckcc.toto.net> I am trying to get this panel put together for NCA. Deadline is tomorrow. If you are interested you must go to www.natcom.org and sign up for a PIN. I must have this PIN number and your intent to participate by 5pm tomorrow (Saturday the 15th). That way I will know who for sure wants to participate and I can get your PIN numbers entered by the deadline tomorrow night. So go sign up, email your PIN to two places. This email address AND elliottdarren at hotmail.com as a double check. People who are interested that Ive heard from but no PIN yet are: Chuck Walts--SIU Nathan Kets--Rochester Eric Morris--KU Stephen Koch--Capital Thanks so much, Chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate Kansas City Kansas Community College From Spewer77 Fri Feb 14 16:29:02 2003 From: Spewer77 (Spewer77 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 17:29:02 EST Subject: [eDebate] No longer for hire-NDT judging Message-ID: <6e.2a6f917f.2b7ec7ae@aol.com> Many thanks to all of those who responded, but I have now been hired and am no longer available. Rachel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030214/2fafa1a4/attachment.htm From mavolpe Fri Feb 14 17:11:47 2003 From: mavolpe (megan volpert) Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 17:11:47 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] NEED JUDGING AT CEDA? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1045264307.3e4d77b38584b@webmail2.ilstu.edu> hey folks. i'm willing to sell my full round commitment for ceda nats to the first team willing to provide (a) cost of plane ticket from chicago to arizona, (b) hotel room to crash in, and (c) some cash for food during the tournament. no actual judging fee per round required, and i'll even throw in some free coaching on wacky critical and cheapshot argumentation upon request. i'll do anything to keep from losing money to go to the tournament--i just want to see a bunch of friends i haven't seen in ages. backchannel me if yer interested. :-) ~megan volpert unindiced co-conspirator formerly debate at illinois state ------------------------------------ ART IS WHY I GET UP IN THE MORNING. ------------------------------------ ~ani difranco ------------------------------------------------------------ Illinois State University Webmail https://webmail2.ilstu.edu From phallusjerkins Sat Feb 15 02:46:57 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 03:46:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] bush admin faces defeat on iraq Message-ID: the first time around following the so-called "liberation" of Afghanistan from the CIA-installed Taliban, Bush swore that he could convince important international players that Saddam Hussein had connections to Al-Qaeda gaining their support for a military usurpation of iraq's leader. One year ago, the bush admininstration failed miserably in their first attempt to penetrate iraq and annex their oil. At the end of last year, Bush again told the American people that he had the case to convince the right players to include a "trigger mechanism" in the new UN resolution governing the situation in iraq. Again, Bush could not make the case and the world rallied behind a saner French nation and deliberately the resolution was left vague with the idea that Iraq would "face serious consequences" for its failure to comply. The Bush administration was not able to do what it said it could do and again backpedalled into its so far completely ineffective and hardly intimidating "unilateral ultimatums". all of the key players are holding their ground and the rest of the little guys are ditching the coalition of the willing to stand behind france. as of today, the coalition of the willing is dead. http://www.msnbc.com/news/873097.asp colin powell is searching for plan B and unlike duane and other idiots in fantasyland admitting that international opposition is so strong that the US has to wait and see about war. there will no war in february. HA HA HA. WAR FUCKERS -- YOU LOST!!! AGAIN -- THIRD TIME. NIX NIX NIX. face the music, your leaders are now. it's getting awfully hot in iraq. those 175lb CBW suits are going to have to at least wait six months before deployment is again even thinkable. again, the bush administration has been embarassed demonstrating their own peculiar, idiosyncratic inability to communicate with foreign governments and throwing temper tantrums when they don't get their way. sunk the economy and can't even get his one pet project off the ground because it is so unsound. what an incompetent forgettable and utterly shitty president. tomorrow, the people of the world will oppose the war by the millions... _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From phallusjerkins Sat Feb 15 03:04:48 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 04:04:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ain't happenin: hawks in shock -- HA HA HA Message-ID: _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From nedludd Sat Feb 15 11:53:06 2003 From: nedludd (debatistas por la humanidad) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 17:53:06 GMT Subject: [eDebate] NY INDYMEDIA IS TOO SWAMMPED-PLEASE PASS THE INFO ON Message-ID: <3e4e7e82.32cd.1804289383@subdimension.com> 12:45 PM Feb 15 As marchers and demonstaters are converging on new york city several updates will be posted here. Please call the NY Independent media center at 212-684-8058 and provide the following message to whome ever answers. Reports from 3rd avenue and 51st street indicate that police have given up on trying to keep marchers penned into the side walks, at this point the police are not even anywhwere to be seen the streets have been reclaimed and people need to know that the marchers in front of them have been allowed to take the streets. please if you are home today poass this report on. More to come debatistas agasinst war _____________________________________________________________________ // free anonymous email || forums \\ subZINE || anonymous browsing subDIMENSION -- http://www.subdimension.com From atomdebate Sat Feb 15 13:55:18 2003 From: atomdebate (Adam Adkisson) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 13:55:18 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] puget sound deabte cites pls Message-ID: hey this is uco debate and we were wondering if you could pls send full cites of the space disad and especially indonesia federalism disad thanx atom uco debate _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From elliottdarren Sat Feb 15 16:03:51 2003 From: elliottdarren (DARREN ELLIOTT) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 16:03:51 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Ken D, Stephen Koch, Nathan K Message-ID: I need all of you to get back to me with a PIN number for the NCA website if you are wanting to be on the PR Panel Discussion still. Deadline is this evening. Go to www.natcom.org and register. Then send me your PIN number to this email address. The Panel is shaping up nicely. Current members are: Myself, KCKCC Jeremy Hutchins, JCCC Kevin Johnson, UT Chuck Walts, SIU Get back to me by tonight with a PIN if you want to be on the panel. Thanks, Chief _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From aogletree Sat Feb 15 16:31:51 2003 From: aogletree (Aaron Ogletree) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 22:31:51 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] THE WAR BEHIND THE WAR Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030215/4f520989/attachment.html From phallusjerkins Sat Feb 15 16:41:53 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 17:41:53 -0500 Subject: Fwd: Re: [eDebate] bush admin faces defeat on iraq Message-ID: another one of those backchannel predictions that keeps pushing the date back. another fantasyland military fucker who doesn't get dick cheney's nightmare that colin powell precipitated when he convinced the now internationally embarassed president that the way to go on iraq was to make the case to the international community and build a coalition. this is fundamentally opposed to the new conservative, right-wing strategy of "slipstream" which chooses to bypasss international support deeming its irrelevance in quick and speedy victories. why should we believe your dumb ass that war is inevitable when your boyz keep telling us that they have "good evidence" to convince the world that military force is necessary and instead they come up with totally crappy homemade "undoctored" videos that are completely uncompelling? i mean in front of the world they made a joke of our nation. yesterday, not one nation was convinced of the videos -- Powell's big last minute smoking gun routine was a farce. maybe the conservative assholes who refuse to dialogue with the world need to take a debate class and learn something about "evidentiary standards of proof" because more and more they seem "weak in the rhetoric department"....bush may not be afraid to talk to the press like when he started but it doesn't really when >From: Martlno4 at aol.com >To: phallusjerkins at hotmail.com >Subject: Re: [eDebate] bush admin faces defeat on iraq >Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 09:48:31 EST > >War is coming my friend. It is just and moral. Expect it around March >3-6th. > > > >NM _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From phallusjerkins Sat Feb 15 16:44:13 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 17:44:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] FUCK THE WAR!!! Message-ID: _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From Redrosestar Sat Feb 15 16:48:16 2003 From: Redrosestar (Redrosestar at aol.com) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 17:48:16 EST Subject: [eDebate] yes Message-ID: <175.167de575.2b801db0@aol.com> Damn,,,,thats alot of fucking.... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030215/0d1e4f4a/attachment.htm From phallusjerkins Sat Feb 15 16:54:42 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 17:54:42 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] why do army/ navy suck @ dabait? Message-ID: because they believe that shit like Powell presented in front of the UN -- high tech satellite photos previously unverified by anyone and sketchy audio recordings --- or how bout that great Osama video they found in Afghanistan -- army and navy count that as evidence and in front of professional dabait experts they just don't get it when the judges require actual evidence to support a case to kill innocent civilians...they are shocked like when the cops are baffled by DA infringements on their procedures...have they ever once got a first-round bid to the NDT? in the last 30 years post the loss in Vietnam? _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From ruth_beerwoman Sat Feb 15 17:26:48 2003 From: ruth_beerwoman (ruth beerman) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:26:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] why do army/ navy suck @ dabait? Message-ID: This from the person who attacks the concept of a first round/debate system? Gimme a break!! Lots of people don't get first rounds and are good debaters... no need to call out Army/Navy. RUTH -- On Sat, 15 Feb 2003 17:54:42 Phallus Jerkins wrote: >because they believe that shit like Powell presented in front of the UN -- >high tech satellite photos previously unverified by anyone and sketchy audio >recordings --- or how bout that great Osama video they found in Afghanistan >-- army and navy count that as evidence and in front of professional dabait >experts they just don't get it when the judges require actual evidence to >support a case to kill innocent civilians...they are shocked like when the >cops are baffled by DA infringements on their procedures...have they ever >once got a first-round bid to the NDT? in the last 30 years post the loss >in Vietnam? > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > _____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB, POP3, Spam Filtering with LYCOS MAIL PLUS for $19.95/year. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus&ref=lmtplus From dig Sat Feb 15 17:32:25 2003 From: dig (Andy Ellis) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:32:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ede warner please Message-ID: <200302152332.h1FNWPU16338@fiat.cross-x.com> hello please backchannel me about nca questions Andy Marist -- Debate Information Group http://dig.ndtceda.com/ From lisakanak Sat Feb 15 17:24:30 2003 From: lisakanak (Lisa Kanak) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 18:24:30 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] why do army/ navy suck @ dabait? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Okay, now this is the worst bit of ignorance I have read yet. You obviously have no idea what Army/Navy/AirForce cadets & mids have in their schedules. And I doubt most people on this list could hack a week as a cadet or mid - or what most of them really think or believe. Days routinely begin at 6am - the core curriculum required of our academy personnel would have most people flunking out of college - the co-curricular activities mandated would diminish any person's ability to be competitive in debate - academy debaters are routinely marginalized, their efforts to compete hampered by mindless *required* activities like making up "rah-rah" posters for their halls. Their budgets are smaller than some high school debate teams. When faced with additional marginalization and denigration from debate peers like you, it is a wonder that they care to compete at all. Instead of railing on them for being so "unsuccessful" at debate in your estimation, you should be grateful that some members of the military are actually learning to think for themselves - instead of being the deaf, dumb, and blind individuals of the general public. You obviously have no respect for the people who put their lives on the line for you to have the right to say this sort of bull. Whether or not you agree with the Administration's policies - these men and women don't deserve this kind of treatment. I suppose you were cheering while our people got slaughtered in Somalia - and we were there, as peacekeepers trying to help distribute food, not warmongers. If your loathsome, riotous, ignorant post is any depiction of the depth of college debate argumentation, the future of academic debate has more to worry about than speed, philosophy, and the lack of tabula rosa judging. Lisa Kanak -----Original Message----- From: edebate-admin at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-admin at ndtceda.com]On Behalf Of Phallus Jerkins Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 5:55 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] why do army/ navy suck @ dabait? because they believe that shit like Powell presented in front of the UN -- high tech satellite photos previously unverified by anyone and sketchy audio recordings --- or how bout that great Osama video they found in Afghanistan -- army and navy count that as evidence and in front of professional dabait experts they just don't get it when the judges require actual evidence to support a case to kill innocent civilians...they are shocked like when the cops are baffled by DA infringements on their procedures...have they ever once got a first-round bid to the NDT? in the last 30 years post the loss in Vietnam? _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From kendog_3 Sat Feb 15 18:23:39 2003 From: kendog_3 (kenny hanson) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 19:23:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] why do army/ navy suck @ dabait? Message-ID: You really have no idea what you are talking about. When was the last time you actually watched Army or Navy debate? My guess is that it has been a while since you seem to spend most of your time posting on here. Last week I watched a pretty solid Navy team go 6-0 in Open. If you define debate success on if they have gotten a first round lately then you clearly have no idea what debate means to them. Your comments obviously show your elitism that you claim you reject. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lisa Kanak Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 6:36 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: RE: [eDebate] why do army/ navy suck @ dabait? Okay, now this is the worst bit of ignorance I have read yet. You obviously have no idea what Army/Navy/AirForce cadets & mids have in their schedules. And I doubt most people on this list could hack a week as a cadet or mid - or what most of them really think or believe. Days routinely begin at 6am - the core curriculum required of our academy personnel would have most people flunking out of college - the co-curricular activities mandated would diminish any person's ability to be competitive in debate - academy debaters are routinely marginalized, their efforts to compete hampered by mindless *required* activities like making up "rah-rah" posters for their halls. Their budgets are smaller than some high school debate teams. When faced with additional marginalization and denigration from debate peers like you, it is a wonder that they care to compete at all. Instead of railing on them for being so "unsuccessful" at debate in your estimation, you should be grateful that some members of the military are actually learning to think for themselves - instead of being the deaf, dumb, and blind individuals of the general public. You obviously have no respect for the people who put their lives on the line for you to have the right to say this sort of bull. Whether or not you agree with the Administration's policies - these men and women don't deserve this kind of treatment. I suppose you were cheering while our people got slaughtered in Somalia - and we were there, as peacekeepers trying to help distribute food, not warmongers. If your loathsome, riotous, ignorant post is any depiction of the depth of college debate argumentation, the future of academic debate has more to worry about than speed, philosophy, and the lack of tabula rosa judging. Lisa Kanak -----Original Message----- From: edebate-admin at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-admin at ndtceda.com]On Behalf Of Phallus Jerkins Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 5:55 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] why do army/ navy suck @ dabait? because they believe that shit like Powell presented in front of the UN -- high tech satellite photos previously unverified by anyone and sketchy audio recordings --- or how bout that great Osama video they found in Afghanistan -- army and navy count that as evidence and in front of professional dabait experts they just don't get it when the judges require actual evidence to support a case to kill innocent civilians...they are shocked like when the cops are baffled by DA infringements on their procedures...have they ever once got a first-round bid to the NDT? in the last 30 years post the loss in Vietnam? _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _______________________________________________ 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/edebateGet 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/20030215/e3f864ba/attachment.html From ncron6bx Sat Feb 15 18:26:52 2003 From: ncron6bx (nora m. cronin) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 19:26:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Re: Re: Super-Secret District Strat Message-ID: <1045355212.c1d917e0ncron6bx@mwc.edu> Carly and John-check this email from Clint for your assignment-see you guys tomorrow. -----Original Message----- From: clinton j. woods To: ncron6bx at mwc.edu, edebate at ndtceda.com Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 19:18:17 -0500 Subject: Re: Super-Secret District Strat Croner- don't worry- we've got all the sweet new strategies for districts covered- Genocidal Hermeneutics(Nagy) Presuppositionist Phallacy(Carly) Desire(you) Ontic Disposition(me) As long as everyone turns them into me, Tim "magic pants" o'donnell will never know. And don't forget- after the practice debates on Wednesday, we'll have personal advocacy time- from 6 to 9- with an hour for mass mailing and letterwriting and a short break to question our epistemology. take it easy. c woods -----Original Message----- From: nora m. cronin To: cwood3hj at mwc.edu Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 19:12:26 -0500 Subject: Super-Secret District Strat Clint-what was up with that practice debate? We need get Tim out of the 80s (both argumentatively and fashion wise) Don't worry-we'll rock out at districts with those new args. See you at dinner tonight. NC From lisakanak Sat Feb 15 18:32:23 2003 From: lisakanak (Lisa Kanak) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 19:32:23 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] why do army/ navy suck @ dabait? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: What? I never said they couldn?t debate ? I COACHED NAVY for 6 years as a volunteer with Professor Warken, for God?s sake ? and took more than one team to the NDT, routinely won novice tournaments and remained competitive at JV and Varsity in district 7, went 4-4 at the NDT (a major accomplishment, under the circumstances ? especially considering my debaters started debating in college), had NO BUDGET, took tons of crapola from the commandant (yes, debate is important, that?s why we?re cutting your budget again). The Naval Academy?s very own people told friends and family members calling to donate to the debate team that they COULDN?T. Wondered why the heck I bothered when my debaters couldn?t come to practice because they had to go make posters, or go WATCH a freaking intra-mural sport. Or complained because I didn?t cut tons of cards like other coaches did ? oh yeah, that?s right, I had a full-time job and was a volunteer coach, who lived 2 hours away, and spent my weekends/vacation time crashing on a couch somewhere. Watched good debater after good debater quit because they had too many conflicts with debate, or were tired of putting up with the kind of stuff like Jerkins puts out ? of course there were a few who stuck it out, but hardly the numbers most other programs get to keep. Yes, it?s been awhile since I?ve seen anyone of any caliber debate ? but from my understanding of the Academies, the kind of stuff that went on at Navy is still going on ? and reduces their competitiveness. I *know* these guys are good -- just imagine how much more successful they could be, if they had the same ?advantages? other programs have. Lisa Kanak 540-752-1935 -----Original Message----- From: kenny hanson [mailto:kendog_3 at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 7:24 PM To: lisakanak at adelphia.net; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] why do army/ navy suck @ dabait? You really have no idea what you are talking about. When was the last time you actually watched Army or Navy debate? My guess is that it has been a while since you seem to spend most of your time posting on here. Last week I watched a pretty solid Navy team go 6-0 in Open. If you define debate success on if they have gotten a first round lately then you clearly have no idea what debate means to them. Your comments obviously show your elitism that you claim you reject. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lisa Kanak Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 6:36 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: RE: [eDebate] why do army/ navy suck @ dabait? Okay, now this is the worst bit of ignorance I have read yet. You obviously have no idea what Army/Navy/AirForce cadets & mids have in their schedules. And I doubt most people on this list could hack a week as a cadet or mid - or what most of them really think or believe. Days routinely begin at 6am - the core curriculum required of our academy personnel would have most people flunking out of college - the co-curricular activities mandated would diminish any person's ability to be competitive in debate - academy debaters are routinely marginalized, their efforts to compete hampered by mindless *required* activities like making up "rah-rah" posters for their halls. Their budgets are smaller than some high school debate teams. When faced with additional marginalization and denigration from debate peers like you, it is a wonder that they care to compete at all. Instead of railing on them for being so "unsuccessful" at debate in your estimation, you should be grateful that some members of the military are actually learning to think for themselves - instead of being the deaf, dumb, and blind individuals of the general public. You obviously have no respect for the people who put their lives on the line for you to have the right to say this sort of bull. Whether or not you agree with the Administration's policies - these men and women don't deserve this kind of treatment. I suppose you were cheering while our people got slaughtered in Somalia - and we were there, as peacekeepers trying to help distribute food, not warmongers. If your loathsome, riotous, ignorant post is any depiction of the depth of college debate argumentation, the future of academic debate has more to worry about than speed, philosophy, and the lack of tabula rosa judging. Lisa Kanak -----Original Message----- From: edebate-admin at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-admin at ndtceda.com]On Behalf Of Phallus Jerkins Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 5:55 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] why do army/ navy suck @ dabait? because they believe that shit like Powell presented in front of the UN -- high tech satellite photos previously unverified by anyone and sketchy audio recordings --- or how bout that great Osama video they found in Afghanistan -- army and navy count that as evidence and in front of professional dabait experts they just don't get it when the judges require actual evidence to support a case to kill innocent civilians...they are shocked like when the cops are baffled by DA infringements on their procedures...have they ever once got a first-round bid to the NDT? in the last 30 years post the loss in Vietnam? _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _______________________________________________ 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 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/20030215/c9393022/attachment.htm From kendog_3 Sat Feb 15 19:03:32 2003 From: kendog_3 (kenny hanson) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 20:03:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] why do army/ navy suck @ dabait? Message-ID: Lisa, Sorry> I thought you would pick up that I was talking to jerkins! ----- Original Message ----- From: Lisa Kanak Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 7:50 PM To: kenny hanson; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: RE: [eDebate] why do army/ navy suck @ dabait? --> What? I never said they couldn?t debate ? I COACHED NAVY for 6 years as a volunteer with Professor Warken, for God?s sake ? and took more than one team to the NDT, routinely won novice tournaments and remained competitive at JV and Varsity in district 7, went 4-4 at the NDT (a major accomplishment, under the circumstances ? especially considering my debaters started debating in college), had NO BUDGET, took tons of crapola from the commandant (yes, debate is important, that?s why we?re cutting your budget again). The Naval Academy?s very own people told friends and family members calling to donate to the debate team that they COULDN?T. Wondered why the heck I bothered when my debaters couldn?t come to practice because they had to go make posters, or go WATCH a freaking intra-mural sport. Or complained because I didn?t cut tons of cards like other coaches did ? oh yeah, that?s right, I had a full-time job and was a volunteer coach, who lived 2 hours away, and spent my weekends/vacation time crashing on a couch somewhere. Watched good debater after good debater quit because they had too many conflicts with debate, or were tired of putting up with the kind of stuff like Jerkins puts out ? of course there were a few who stuck it out, but hardly the numbers most other programs get to keep. Yes, it?s been awhile since I?ve seen anyone of any caliber debate ? but from my understanding of the Academies, the kind of stuff that went on at Navy is still going on ? and reduces their competitiveness. I *know* these guys are good -- just imagine how much more successful they could be, if they had the same ?advantages? other programs have. Lisa Kanak 540-752-1935 -----Original Message----- From: kenny hanson [mailto:kendog_3 at hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 7:24 PM To: lisakanak at adelphia.net; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] why do army/ navy suck @ dabait? You really have no idea what you are talking about. When was the last time you actually watched Army or Navy debate? My guess is that it has been a while since you seem to spend most of your time posting on here. Last week I watched a pretty solid Navy team go 6-0 in Open. If you define debate success on if they have gotten a first round lately then you clearly have no idea what debate means to them. Your comments obviously show your elitism that you claim you reject. ----- Original Message ----- From: Lisa Kanak Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 6:36 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: RE: [eDebate] why do army/ navy suck @ dabait? Okay, now this is the worst bit of ignorance I have read yet. You obviously have no idea what Army/Navy/AirForce cadets & mids have in their schedules. And I doubt most people on this list could hack a week as a cadet or mid - or what most of them really think or believe. Days routinely begin at 6am - the core curriculum required of our academy personnel would have most people flunking out of college - the co-curricular activities mandated would diminish any person's ability to be competitive in debate - academy debaters are routinely marginalized, their efforts to compete hampered by mindless *required* activities like making up "rah-rah" posters for their halls. Their budgets are smaller than some high school debate teams. When faced with additional marginalization and denigration from debate peers like you, it is a wonder that they care to compete at all. Instead of railing on them for being so "unsuccessful" at debate in your estimation, you should be grateful that some members of the military are actually learning to think for themselves - instead of being the deaf, dumb, and blind individuals of the general public. You obviously have no respect for the people who put their lives on the line for you to have the right to say this sort of bull. Whether or not you agree with the Administration's policies - these men and women don't deserve this kind of treatment. I suppose you were cheering while our people got slaughtered in Somalia - and we were there, as peacekeepers trying to help distribute food, not warmongers. If your loathsome, riotous, ignorant post is any depiction of the depth of college debate argumentation, the future of academic debate has more to worry about than speed, philosophy, and the lack of tabula rosa judging. Lisa Kanak -----Original Message----- From: edebate-admin at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-admin at ndtceda.com]On Behalf Of Phallus Jerkins Sent: Saturday, February 15, 2003 5:55 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] why do army/ navy suck @ dabait? because they believe that shit like Powell presented in front of the UN -- high tech satellite photos previously unverified by anyone and sketchy audio recordings --- or how bout that great Osama video they found in Afghanistan -- army and navy count that as evidence and in front of professional dabait experts they just don't get it when the judges require actual evidence to support a case to kill innocent civilians...they are shocked like when the cops are baffled by DA infringements on their procedures...have they ever once got a first-round bid to the NDT? in the last 30 years post the loss in Vietnam? _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _______________________________________________ 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 more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.comGet 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/20030215/24a74760/attachment.html From delliott Sat Feb 15 21:14:32 2003 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 21:14:32 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Help contacting Eric Morris ASAP Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030215211432.00cb8e40@kckcc.toto.net> Anyone in Lawrence or anywhere else for that matter who cna be of asistance. I need to speak with Ermo ASAP tonight. If you can put us together he can call my cell 316-214-9502 Important I reach him tonight! Thanks, Chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate Kansas City Kansas Community College From delliott Sat Feb 15 21:42:08 2003 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 21:42:08 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Help contacting Eric Morris ASAP In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.20030215211432.00cb8e40@kckcc.toto.net> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030215214208.00cdf998@kckcc.toto.net> Eric and I have spoken on the phone!! Thanks, Chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate Kansas City Kansas Community College At 09:14 PM 2/15/2003 -0600, you wrote: > >Anyone in Lawrence or anywhere else for that matter who cna be of asistance. > >I need to speak with Ermo ASAP tonight. > >If you can put us together he can call my cell 316-214-9502 > >Important I reach him tonight! > >Thanks, >Chief > >Darren Elliott >Director of Debate >Kansas City Kansas Community College > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > From dan.overbey Sat Feb 15 21:41:12 2003 From: dan.overbey (Daniel Overbey) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 22:41:12 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Debate and Service Academies Message-ID: <000a01c2d56d$41132340$64aa5b0c@gatewaysystem> ***The following reflects ONLY the opinion of Daniel Overbey, NOT the United States Naval Academy, or any other organization within the Department of Defense. I speak for myself, AND ONLY MYSELF.*** Bill Ferris Bobby Kennedy John Sharp Chris Castleman Todd Rupp Kenji Gjovig Shannon Callahan Matt Sullivan Adam Johnston Tim Johnson Mike Bruno Jo Schumacher Von Fernandez Stephanie Hurst Dan Schwartz Alisha Hamilton John Burger John Lushenko John Smith Tom Vomastic Tom Sauer Gavin Whittle Laine Cameron Ben Mattes Beau Portillo Jessica Barrientos John Kindel Quinci Martin Joe Schaffer James Leidenberg ADM Crowe COL Allan COL Inman LCDR Brad Taylor LCDR Joshua Segal LT Brian Fitzpatrick LT Bobby Kennedy (Yeah, he makes the list twice) Lisa Kanak (Lundquist) Phil Warken That list of people means NOTHING to most people. However, to me the significance of that list is not far below the Bible and the Pledge of Allegiance. Why? Those people gave or give MASSIVE amounts of their life to the USNA Debate Team. Most debaters will not recognize many people on that list. I however know most of them VERY well. Why? I have the privilege of coaching half of them and had the privilege of either competing against or judging the other half. The lower portions of the list are officers and faculty members who have made contributions to or supported the USNA Debate Team, including teaching me quite a bit about debate back in my competitive (barely) days. This list was off the top of my head and is far from inclusive. Why this list? Because I deleted my first reply. I was initially going to write and answer the question of "why we suck". Then I realized we don't. If you want to say we suck there are a lot of people out there who have lost to Navy recently who will be pretty insulted. There are also a BUNCH of teams below us on the NDT Rankings. NONE of those teams "SUCK" either. Why hasn't a service academy gotten a first round? How about this for an answer. As much as I may delude myself and tell people that debate is my students number one priority, I am not raising professional debaters. Few go straight to Law School/Grad School. I teach warriors. Yep, I admit it. I prepare people to think on their feet so that when they get to their first duty assignment and have to stand and deliver in front of people they command of senior officers they answer to they can give coherent answers in a public speaking setting. The goal of Navy Debate is to enhance the communications skills of junior officers. We win some debates, we learn about the topic, but in the end on graduation day my students get a commission and become officers in the United States Navy and the United States Marine Corps. To answer the specifics (BS though they are) of your post. I have debaters who think more critically about government than you could imagine. Why? Because you don't know jack about the education they receive or the training they undergo. They are not blind mice searching for cheese. We also have YET to argue "Invade Iraq Good" this year. Yeah, "Bush Good" is our normal politics link, but that is MY FAULT, not theirs. If you had ever seen my teams debate you would have some clue what we consider evidence and what we don't. We read more cards than some teams that have gotten first rounds. We read cards by EXPERTS in the field. We read cards from the same sources that every other team out there reads. Why are we different? We are different because our students (ALL of the service academies) are training for a job you do not have the courage to do. To paraphrase a great movie, "You post under the very blanket of freedom our military has secured for you and then question the way in which it has been accomplished." Frankly, I find you one of the lowest forms of life in debate. To criticize the efforts of people who work more hours in a day than most debaters work in a week is a load of garbage. My debaters work harder at moral, mental, and physical excellence than any other team out there, excepting our friends and colleagues at the other service academies. Most people can not begin to fathom the commitment to excellence that our Midshipmen and Cadets have. Our debaters simply do not have the option of skipping all their classes to cut cards about theory goo irrelevant to their daily lives. They have to be experts in several fields by graduation day. I have now coached at four schools, and have had the opportunity to coach many people that will be friends of mine and whom I will respect greatly until the day I inhale my last breath. However, the Midshipmen I coach at the United States Naval Academy have established, and will maintain, a special place in my heart. They are good people. They do not demand your respect, though they will earn it if you get to know them. They, however, will respect you from the beginning, until you have lost that respect. They will help other debaters in times of crisis. Their actions, both in uniform and out, are of the highest standard. They will listen when being spoken to. They will entertain the millions of silly questions about the military. They take 18-22 hours per semester of academic work that would cause most debaters to die. They have athletic and military obligations beyond that. And they still work their tails off for me. Additionally, I admire the officers and debaters at the United States Military Academy and the United States Air Force Academy as much as I do my own debaters. The officers of the USMA Debate team are of the VERY HIGHEST caliber, and their students are held to those exacting standards. I have as much respect for the USMA debate team as I have for any team out there. And beyond professional respect, I happen to like them all quite a bit, they too are good people. Speaking only for myself, I hope you feel better for insulting such a large group of good people. However, you have managed to solidify my feelings. I am VERY PROUD to be a part of USNA Debate. Daniel Overbey USNA Debate P.S. I can not believe I wrote a BOOK in reply to a one paragraph email that is grammatically on a 3rd grade level... P.P.S. Who the hell is Phallus Jerkins? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030215/9d8d1c85/attachment.htm From delliott Sat Feb 15 22:03:25 2003 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 22:03:25 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] PR Panel for NCA Submitted Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030215220325.00cd0da0@kckcc.toto.net> I've tracked down all the PIN numbers of those who said they were interested. Thanks to all of you for joining me in this effort. Looks like the Panel Discussion I have submitted will include the following from our community: Darren Elliott Kansas City Kansas Community College Chair Jeremy Hutchins Johnson County Community College Presenter Chuck Walts Southern Illinois University Presenter Stephen Koch Capital University Presenter Eric Morris University of Kansas Presenter Kevin Johnson University of Texas Austin Presenter Nathan Ketsdever Rochester University Presenter Ken DeLaughder Emporia State University Presenter A great group if you ask me!! Thanks again everyone. Chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate Kansas City Kansas Community College From miamidebate Sat Feb 15 21:59:09 2003 From: miamidebate (Miami Debate Team) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 19:59:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Berkley WiSh In-Reply-To: <8800-22003251454024494@newwavebriefs.com> Message-ID: <20030216035909.50126.qmail@web13801.mail.yahoo.com> Could one of y'all please get back to me at your convenience? Thank you very much. Lincoln Bisbee, Miami U '04 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030215/599eef1a/attachment.html From gedmem2 Sat Feb 15 22:00:28 2003 From: gedmem2 (elizabeth gedmark) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 23:00:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] mercer or MTSU Message-ID: <3E4F0CDC.9CAD4442@wfu.edu> Will someone from Mercer or MTSU please contact me Elizabeth Gedmark Wake Forest 06 From MIDNBRUNO Sat Feb 15 22:08:52 2003 From: MIDNBRUNO (MIDNBRUNO at aol.com) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 23:08:52 EST Subject: [eDebate] why do army/ navy suck @ dabait? Message-ID: <19d.10e47aaa.2b8068d4@aol.com> Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are not those of the Naval Academy Debate Team, the Navy, or any government agency. They are simply my personal views. Phallus, I am not as tactful as my personal friend and boss, Daniel Overbey. I will not dazzle you with a list of everything that is great about Navy Debate. I won't dazzle you with a list of all of the amazing and valuable, unique experiences I had at the Naval Academy. In my final few months as a member of the military, I will not defend the institution to you. Most importantly for this post, I will not defend my Naval Academy Debate Career to you. I competed as a Midshipman for four years, missing qualifying to the NDT on Speaker Points. I competed in the situation that Lisa describes, having to divide my attention amongst a number of different "responsibilities." I debated to the best of my ability, putting as many hours as I could put in between drill, my position in the Brigade and my responsibilities to my subordinates. I won't defend myself for any of this because I don't feel your opinions require a defense. For those of you that happen to have opinions about the evidence that Secretary of State Powell presented, I welcome your contributions to the debate on either side. I, however, would suggest any person JUST READ THE POST by Phallus Jerkins. If you feel that I need to dignify that with a response, I will go line by line. If you feel that the education (I don't even know who he is) that Phallus received has made him this articulate individual capable of critiquing my debate career, my life as a Midshipman and Naval Officer or the Naval Service, then I will respond as well. While I understand and have come to respect the opinions of many debaters (many of which I consider my friends), I do not necessarily agree with all of them. Some of my favorite moments in debate were after I ran Hegemony Bad (my favorite negative position) when, after rounds, we would engage in a few laughs about the irony. I consider my experiences in debate as a very valuable part of my life. I wish everyone the best of luck at their respective qualifiers, Michael Bruno Formerly of Navy Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030215/70354ac7/attachment.htm From delliott Sat Feb 15 22:23:15 2003 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 22:23:15 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Nats Block Released Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030215222315.00cd0da0@kckcc.toto.net> Saturday night trying to be a good coach and get some paperwork done in the office and got quite a surprise. Called the CEDA Nats hotel and was told the block was released the 13th. The invite says the 24th. Anyone with Tournament Administration with any suggestions on what to do? I've left phone messages for Kelly and Shawn. I'm assuming I am not the only one who has not made reservations yet. Thanks, Chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate Kansas City Kansas Community College From chamorrita27 Sat Feb 15 22:31:13 2003 From: chamorrita27 (tiara naputi) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 20:31:13 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] ATTN: SIU BG Message-ID: hi guys, could you please backchannel me w/ the cites from the israel disad that you ran against austin and register at northwestern. thanks i really appreciate it. peace, tiara esu debate _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From chamorrita27 Sat Feb 15 22:32:02 2003 From: chamorrita27 (tiara naputi) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 20:32:02 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] ATTN: SIU BG Message-ID: could you please backchannel me. thanks. tiara emporia state debate _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From delliott Sat Feb 15 22:41:15 2003 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 22:41:15 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Nats Hotel Addendum Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030215224115.00cd0da0@kckcc.toto.net> Talked to the manager at the Sheraton and was told they had only set aside 20 rooms in the block to begin with. Seems odd for a tournament the size of CEDA. He referred me to the Rodeway Inn next door. Their rate is $69.00 a night. Here's the deal on that hotel. I just took three rooms which leaves them with FOUR for the rest of the weekend. They say the whole area is booked pretty much. Anyone going to CEDA might not want to wait until the 24th for hotels. Who is gonna grab 'em first? Good luck!! Chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate Kansas City Kansas Community College From iriamenzo Sat Feb 15 22:57:49 2003 From: iriamenzo (Phillip Samuels) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 22:57:49 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Southwest texas KT please Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030215/ac9ba05b/attachment.html From iriamenzo Sat Feb 15 23:00:43 2003 From: iriamenzo (Phillip Samuels) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 23:00:43 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Missouri please Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030215/0fd08645/attachment.htm From phallusjerkins Sun Feb 16 02:45:16 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 03:45:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] why do army/ navy suck @ dabait? Message-ID: what a conundrum. navy dabaiters and supporters basically confess that military dabaiters suck because they spend too much time learning how to obey and how to kill. surprise. there is little time for dabait and understanding evidentiary standards of proof when you got a "job" to do. whine on. your war paradigm lost in the UN. honorable to say that you are open to dabait on both sides about Powell. maybe you'll make colonel. the problem is punk that POWELL"S EVIDENCE SUCKED SHIT and you'd have to be a brainwashed dragoon not to conclude otherwise. name one country compelled by powell's photos and audio recordings. how come after the smoking gun charage more countries actually decided to stand w france calling for more time? think a little gun boy before you go killing... >From: MIDNBRUNO at aol.com >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: Re: [eDebate] why do army/ navy suck @ dabait? >Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2003 23:08:52 EST > >Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are not those of the Naval Academy >Debate Team, the Navy, or any government agency. They are simply my >personal >views. > >Phallus, > > I am not as tactful as my personal friend and boss, Daniel Overbey. > I >will not dazzle you with a list of everything that is great about Navy >Debate. I won't dazzle you with a list of all of the amazing and valuable, >unique experiences I had at the Naval Academy. In my final few months as a >member of the military, I will not defend the institution to you. > > Most importantly for this post, I will not defend my Naval Academy >Debate Career to you. I competed as a Midshipman for four years, missing >qualifying to the NDT on Speaker Points. I competed in the situation that >Lisa describes, having to divide my attention amongst a number of different >"responsibilities." I debated to the best of my ability, putting as many >hours as I could put in between drill, my position in the Brigade and my >responsibilities to my subordinates. > > I won't defend myself for any of this because I don't feel your >opinions require a defense. For those of you that happen to have opinions >about the evidence that Secretary of State Powell presented, I welcome your >contributions to the debate on either side. I, however, would suggest any >person JUST READ THE POST by Phallus Jerkins. If you feel that I need to >dignify that with a response, I will go line by line. If you feel that the >education (I don't even know who he is) that Phallus received has made him >this articulate individual capable of critiquing my debate career, my life >as >a Midshipman and Naval Officer or the Naval Service, then I will respond as >well. > > >While I understand and have come to respect the opinions of many debaters >(many of which I consider my friends), I do not necessarily agree with all >of >them. Some of my favorite moments in debate were after I ran Hegemony Bad >(my favorite negative position) when, after rounds, we would engage in a >few >laughs about the irony. I consider my experiences in debate as a very >valuable part of my life. > >I wish everyone the best of luck at their respective qualifiers, > >Michael Bruno >Formerly of Navy Debate _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From phallusjerkins Sun Feb 16 02:57:51 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 03:57:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] bush raises white flag Message-ID: http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp?0bl=-0 their softening the resolution to not automatically include war. tony blair is committed to peaceful resolution through the UN. good night. the war fuckers lost. how come they can't admit it? they were led by lies about compelling evidence. they saber-rattled on behalf of their leader posturing that war was inevitable poking fun at the europeans, etc. but now when the white house is officially backing down on an immediate campaign and working with the UN on a second resolution that allows more time for inspections, the hawks have grown silent while we rub it in their face. in the end, they were WAY WRONG about inevitable war in february, the diplomatic competence of the bush administration, not to mention underestimating the power of the french and the rest of the world to stop US imperialism. you boasted on edabait. where are the mongers now? crying. better to wake up, dipshits and learn how to analyze politics a little better... _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From phallusjerkins Sun Feb 16 03:04:54 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 04:04:54 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] sue bush, the killer Message-ID: http://www.boston.com/dailynews/044/nation/Lawsuit_by_soldiers_parents_co:.shtml The War Powers Act and a semblance of multicameral democracy ain't dead yet... _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From phallusjerkins Sun Feb 16 03:18:23 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 04:18:23 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] does W have alzheimer's? Message-ID: shirley now we must begin to wonder why the president is spending ("borrowing") billions of dollars on troop deployments to the middle east when he is not allowed to use them. i mean shouldn't you get authorization for the use of force before further bankrupting your citizens' economy. isn't that common sense? for sure, our president is a gambler but he's gotta pay when he loses and everybody comes to collect. i wonder if laura has been consulting her astrologer often enough or if somethingelse is amok in the white house that we don't know about... _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From let_the_american_empire_burn Sun Feb 16 06:54:47 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 06:54:47 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] pinocchio Message-ID: Phallus-Pinocchio, i think you're telling lies again. you must remember one thing: you gotta look at geo-politics, not as you'd like it to be, but as it actually is. to date, the USA does not send massive troops into an region unless they're about to blow some shit up, and as far as the military is concerned, they've already reached the point of no return. what you've been fooled by is a funny magic trick called the UN - you've been effectively distracted an almost entirely USA-dominated institution, the purpose of which was three-fold: to buy time for troop deployments, to convince Saddam there is still a chance he might stay in power (so he plays his usual games and doesn't go ape-shit too early), and to use 'disarmament' as a slight-of-hand covering up the real intention ('regime change') for reasons of what's called 'international credibility'. even with a French veto of a(n unecessary!) second resolution, the USA and its so-termed 'coalition of the willing' will bomb&march on Bagdad - haven't you been listening? and i bet you ten dollars France doesn't drop a veto anyway - if you'll recall, they were the slow ones in signing up for Persian Gulf I as well. and China and Russia will almost undoubtably abstain. the last UN get-together was about one thing: letting every relevant Security Council member-state besides the USA & the UK *save face*, letting them publicly show how reluctant they are to advocate war, so they can say to their own people (not to mention, a world opinion very distrustful of American methods, to say the least) that they did everything they could to give Iraq a 'final chance'. that's all that was. you and your peacenik rags aren't reading between the lines - don't you think Powell knows that other countries have to be seen as opposing/ tempering American hegemony? indeed, that's a prerequiste for their ultimately signing on to the impending and inevitable invasion of Iraq. now i commend Germany for taking a consistent stance all along - from day one they said they'd rather have a failing inspections regime than a successful war, and they used what clout they had in NATO to increase the costs of the coming adventure. however, they will pay a price for that; a price hypocritical and cowardly countries like France, China, and Russia will not be willing to pay at the Security Council - mark my words. (side-note: i use the nation-state designations to refer to the political classes in each respective country, not the actual people of France, China, or Russia, who, like most people throughout the world, are massively against the coming war.) and there's a key distinction between French feet-dragging and 'stopping imperialism' - the former means temporarily assuming a Dove posture in order to gain more conce$$ions, the later means threatening to use force in defense of the UN Charter, if the USA and its cronies invade a sovereign nation (not to mention, engage in mass murder by ariel bombardment over civilian populations). now if you can't distinguish between these two actions, then you're the 'dipshit', dipshit. no fewer Iraqi children are about to perish in the weeks that follow because a room-full of polite bureacrats up at the UN are talking about 'more time for peace'. they don't make the decisions around here; they make the sound bites. and they're going to go right on jerking their phalluses, not unlike someone else i know. .k _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From BERCHNORTO Sun Feb 16 07:47:26 2003 From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO at aol.com) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:47:26 EST Subject: [eDebate] a larger question Message-ID: The heck with Army and Navy (BTW, two years ago, Army was 4th in the NDT sweepstakes rankings). If first rounds are how we judge program success, then I have three questions: 1. When was the last time a team where both debaters didn't debate in high school got a first round bid? 2. How many schools have gotten at least one first round bid in the last 10 years? I bet it's fewer than 30, probably fewer than 25, maybe fewer than 20 (can someone refer me to a list of first round bids over the last 10 years?) 3. Given that, should the rest of us just disband? Just some random thoughts on a snow-bound morning. --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030216/18d4b97f/attachment.html From BERCHNORTO Sun Feb 16 08:28:56 2003 From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO at aol.com) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 09:28:56 EST Subject: [eDebate] here are the numbers Message-ID: <144.ac93119.2b80fa28@aol.com> Realizing that most edebate readers don't have small children and may not arise early on Sunday morning unless they have rounds to debate or judge, I found the data myself. Looking through edebate archives, I was able to get data from the past 6 years of 1st round bids, and I then added in my own reasonable assumptions about what will happen tomorrow. This gives a total of 7 years of data, yielding 112 first round bids. Here's what I found: 24 schools account for all the bids. The top 10 (Emory, Northwestern, Dartmouth, Michigan State, Wake Forest, Michigan, Texas, Kansas, Iowa, and Berkeley) account for 78 of the 112 bids (70%) The top 6 (Emory, Northwestern, Dartmouth, Michigan State, Wake Forest, and Michigan) ACCOUNT FOR MORE THAN HALF OF THE BIDS. I guess the rest of us (is that the other 100+ schools, or is it all but the top 10, or all but the top 6?) should pack it in. --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030216/bab6b15e/attachment.htm From dan.overbey Sun Feb 16 09:10:14 2003 From: dan.overbey (Daniel Overbey) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 10:10:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] PJ's Ignorance Message-ID: <000001c2d5cd$82d3dd50$9caa5b0c@gatewaysystem> ***The following represents only the opinion of the author, not of the service academies or the DOD*** PJ, You are too ignorant and closed minded to ever change. This is my last post on the subject, while I go back to doing debate work for Districts. Maybe I should write that invasion good position. A few examples of your ignorance: "there is little time for dabait and understanding evidentiary standards of proof when you got a "job" to do." You dropped my arg. My kids know more about evidentiary standards than you do. And my kids don't blindly support the administration. "maybe you'll make colonel" Colonel is a rank in the United States Air Force, the United States Army, and the United States Marine Corps. We do not have Colonels in the Navy. Silly rabbit. Educate yourself before you speak and inflict the pain of your ignorance on the rest of us. "how come after the smoking gun charage more countries actually decided to stand w france calling for more time?" 1. Because of Blix's inconclusive report 2. This is like saying that all members of America are complicit with Powell. Making the sweeping generalization of indicting the ENTIRE FREAKING military is absurd. To say nothing of the fact that most of the evidence presented by Powell is not real current and in fact was confirmed through several sources. Your criticism is based on skepticism, not any amount of refutation of the evidence. "think a little gun boy before you go killing..." You sir, are a complete and total idiot. This kind of comment is undeserved because our debaters and to our military in general. I would ALMOST respect you if you would attach your name to this drivel. Until you have the courage to stand a watch I suggest your check your attitude at the door when dealing with me. Army and Navy do not "suck" at "dabait", in fact, I think both programs are doing pretty well. When you start using proper grammar and indicate that you have more than a 2nd grade education or an understanding of the world I will address you again. To take the positions you take indicates that you have no use for our military. I guess I just fundamentally disagree. And maybe, if you can't show a little respect (nobody in a uniform would want your respect at this point), you can try for a little courtesy. Why don't you ASK a service academy debater how they feel about Iraq instead of launching into your diatribe of ignorance? Go away child. Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030216/066bdb86/attachment.html From jleidenberg Sun Feb 16 10:23:52 2003 From: jleidenberg (James Leidenberg) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 11:23:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Breaking the Silence of Restraint Message-ID: <497HBPqX19552S22.1045412632@uwdvg022.cms.usa.net> For many midshipmen and cadets, our voices are often silenced to the criticism of the organizations we will soon join. These are my personal opinions. Let me begin by saying that the silence is over, I am appalled by not only the personal attacks from this forum but also the degree of discontent charged against us for actions outside our control. Can you honestly say that each person in a uniform has the ability to change foreign policy? Do you think that we blindly believe that every action our respective service takes is for the greater good? Or, do you feel that we wake up each morning looking forward to the next opportunity to kill someone? If you do, then please reconsider. I personally joined the military in 1998, then was selected from the military to attend the United States Military Academy, or "Army" as many of you recognize on the ballots. I had no idea that I was even going to be in the military until the last three months of high school when I chose the military because unexpected family problems put me into a bind. I had scholarships, grants, and work study programs lined up; however, I knew that this would still put a burden on my parents who had medical bills to pay. There were other reasons why I joined but I need not discuss them to make my point. Bottom line, I am no different than any other person here. Each of us are people - from all over the United Sates. We chose to join the military service academies for different reasons. We each have feelings, can think, and can adequately handle constructive criticism. To answer the questions I posed above: I may not agree with the policy being made, but I believe that the person that the American people elect to be President has legitimate authority to legally do what he sees best in order to protect the people of this nation so long as it is Constitutional. I can express my voice like any other American with a vote. When I wake up, I think to myself: "I am proud to be part of the forces that protect the American freedoms." I know that somewhere over 1500 miles away my family sleeps peacefully under the veil of security that the government provides. Criticize the military actions, but what will you personally demand of the government when a thousand Americans are killed in another attack? Now, what does this have to do with the way Army and Navy debate? Simply put, there is much bias in the community against the military academies. I guess I could submit a power point of Satellite imagery and audio recordings to back up my point like Sec. Powell, but I will simply refer to the language of several critics and judges in past rounds and the posted message on this forum. Many say, " Wow, I am surprised with the level of argumentation that you 'guys' presented in this round; it's hard to believe that you can run positions like that." Or, "Army (Navy) debate has really taken off. I look at your teams and see so much creativity. It's very unusual for your school." Though these words might have been for encouragement, the underlying tone is somewhat dismal in what the real meaning is. The greater majority of the community expects the Army and Navy debaters to get up and present some sort of war plan or something and to move like robots. Army and Navy debate teams consist of individuals who have personal beliefs, varied backgrounds, and developed personalities. Having debated for both Army and Navy debate teams, I can honestly say that everyone sacrifices a lot for the teams. We have very tight schedules with many requirements that take the blunt of our days. However, the typical debater researches about an hour a day and practices at least as much. We stay up until 2 o'clock in the morning looking up research, reading the latest news, and cutting evidence. Then we get up at 6 in the morning to start the day all over again. We sacrifice weekends and privileges to become better debaters. We don't like being told that we're not very good debaters just because of the school we go to. However, everyone of us takes your comments seriously. Our budgets restrict our coaching staff, extra camps and amount of tournaments so the comments we receive mean a lot to us. I respect the excellence within this activity. Coaches and other debaters account for my best of friends. The words of support out in the community means a lot to all of us debaters on service academy teams. Thank you very much. For those who would like to talk more about the lack of performance of cadets and midshipmen, please talk to the people you are indicting. We will not be sarcastic, rude or abrasive; but we will let you know that we try. Please think more about the words you use in forums such as this. The ramifications of such comments drives some people to give up and stop trying. In our case, we will continue to excel and improve. Thanks again, James Leidenberg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030216/fb5fc073/attachment.htm From alfred.snider Sun Feb 16 11:08:47 2003 From: alfred.snider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 12:08:47 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Barkley Forum final round now available Message-ID: Debate Central, the University of Vermont, in cooperation with Emory University, are proud to bring you access to this year's excellent debate between Woodward Academy of Georgia and College Prep of California. The video of the Barkley Forum for High Schools final round is now available in many different ways. WATCH IT ON THE INTERNET http://debate.uvm.edu/watchdebate.html you will need RealPlayer installed to watch. It should work at any bandwidth above 56K, and is scaled so it looks better on a better connection. FREE GET IT ON A CD The QuickTime movie is burned onto a CD-ROM and can be watched on computer. $10 GET IT ON A VCD/DVD Plays on most DVD players (must be CD-R compatible), at full screen, full resolution. $15 GET IT ON VHS Regular NTSC VHS format. $20 Go to http://debate.uvm.edu/eeorderform.html to order these items. We would prefer that you watch it for free, but would be glad to send you copies. Tuna -- --------------------------- 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 ; http://debate.uvm.edu/wdo.html From rob.eback Sun Feb 16 12:37:51 2003 From: rob.eback (Rob Eback) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 13:37:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: [eDebate] Looking for SIU's coach Message-ID: <20030216183751.B04C3F637@xmxpita.excite.com> Could you please e-mail me at this address when you get a chance, thanks. Rob Eback Georgia State _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! From miamidebate Sun Feb 16 16:07:42 2003 From: miamidebate (Miami Debate Team) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 14:07:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Wake CG In-Reply-To: <20030216035909.50126.qmail@web13801.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20030216220742.63352.qmail@web13807.mail.yahoo.com> Hey, Could you write me back? Thanks Sarah Spring --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030216/8c6536a5/attachment.html From jeffrey.jarman Sun Feb 16 18:35:55 2003 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 18:35:55 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] GTA positions at Wichita State Message-ID: <001a01c2d61c$8b7145c0$6401a8c0@gatewaycompute> The department has a few openings, and I'd love to get debate people to apply. If you are interested, please let me know. Sooner rather than later, since the deadline is fast approaching. We have openings for both August and January (December grads still need to let me know asap). Debate GTAs teach one or two classes per semester, work with the team, get a full tuition waiver, a scholarship to pay for fees, and a stipend of over 8,000 per year. Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030216/e2c7858e/attachment.htm From Catherine.Palczewski Sun Feb 16 19:05:50 2003 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine.Palczewski at uni.edu) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 19:05:50 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [eDebate] NDT First Round At-Large Bids Announcement Message-ID: <01KSILP4C9DK8YA51X@uni.edu> Following are the First Round At Large Bids for the 2003 NDT Berkeley NS Berkeley RS Dartmouth LT Dartmouth ST Emory BL Emory LP Ft. Hays RS Georgia PR Harvard MT Michigan FO Michigan State MS Michigan State SS Northwestern GL Northwestern GM Wake Forest ES Whitman BO From BERCHNORTO Sun Feb 16 20:11:07 2003 From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO at aol.com) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 21:11:07 EST Subject: [eDebate] food for thought Message-ID: <1dd.2e46ade.2b819ebb@aol.com> According to the debate points page, of the 11 schools that collected 1st round bids tonight, 8 have not entered any teams in novice this year. Emory had two novice teams at Liberty, Georgia had one novice team at Alabama, and Wake has an active novice program. Of the 10 schools that have accounted for 70% of the 1st round bids the last seven years, 8 have not entered any teams in novice this year. Emory had two novice teams at Liberty, and Wake has an active novice program. Congrats to all the chosen teams, and kudos to Allan and Ross for playing both sides of the street and doing it so well. --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030216/0e38f9f2/attachment.html From GQDB8R Sun Feb 16 22:28:02 2003 From: GQDB8R (GQDB8R at aol.com) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:28:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The highschool tournament at Vestavia, looking for judges Message-ID: <7E117E23.74D190D1.00045184@aol.com> Subject says it all, if you are in the area and would like to be hired to judge, please get back to me. thanks. alex acosta carrollton sacred heart From tshuman Sun Feb 16 23:43:05 2003 From: tshuman (Terrance Shuman) Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 23:43:05 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] A public "Thank you" Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030216233103.00a428a0@mail.magiccablepc.com> De-cloaking again, briefly... A couple of weeks ago I posted a request for assistance in locating transcripts of NDT and CEDA final rounds from the past ten years or so. I would like to publicly thank Doyle Srader, Bob Jordan, Allan Louden, and the estimable David Seikel for responding with valuable assistance. Thanks! (And David, I promise I'll answer your questions at my earliest opportunity...) For those who've asked, I would be delighted to send a copy of the article when it is completed (I'm not sure the journal I have in mind is available in an online edition). The project has certainly been an eye-opening one so far, and I expect it will become more so as it progresses... Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and...well, not so tall as I used to be, Terrance Shuman Bishop LeBlond Memorial High School St. Joseph, Missouri From matt_moore85 Mon Feb 17 00:33:27 2003 From: matt_moore85 (Matt Moore) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 00:33:27 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Judge for Hire at Heart Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030217/d341b2f0/attachment.htm From phallusjerkins Mon Feb 17 02:00:01 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 03:00:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Powell smoking gun farce Message-ID: the majority of the relevant evidence by Powell was taken out of context as explained by blix and co. that is exactly why the UN was not persuaded by the Powell case. they heard the blix reply to the shitty evidence powell tried to unload. the satellite photos upon analysis do not indicate movement because of the 2 week time differential. come on, people, out of context videos. how come powell lied? http://middleeastreference.org.uk/un030214.html _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From phallusjerkins Mon Feb 17 02:08:35 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 03:08:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] doctored audi recordings... Message-ID: and the other evidence sucks too. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Al-Atraqchi_Powell.htm _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From phallusjerkins Mon Feb 17 02:16:44 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 03:16:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] colonel overbey is a fuckin idiot... Message-ID: the satellite photos were not verified in advance by anyone but US intelligence which is why the UN called for submission after the presentation. good thing you got that disclaimer at the top. we would not want to assume that the DOD is as ignorant of the nature of Powell's doctored evidence as you are. upon review and on point, blix indicated the deception of Powell's use of the photos not making explicit the time differential in the photos. the evidence was of extremely poor quality and powell was relying on slick-dick military-style powerpoint presentation techniques to overwhelm the audience with hi-tech nuances that nobody bought but US military yahoo apologists like yourself who can't see your future irrelevance... _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From phallusjerkins Mon Feb 17 02:20:49 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 03:20:49 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] british dossier--totally crappy evidence... Message-ID: http://europe.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/07/sprj.irq.uk.dossier/ _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From MIDNBRUNO Mon Feb 17 09:07:08 2003 From: MIDNBRUNO (MIDNBRUNO at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:07:08 EST Subject: [eDebate] colonel overbey is a fuckin idiot... Message-ID: <1c5.52fbb57.2b82549c@aol.com> Could someone tell me who this person is? Please. Mike Bruno Navy Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030217/4c9e3ae4/attachment.html From Mikedavis13 Mon Feb 17 09:40:09 2003 From: Mikedavis13 (Mikedavis13 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:40:09 EST Subject: [eDebate] Results for the 2003 Bulldogs Debate Message-ID: <123.1e553f9d.2b825c59@aol.com> First, I want to thank everyone for attending. We had a great time hosting you and hope that you had a good time while in Athens. We also hope that everyone made it home safely. Open Results Quarters 1. Emory GF over Bama CS 3-0, Abott, Galloway, Zompetti 2. Emory AsKu over Mercer TeWr 3-0 M. Davis, Rufo, E. Lee 3. Emory AlKu over Emory TR 4. Alabama PG over Mercer ThWi 3-0 A. Davis, Butler, Holland Semis Emory GF over Bama PG 3-0 Rufo, Galloway, M. Davis Emory AsKu over Emory AlKu Finals Emory GF over Emory AsKu (Emory AsKu did steal the first place trophy, but Emory GF was the higher seed. Novice Finals Vandy MK over MTSU CC 3-0 Herndon, Pelham, Louden I want to give a special notice to the novice teams that competed this weekend. Due to limited entry we could not have a separate division, but we want to acknowledge the fine job all of the novice teams did this weekend. I wanted to especially acknowledge the Emory novices that went varsity in their first tournament ever. Speaker Awards Open 11. Witte, Mercer ThWi 10.Grason, Bama PG 9. Phillips, Bama PG 8.Gamradt, Wake CG 7. Kumar, Emory AlKu 6. Asher, Emory AsKu 5. Allen, Emory AlKu 4. Foster, Emory GF 3. Thatcher, Mercer ThWi 2. Kuo, Emory AsKu 1. Gorczynski, Emory GF Congrats to Emory and Vandy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030217/9ad53899/attachment.htm From lisakanak Mon Feb 17 10:01:48 2003 From: lisakanak (Lisa Kanak) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:01:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Question Message-ID: A home school parent/coach was browsing through various debate websites and ran across the following acronyms: ASPEC OSPEC PIC Can anyone out there tell me if this is correct: ASPEC ? Agent Specific Plan Exclusive Counterplan OSPEC ? Object Specific Plan Exclusive Counterplan PIC ? Plan Inclusive Counterplan. Thanks, I just don?t want to pass on bad information! Lisa Kanak 540-752-1935 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030217/fa546bd9/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 5665 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030217/fa546bd9/attachment.obj From sharris Mon Feb 17 10:04:10 2003 From: sharris (Harris, Scott L) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:04:10 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] heart entries Message-ID: <06EB4CB0225B3F498418311D9D6A28AA01FF1D44@bluebird.mail.ku.edu> I can't complain because I am a notorious late enterer of tournaments but it would be helpful if you got your entries in. If you sent me an entry and are not on the list below please let me know. Open Cornell Lara Douglas and Dan Klaff Denver Jared Adams & John Poor Dartmouth Hunter Brooks & David Marks Fort Hays 2 teams Gonzaga Chris Losnegard & Eric Sullivan Jonathan Dingle & Charlie Hutchison Louisville Sandra Webster/Lori Goodwin Tonia Green/Elizabeth Jones R.J. Green/Corey Knox North Texas 2 teams Vermont Jillian Marty & Sheila Limprevil Teresa Hill & Lana Langsweirdt Carlos Varela & Colin Kern West Point Elliot Press / Adam Scher Ricky Waters / Adam Karr JV Cornell Craig Murray and Jeff Granillo Denver Lee Morehead & Carolynn Frankovilla Kansas City Kansas Community College Dan Rundus & Richard Quijas North Texas 1 team From privethedge Mon Feb 17 10:31:02 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:31:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] colonel overbey is a fuckin idiot... In-Reply-To: <1c5.52fbb57.2b82549c@aol.com> Message-ID: <20030217163102.69264.qmail@web10008.mail.yahoo.com> Not only is Dan Overbey one of the nicest and finest gentlement I've ever met, he is one of the best debate minds I've ever encountered. He continues a tradtion of fine people who have been involved with USNA Debate over the years, people like Phil Warkin and John Lambert come to mind - to of the finest gentlement I've ever met, or have ahd the pleasure to debate in front of. To criticize the men and women of the academies for a perceived weakness in debate is wrong. Those men and women do far more in a single day then most college kids do in a semester. Factor in the academic loads of the Academies, the rules they must follow, the mandatory sports, and, in this time of war, the extra pressures of being at the academy - and they have a lot more to contend with than, say, a debater at Wake Forest or Dartmouth (I HAVE TOTAL RESPECT FOR BOTH THE WAKE FOREST AND THE DARTMOUTH PROGRAMS, THEY WERE JUST THE TWO THE JUMPED INTO MY MIND). To do all those things, and still debate well is a real tribute to the qualities of the students that the Naval Academy and West Point, attract. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030217/a9a51fea/attachment.html From privethedge Mon Feb 17 10:39:10 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 08:39:10 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Debate and Service Academies In-Reply-To: <000a01c2d56d$41132340$64aa5b0c@gatewaysystem> Message-ID: <20030217163910.20066.qmail@web10007.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, YOu should add Ernest Miller and Dr. Lambert to this list. USNA debate is good debate!!:) Y'all got not a thing to be ashamed of. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030217/92d5d189/attachment.htm From bkantor Mon Feb 17 12:02:47 2003 From: bkantor (Benjamin Kantor) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:02:47 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] poor busy academy debaters In-Reply-To: <20030217163102.69264.qmail@web10008.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0550343F-42A2-11D7-8B49-0003939E3338@macalester.edu> Im not a frequent poster and i have never debated against a team from any of the Academies but there were a few things i had to interject. Duane Says: > Those men and women do far more in a single day then most college kids > do in a semester. Factor in the academic loads of the Academies, the > rules they must follow, the mandatory sports, and, in this time of war, > the extra pressures of being at the academy - and they have a lot more > to contend with than, say, a debater at Wake Forest or Dartmouth (I > HAVE TOTAL RESPECT FOR BOTH THE WAKE FOREST AND THE DARTMOUTH PROGRAMS, > THEY WERE JUST THE TWO THE JUMPED INTO MY MIND). To do all those > things, and still debate well is a real tribute to the qualities of the > students that the Naval Academy and West Point, attract. No one is contesting that the students of the academies work hard in their effort to be good at what they do, but you fail to account for what it means to be good at some of what they do. Should we no applaud any draw in attention debate causes away from the gruesome business of war. Is the academy debater's excellence at these "other things" that take away from their debate a good thing if this excellence only increases the violence and brutality of the world they seek to maintain. And what of the extra responsibilities of the rest of the community outside of cutting cards and attending tournaments? Some of us have a war to STOP here - in the interest of fairness it would be a kind gesture to our comrades from the academies if we all found it within ourselves to go out and advocate against the war as much as they prepare for it. It seems the easiest way too level the playing field and maybe advance a cause also, and it is happening now. I have no idea how many debaters turned out this weekend to protest the war but to all who did, and helped make things a bit more fair for our militarized friends, thank you. ben mac debate, 06 From lisakanak Mon Feb 17 11:12:31 2003 From: lisakanak (Lisa Kanak) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:12:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] More Navy Debaters Message-ID: This is by far a very incomplete listing for the years I was there . . . brain has been fried from too many wiggles songs and disney videos . . . ahh, the joys of motherhood! Shannon Callahan (NFO), NDT Adam Johnston (just completed Masters at Oxford), NDT Titus Fortner (Surface, Seattle) Matthew Beran (JAG Lawyer, San Diego) Jon Uyboco Ted Dempsey (pilot, Pensacola) Al Caesar (former Crypto, now living in Mass) Peter Andreoli Dave Wolynski (Surface, Norfolk) Gary Savitt (former Submariner, now lawyer in L.A.) Also, FYI John Sharpe (Submariner, VA Beach) Kenji Gjovig (Submariner, San Diego) Hopefully, we can get the Navy Debate Alumni Program going again (I can help), and find out what everyone is doing, and where they are. Lisa Kanak 540-752-1935 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030217/e8004f76/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 5665 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030217/e8004f76/attachment.obj From lisakanak Mon Feb 17 11:27:15 2003 From: lisakanak (Lisa Kanak) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 12:27:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Thank you! Message-ID: Okay, my mailbox is now filling up with all of the responses to this question. Thank you ? everyone! Lisa Kanak 540-752-1935 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030217/183256fe/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 5665 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030217/183256fe/attachment.obj From Kelly.McDonald Mon Feb 17 11:27:48 2003 From: Kelly.McDonald (Kelly McDonald) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 10:27:48 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA NATIONALS HOTEL - DEFINITIVE INFORMATION Message-ID: <3996AE5EBEF964418D80953BDCABFF5674CB82@ex1.asurite.ad.asu.edu> Accurate and definitive hotel information for CEDA nationals to follow: I was at Val's tourney in San Diego much of the weekend and was surprised to read the news of our hotel Darren posted late on Saturday. I want to state at the outset that his information is patently incorrect. I do not know who he spoke with but I can assure you that there are hotel contracts signed for over 200 rooms at the two hotels designated for the tournament. The expiration date for the tournament block is as was originally posted at the Sheraton. I don't know who gave Darren that information but I spoke with Jay Russett the Front Office Manager at the Sheraton just moments ago. We have, however, filled and exceeded the block of rooms at that property. You may continue to call the Sheraton - 480-967-6600 and inquire about a waiting list for space. The other hotel - The Rodeway Inn - 480-967-3000 - has ample space with a substantial block of rooms as well. The group # at that property that you need to give to the reservation attendant is #1467. The Group name is "C.E.D.A. Nationals" - though the code # is more likely to get immediate access to the block information. I regret any concerns that have arisen in the wake of Darren's posts but I can assure you that the lodging needs of the tournament have well been planned for. Over 150 rooms are already held at the two rooms and I have personally seen the reservation lists for the properties. Best, Kelly PS: The Rodeway is host to our district tournament in two weeks - of which there are 20 rooms. So if you are in D9, make you reservations for it soon if you are coming in for AFA-NIET qualifier but that is another matter entirely. Kelly M. McDonald, Ph.D. Director of Forensics & Assistant Instructional Professional The Hugh Downs School of Human Communication PO Box 871205 Tempe, AZ 85287-1205 Office: 474 Stauffer Hall Phone: (480) 965-2027 (direct) Fax: (480) 965-4291 Email: kelly.mcdonald at asu.edu ASU Forensics on the web: http://com.pp.asu.edu/forensics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030217/70d4dfbb/attachment.html From delliott Mon Feb 17 11:57:22 2003 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 11:57:22 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA NATIONALS HOTEL - DEFINITIVE INFORMATION In-Reply-To: <3996AE5EBEF964418D80953BDCABFF5674CB82@ex1.asurite.ad.asu. edu> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030217115722.00ce37b0@kckcc.toto.net> Kelly writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accurate and definitive hotel information for CEDA nationals to follow: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Accurate and definitive clarification to follow: ; ) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I was at Vals tourney in San Diego much of the weekend and was surprised to read the news of our hotel Darren posted late on Saturday. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for getting to this as soon as you returned. As you can imagine with the long holiday weekend for many and deadlines for CEDA fast approaching I know many are concerned regarding hotel space. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I want to state at the outset that his information is patently incorrect. I do not know who he spoke with but I can assure you that there are hotel contracts signed for over 200 rooms at the two hotels designated for the tournament. The expiration date for the tournament block is as was originally posted at the Sheraton. I dont know who gave Darren that information but I spoke with Jay Russett the Front Office Manager at the Sheraton just moments ago. We have, however, filled and exceeded the block of rooms at that property. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The person I spoke to who claimed we only had 20 rooms was wrong then. As my original email indicated, and those of you who have backchanneled me since then figured out, the hotel (as many are) was in error. My post was never meant to call Kelly or Shawn into question (as I think Kelly might have taken it). I do not doubt your abilities to plan for a tournament. I do doubt the ability of hotels to get things right. I worked summers for a booking agency and let me tell you, 9 times out of 10 the hotel is wrong. If the Sheraton is booked however then all of my information is not "patently incorrect". I posted so people would have the knowledge to book now as it does seem to be a busy area that week. Im not sure I can be faulted for giving the community a heads up over what I perceived to be a rather important issue. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I regret any concerns that have arisen in the wake of Darrens posts but I can assure you that the lodging needs of the tournament have well been planned for. Over 150 rooms are already held at the two rooms and I have personally seen the reservation lists for the properties. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I regret any concern Kelly has about my post leading to some sort of mass hysteria in the community. I also want to emphasize I was not doubting his or Shawn's ability to plan for a tournament. But given its importance I thought others might want to know that hotel space was at a premium (as told to me by people at two hotels). I guess I figured I am spending 1/3 of my budget to attend that others would want to plan ahead as well in terms of lodging. My intent was to give them a heads up. Next time, to keep from offending anyone, I will just keep my mouth shut! Chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate Kansas City Kansas Community College Best, Kelly Kelly M. McDonald, Ph.D. Director of Forensics & Assistant Instructional Professional The Hugh Downs School of Human Communication PO Box 871205 Tempe, AZ 85287-1205 Office: 474 Stauffer Hall Phone: (480) 965-2027 (direct) Fax: (480) 965-4291 Email: kelly.mcdonald at asu.edu ASU Forensics on the web: http://com.pp.asu.edu/forensics From terri_easley Mon Feb 17 12:07:59 2003 From: terri_easley (terri easley) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 18:07:59 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Kansas KK Message-ID: Could you please backchannel me Thanks, Terri UT-Dallas _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From terri_easley Mon Feb 17 12:09:34 2003 From: terri_easley (terri easley) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 18:09:34 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Dartmouth BS Message-ID: Could you please backchannel me- Thanks, Terri UT-Dallas _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From scrachiolo Mon Feb 17 12:18:26 2003 From: scrachiolo (Sarah Beth Crachiolo) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 13:18:26 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NYU GG please Message-ID: <1045505906.8aae6c60scrachiolo@student.gsu.edu> hey, I was just wondering what the cite was for the zizek critique that you run against ctbt is. Thanks a lot. Sarah Crachiolo GSU From terri_easley Mon Feb 17 13:24:46 2003 From: terri_easley (terri easley) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 19:24:46 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Iowa LN and Iowa EJ Message-ID: Could you all backchannel me, please. Thanks, Terri UT-Dallas _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From alfred.snider Mon Feb 17 13:58:28 2003 From: alfred.snider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:58:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Instructors for Debate Institute in China Message-ID: The World Debate Institute and the University of Vermont will be sponsoring a ten day university debate institute in the English language to be held next summer in China. Inner Mongolia Normal University will be our hosts. This will be the first ever event of its kind in China, and our Chinese hosts are very excited about this program. It was they who asked for it. DATE: August 14-23, 2003 LOCATION: Inner Mongolia Normal University, Hohhot, China We currently have two faculty openings and would be interested in hearing from people who would like to participate. Unfortunately, we cannot cover your travel expenses. However, if you can get there (air connections from Beijing to Hohhot are easy and inexpensive, airfare from Chicago to Beijing is about $1000) and are accepted as faculty for the program we can cover your housing and food as well as local transportation. Ability to speak Chinese would be welcome but is NOT NECESSARY, as instruction will be in English. Former debaters who are working in China or are familiar with China are invited to apply. If interested, please send me an email message indicating your background and interest. This is not a money making operation, but an attempt to forge new bonds between China and other countries as well as weaving a broader fabric for the global debate community. We hope that a lot of people are interested so we can pick two top debate teachers to be in on the start of something really big. Tuna -- --------------------------- 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 ; http://debate.uvm.edu/wdo.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030217/8238aeef/attachment.htm From Catherine.Palczewski Mon Feb 17 14:33:00 2003 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:33:00 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] NDT application forms Message-ID: <3E5146FB.BC622A15@uni.edu> Just as a gentle reminder, As you qualify for the NDT, it is each team's responsiblity to officially enter the tournament. NDT application forms can be obtained from the NDT newsletter attachment sent out a few weeks ago. If you need a copy of the newsletter, it can be found at: http://www.uni.edu/palczews/ndtnewsletter2003.htm Please remember to send a copy of the NDT Application Forma to: 1. Dr. Donn Parson, the tournament director: Fax 785-864-5203 2. Dr. Cate Palczewski, NDT Committee Chair: palczewski at uni.edu 3. Bill Newnam, NDT host, wnewnam at emory.edu A text version of the form follows: PLEASE ALSO RETURN ALL JUDGE PHILOSOPHY FORMS ELECTRONICALLY TO MIKE BERRY NO LATER THAN THURSDAY, MARCH 20. Send to: mrberry at kings.edu IMPORTANT: The NDT Committee has imposed a $50 fine on institutions which have not provided judge philosophy statements by March 20. An additional $50 fine is imposed if those judge philosophy statements are not turned in by the time of registration. NDT APPLICATION FORM Please send 1 copy to Tournament Director, 1 copy with eligibility form to NDT Committee chair, and 1 form to tournament host (wnewnam at emory.edu) School __________________________________ Address ___________________________________ Director _____________________________________ Phone ______ ___________ or _____ ___________ Email _______________________ FULL NAMES OF DEBATERS Debater #1 __________________________________ Debater # 2 ___________________________________ NAMES AND JUDGES TO COVER THE 12 ROUNDS OF JUDGING PER TEAM: Judge #1________________________________ # of Rounds ______________ Tournaments where qualifying rounds occurred: Judge #2 _______________________________ # of Rounds_______________ Tournaments were qualifying rounds occurred: Additional judges: ______________________________________________________ Observers to accompany team: ______________________________ ______________________________ ______________________________ EATING CHOICES: # of vegetarians in party ___________ # of vegans in party _____________ From let_the_american_empire_burn Mon Feb 17 15:17:57 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 15:17:57 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] pinocchio 2 Message-ID: Mr. Jerkins, first, is it your position that the Iraqi regime has no chemical or biological weapons, and that it does not intend to get nukes? do you also believe Saddam when he claims that he never gassed the Kurds or the Iranians, because Iraq didn't have WMDs then either? if so, how do you account for over 300,000 dead people? and what's your take on why the Iraqi military has chemical weapons suits? second, do you think Powell would lie, considering that after an invasion all of the USA's accusations will be verifiable by the military forces of other nations as well as reporters on-the-ground? if the administration claims Saddam has anthrax, small pox, nerve gas, long-range missiles, etc, and then it turns out there is none there, won't Dubya look incredibly stupid ... okay, scratch that, incredibly stupid-er than he already looks? so thirdly, no one, except Iraq, seriously suggests that Iraq doesn't have WMDs (even your buddy Blix says there's gaps in the Iraqi declaration in addition to other failures to comply), and that's why i don't think Powell would need to 'doctor' evidence. (side-note: do you think the USA landed on the moon, or was it all filmed in Arizona?) fourth, if you're going to argue for not invading Iraq, then from now on please assume a worst-case scenario, that is, that Saddam has the WMDs every intelligent observer knows he has. after all, the USA isn't invading Israel or North Korea or Pakistan - and there's no proof that Saddam isn't detterable: he attacked Iran only with USA backing and he withdrew from Kuwait when opposed by UN forces. knowing this, if you wish to poke holes in the administration's case for war, Saddam's supposed 'linkages' with al-Qaeda would be a nice place to start, because there's virtually no risk of war-by-proxy between these two decades-long enemies. the simple fact is that the only sure-fire way to precipitate Saddam's using of WMDs is to invade his country, and that's precisely what the USA plans to do, with or without the UN Security Council. (most people with some common sense know that the issue here was never 'disarmament', but the geo-political control Saddam would have with deployable nukes as well as the financial boost that cheap oil would have on a slowed-down global economy.) fifth, if you condemn the 'dabait'-tournament win-loss system, as you have on multiple occasions in the past, then how can you turn-around and castigate certain teams for (allegedly) not being as competitively 'successful' within that system as other elite skools? aren't you just picking on Army and Navy teams because they're connected to the military, and are you under the illusion that non-military skools are any less connected to this government's armed forces as addicted as most are to the defense contracts which prop up their budgets? just some questions that i expect you'll dodge as usual. .k p.s. no, "evil conservative conspiracy", as you put it, don't "always win" - there's lots of ways they could fuck up the impending war, but that doesn't mean they're not going ahead with it anyway, European delusions-of-granduer aside. plus, do you really think a 'liberal' administation would act otherwise? and finally, where the fuck is the conspiracy? did you miss Dubya's annual reading of the teleprompter? were you reading DissentVoice when Rumsfeld announced that they were about to surround Iraq with a fuckload of troops? imperial conquests like the one to follow have little need of secrecy. _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From velcrowe66 Mon Feb 17 19:17:45 2003 From: velcrowe66 (Chris Crowe) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 18:17:45 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Emory GP please... Message-ID: I was looking to get some add-on sites you ran against us fourth round at Northwestern... Could you hit me back? Thanks... -Chris Crowe University of Wyoming _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From beth Mon Feb 17 21:12:24 2003 From: beth (Beth Skinner) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:12:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Rookie Division at Towson Message-ID: <1045537944.3e51a49827146@dalchemy.com> If you anticipate having rookie teams (where both members are competing in their first or second tournament ever), please backchannel me by Friday. So far, only two programs have responded. People are making travel plans so I'd like to make a decision soon about whether we will host a fourth division. Beth Skinner Towson Debate MCCS Dept. Towson University 8000 York Road Towson, MD 21252 410.704.5354 (o) 410.704.5793 (f) 410.583.8075 (h) 443.562.2269 (m) From zjustus Mon Feb 17 22:02:20 2003 From: zjustus (Zachary Justus) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 20:02:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] EMPORIA SJ Message-ID: <20030218040220.41333.qmail@web14308.mail.yahoo.com> Could one of ya'll backchannel me, Kris asked me to get some cites. Zach Justus __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com From ermo Mon Feb 17 22:59:00 2003 From: ermo (Eric Morris) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:59:00 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] NDT First Round At-Large Bids Announcement References: <01KSILP4C9DK8YA51X@uni.edu> Message-ID: <00d101c2d70a$73b6cd80$abcbed81@cc.ukans.edu> I might have missed it, but I didn't see any notice of anyone having posted the applications for all to see. Should I have? Eric ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 7:05 PM Subject: [eDebate] NDT First Round At-Large Bids Announcement > Following are the First Round At Large Bids for the 2003 NDT > > Berkeley NS > Berkeley RS > Dartmouth LT > Dartmouth ST > > Emory BL > Emory LP > Ft. Hays RS > Georgia PR > > Harvard MT > Michigan FO > Michigan State MS > Michigan State SS > > Northwestern GL > Northwestern GM > Wake Forest ES > Whitman > BO > > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From miamidebate Mon Feb 17 23:33:13 2003 From: miamidebate (Miami Debate Team) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 21:33:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] North Texas PP In-Reply-To: <3E5146FB.BC622A15@uni.edu> Message-ID: <20030218053313.46104.qmail@web13805.mail.yahoo.com> could one of y'all please get back to me at your convenience? Thanks a ton! Lincoln Bisbee Miami University '04 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030217/3b46d984/attachment.html From sharris Tue Feb 18 01:09:20 2003 From: sharris (Harris, Scott L) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 01:09:20 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] heart entries Message-ID: <06EB4CB0225B3F498418311D9D6A28AA01FF1D5C@bluebird.mail.ku.edu> Keep those entries coming. We are up to 38 open/9 JV/1 Novice. We could certainly use more Novice teams. I know more schools are coming then are on the list. HEART ENTRIES Open Arizona State Nicholas Russell & Eric Forslund Shon Zolman & Chris Kryieger Cornell Lara Douglas and Dan Klaff Denver Jared Adams & John Poor Dartmouth Hunter Brooks & David Marks ENMU Mick Souders & Lawrence Williams Emporia SJ Moore/Phil Samuels Austin Case/David Register Tiara Naputi/Kelly Winfrey Eli Crittenden/David Keller Fort Hays chance (the gardener) & william s. princess & emma g Fullerton/West Georgia Matt Kennedy and James Thomas Gonzaga Chris Losnegard & Eric Sullivan Jonathan Dingle & Charlie Hutchison Lewis and Clark Brandon Berg and Matt Ehrman Amelia Still and Nate Whittaker\ Louisville Sandra Webster/Lori Goodwin Tonia Green/Elizabeth Jones R.J. Green/Corey Knox Macalester Ben Kantor/Andy Tweeten NYU Richard Garner & Nate Gorelick Danyaal Moin & Jen Schramm Northern Iowa Michelle Kelsey and Eric Short Melanie Johnson and Mark Langgin North Texas 2 teams SMS Ben Warner and Sarah Wilson Isaac Allen and Scott Pierson Adam Caine and Micheal Thomas Britton Jobe and Simon Mahan Vermont Jillian Marty & Sheila Limprevil Teresa Hill & Lana Langsweirdt Carlos Varela & Colin Kern West Point Elliot Press / Adam Scher Ricky Waters / Adam Karr Wyoming Caroline Simpson & Seth Ellsworth Brian DeLong & Chris Crowe JV Baylor Marty Gallagher and Jennifer Gilbreath Cornell Craig Murray and Jeff Granillo Denver Lee Morehead & Carolynn Frankovilla ENMU Mark Henley & Darrick Matthews Sam Strain @ Matt Hayes Emporia Dustin Rimmey/Chad Woolard Kansas City Kansas Community College Dan Rundus & Richard Quijas North Texas 1 team SMS Tara Andre and Wendy Pennington Novice Northern Iowa Kelsey Harr and Joe Rankin From phallusjerkins Tue Feb 18 03:15:27 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 04:15:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] navy dabaiters still suck b/c Message-ID: they jump rope when sarg says so. they waste time polishing their buckles inculcating obedience. push-ups, chests out, ass tight. try reading Discipline & Punish and taking it seriously while becoming indoctrinated into the military. shirley, most will concede that army and navy suck @ defending kritik arguments given the anti-kritical nature of their military training so beautifully outlined by staunch supporters like duaney hyland. jumping rope, bouncing balls in the gym, accomplishing more in one day than is civilianly possible, more explosive than a speeding rocket, navy dabaiters merit pity b/c their tough schedules put them at a disadvantage and we must conclude that given this disadvantage navy has done relatively well as a collegiate dabait team even though they have so little to show much like harvard in recent years but that's a whole nother story of medioce dabaiting. phallus jerkins will address the so far dodged question of army/navy dabait recruiting. the hypothesis is that army/navy dabait will never be very good precisely because intelligent and sharp dabaiters are 99% of the time not attracted to the rigors of an interiorized obedience program that the flunky military academies have to offer our young children. isn't it half-ass dabait learning when you have to follow the colonel's orders with no room for dabait when recess is over? like when the president, commander-in-chief, orders the immoral dropping of the atom bomb on hiroshima and nagasaki committing the unthinkable horror? or in 'nam when they dosed the soldiers w LSD so that their minds would be pliable to psychological terrorism? doesn't the whole process of military indoctrination by nature make you more stupid than if you reject authority and govern yourself? i think any democratically minded citizen knows deep down in their heart that serious public dabait is in direct conflict with the hierarchical command structure of the military such that they are left in the dark about big questions like whether or not the people of the united states want to be only nation in history so far to precipitate a nuclear holocaust on the japs. Dr. Strangelove was right -- military dabait is half-ass and downright dangerous. congratulations navy dabait on your mediocre record. your boys and girls got a lot of heart but they're just too stupid to think for themselves. and so far, not one serious defense of army whose record is even worse than navy's. bon voyage!!! _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From phallusjerkins Tue Feb 18 03:40:05 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 04:40:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] tell us navy Message-ID: how does it feel to take a forced anthrax vaccination in the ass? is it better than when sarg sticks his dick up your shaft and makes you be all silent when the ride is over with threats and you know that the damn military court system has been anti-democratically designed to cover-up for military fiascos and protect rank like when they did nothing to those clowns that clipped the gondola wires and killed innocent civilians just for military bravado kicks? or how bout the when the tank boys ran over the two little gook girlz? so far from what i can tell, military zombies are unwilling to dabait these issues because they just take orders up the ass. so did the military doctors inform you that people have died from the vaccination and that others have come down with cancer later? hope you don't die from the vaccine but we sure are glad that you were forced to take it and not completely informed about the history of the vaccine. for sure, don't use your dabait skills to defend your brothers and sisters who face courtmarshall precisely for DABAITING the forced administration policy and refusing take orders. too late, navy dabaiters have been brainwashed and refuse to support dabait within the military ranks. they are too chickenshit to come out and defend their fellow servicepeople who face courtmarshall for dabaiting. like powell, you need to come forward with evidence to support your case for "military dabait" otherwise the dabait community will continue to laugh at you on backchannel. _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From phallusjerkins Tue Feb 18 04:24:50 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 05:24:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] military is enemy of people Message-ID: watch out, 1984 a brave world may bring forced anthrax vaccinations to the civilian population with no dabait allowed and all who refuse face exile. camus' nightmare of the plague is upon us and it is the military way of "thinking" if you can call it that. yellow belly bush will not take what he forces his robots to take up the ass exposing the hypocrisy of the system. terror alerts are high. feel assured -- you do not have to think about anthrax vaccines! the medicine goes down better that way --- just imagine an illegal US fighter jet over the no-fly zones ready to ream your village up the ass. _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From grindy22 Tue Feb 18 08:03:54 2003 From: grindy22 (matt grindy) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:03:54 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Oregon BR Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/d4905c4b/attachment.htm From Weberdebate Tue Feb 18 09:03:43 2003 From: Weberdebate (Weberdebate at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:03:43 EST Subject: [eDebate] Weber State still seeks ADOF and DOF Message-ID: <1d4.3080376.2b83a54f@aol.com> Date: Tues 1/28/03 From: Randy Scott RJSCOTT at weber.edu Director and Assistant Director of Forensics (two positions) Department of Communication Weber State University Ogden, Utah The DOF and ADOF will work jointly to administer and coach policy debate (CEDA/NDT) and individual events program; administer high school and collegiate forensics tournaments; travel extensively with the team; and teach two classes each semester. Renewable, fixed-term appointment. Minimum Requirements: M.A. in Communication; recent forensics coaching and administration experience; and ability and willingness to travel extensively. Must be at least 25 years of age and possess a valid driver's license for vehicle rental. Seeking applicants with promise/evidence of effective undergraduate instruction, especially in public speaking; demonstrated ability to work effectively with diverse students and faculty; ability to motivate students; appreciation for and understanding of forensics as both an educational and competitive activity; ability to represent WSU forensics in the best possible manner to its various publics. Specify position for which you are applying and send letter of! a! pplication, curriculum vitae, transcripts, and three current letters of recommendation to Forensics Search Committee, c/o Human Resource Department, Weber State University, Ogden, UT 84408-1016. Interviews at WSCA Convention. Positions will remain open until filled. Excellence in forensics is supported by the department and all levels of administration. WSU has hosted the NDT, the NIET, and the DSR-TKA National Conference. Forensics is dually funded by the administration and the Weber State University Student Association and enjoys outstanding physical facilities. Forensics scholarships are awarded each year to deserving students. Weber State University is an AA/EEO employer committed to increasing the diversity of its faculty. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply. Randolph J. Scott, Ph.D. Forensics Search Committee Department of Communication 1605 University Circle Weber State University Ogden, UT 84408-1605 rjscott at weber.edu 801-626-6464 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/35da08e3/attachment.html From wnewnam Tue Feb 18 09:13:50 2003 From: wnewnam (William E Newnam) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:13:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NDT application forms In-Reply-To: <3E5146FB.BC622A15@uni.edu> References: <3E5146FB.BC622A15@uni.edu> Message-ID: <1045581229.3e524dae038fa@webmail.service.emory.edu> It is also possible to fax these forms to Emory at the following number: 404-727-5367. bill n emory Quoting Catherine Palczewski : > Just as a gentle reminder, > > As you qualify for the NDT, it is each team's responsiblity to > officially enter the tournament. NDT application forms can be obtained > from the NDT newsletter attachment sent out a few weeks ago. > > If you need a copy of the newsletter, it can be found at: > http://www.uni.edu/palczews/ndtnewsletter2003.htm > > Please remember to send a copy of the NDT Application Forma to: > > 1. Dr. Donn Parson, the tournament director: Fax 785-864-5203 > 2. Dr. Cate Palczewski, NDT Committee Chair: palczewski at uni.edu > 3. Bill Newnam, NDT host, wnewnam at emory.edu > > A text version of the form follows: > > PLEASE ALSO RETURN ALL JUDGE PHILOSOPHY FORMS ELECTRONICALLY TO MIKE > BERRY NO LATER THAN THURSDAY, MARCH 20. Send to: mrberry at kings.edu > > IMPORTANT: The NDT Committee has imposed a $50 fine on institutions > which have not provided judge philosophy statements by March 20. An > additional $50 fine is imposed if those judge philosophy statements are > not turned in by the time of registration. > > NDT APPLICATION FORM > > Please send 1 copy to Tournament Director, 1 copy with eligibility form > to NDT Committee chair, and 1 form to tournament host > (wnewnam at emory.edu) > > > > School __________________________________ > > Address ___________________________________ > > Director _____________________________________ > > Phone ______ ___________ or _____ ___________ Email > _______________________ > > > > FULL NAMES OF DEBATERS > > Debater #1 __________________________________ > > Debater # 2 ___________________________________ > > > > NAMES AND JUDGES TO COVER THE 12 ROUNDS OF JUDGING PER TEAM: > > Judge #1________________________________ # of Rounds ______________ > > Tournaments where qualifying rounds occurred: > > Judge #2 _______________________________ # of Rounds_______________ > > Tournaments were qualifying rounds occurred: > > > > Additional judges: > ______________________________________________________ > > Observers to accompany team: > > ______________________________ > > ______________________________ > > ______________________________ > > > > EATING CHOICES: > > # of vegetarians in party ___________ # of vegans in party _____________ > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From stannardmatt Tue Feb 18 09:21:48 2003 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:21:48 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] is jerkins a mole disruptor? Message-ID: The CIA and FBI have always used paid agents (usually marginal losers recruited from the sidelines of genuine political organizations, dissatisfied and alienated from everyone, often depressed or paranoid) to DISRUPT and DISCREDIT progressive movements. At one point somewhere around five percent of the membership of certain 1960s and 1970s anti-war groups were paid informants and discreditors. These people are paid to say the most outlandish and offensive things possible, to make the movement look bad from the outside and to divide it on the inside. Race-baiting, pitting young against old, and yes, insulting the U.S. military (that is, making disgusting personal attacks, instead of examining the role of the military as a social entity, instead of reaching out to members of the military, many of whom are personally and silently opposed to war) are all tactics used by paid disruptors. If Jerkins is NOT an agent, his last series of posts certainly has him acting like one. Maybe he is just too stupid to know that--after all, he apparently thinks insulting military academy debaters is desirable and constructive (or deconstructive). Nothing he's ever done on this list had advanced any understanding of the system or laid out accessible methods of revolutionary agitation. In any event, I hope nobody confuses his position and rhetoric with the position of the vast majority of the anti-war movement. And has anyone noticed how incredibly and incipiently homophobic Jerkins' language is? How distracting is that garbage? If he isn't a paid agent, he's selling himself awfully short. Get a job, Phallus. Your government needs you. The millions of us opposing the war who really care about human beings don't. stannard _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From Ryan.Sullivan Tue Feb 18 09:36:35 2003 From: Ryan.Sullivan (Sullivan, Ryan x62188h4) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:36:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] navy dabaiters still suck Message-ID: <7C7E990CEED54A499C1A2A3DF7D362E70CB5C7A2@exmailml01> As always, opinions expressed are mine and not those of 'the establishment'. PJ, First of all, I will not waste a whole lot of my 'precious time' answering a nameless entity that defines itself by mocking Dallas Perkins, And Secondly, you have no idea what you are talking about. Having not been in the military, the only thing you can pretend to know is what you have read in sci-fi novels and what you just randomly guess based on what you would prefer to believe. But anyway, >>> doesn't the whole process of military indoctrination by nature make you more stupid than if you reject authority and govern yourself? i think any democratically minded citizen knows deep down in their heart that serious public dabait is in direct conflict with the hierarchical command structure of the military >>> Sorry to burst your conspiracy theory bubble, but the military today is far different than it used to be. You seem to assume that just because we learn about military things that we can't learn or think other things, but that's just nonsense. Just because I can tie a rope around me and rappel off a cliff doesn't preclude me from thinking about critical arguments against nuclear weapons, or orientalism, or even the military itself. You very wrongly assume that just being in the military makes you some mindless drone that can't comprehend anything outside the realm of killing for fun. However, independent of your fallacious assumptions is another critical error, the fact that you presuppose the truth of rejecting authority and misinterpret self governing. Your argument assumes an inherent value to rejecting authority but provides no warrant as to why it makes you stupid not to. I would argue that short of moving to Antarctica you will always be under some kind of authority. If you choose to live in the United States, then you are under the territorial authority of GWB. If you have a job, then you have more authority figures who are your bosses. The military just has move people in between Bush than civilians do. As for self-governing, you make it sound like we don't have free will. If I was ordered to execute innocent civilians I would refuse on the grounds it's not a lawful order. Just because we have command structure doesn't mean I can be mind-controlled like a robot. As for the whole Anthrax vaccination thing, just shut up. Medicine sometimes has side effects. If a portion of the United States did happen to undergo a massive bio-weapon attack, the fact a handful of people experienced some side effects won't have changed the fact it saved all of their lives. And why are you griping about it anyway? No one is forcing you to take the vaccination. In conclusion, Grow up. Feel free to stop hiding behind your clever little pseudonym (at first I thought it was cute until you actually started posting), and also feel free to stop bad mouthing navy/army/etc debate. Maybe we could always do better at the tournaments we go to, but you have yet to provide any standards for why the academies suck at debate, other than the nebulous 'we suck at defending kritiks'. And one more thing. Not to undercut the serious tone of my post, but who else thinks that a celebrity deathmatch between Phallus and Matt Schiros would be absolutely hilarious? Schiros vs. Jerkins... When ideological opposites collide... Ok, gotta get back to completing my extremely numerous and time consuming cadet responsibilities. Respectfully, Ryan Sullivan Army Debate "O God, that men should put an enemy in their mouths to steal away their brains!" - Cassio From privethedge Tue Feb 18 09:44:53 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 07:44:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Re: Lambert In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030218154453.65554.qmail@web10005.mail.yahoo.com> HI, Yes, yes it was Bob..I apologize. Yes, "Aff proposes.." brings back some good memories for me too..he was a great man. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/9b2f4605/attachment.htm From jd.rollins Tue Feb 18 09:46:54 2003 From: jd.rollins (Joel Rollins) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 09:46:54 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] NDT First Round At-Large Bids Announcement In-Reply-To: <00d101c2d70a$73b6cd80$abcbed81@cc.ukans.edu> Message-ID: here are all the bids. joel > From: "Eric Morris" > Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 22:59:00 -0600 > To: > Subject: Re: [eDebate] NDT First Round At-Large Bids Announcement > > I might have missed it, but I didn't see any notice of anyone having posted > the applications for all to see. Should I have? > > Eric > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > To: > Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 7:05 PM > Subject: [eDebate] NDT First Round At-Large Bids Announcement > > >> Following are the First Round At Large Bids for the 2003 NDT >> >> Berkeley NS >> Berkeley RS >> Dartmouth LT >> Dartmouth ST >> >> Emory BL >> Emory LP >> Ft. Hays RS >> Georgia PR >> >> Harvard MT >> Michigan FO >> Michigan State MS >> Michigan State SS >> >> Northwestern GL >> Northwestern GM >> Wake Forest ES >> Whitman >> BO >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 271289 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/446f3c00/attachment.obj From privethedge Tue Feb 18 09:49:32 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 07:49:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] military is enemy of people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030218154932.42751.qmail@web10004.mail.yahoo.com> Uhm..asshole..historically the US Military is the protector and liberator of the people, not the enemy. Unless of course you favor the death camps of Nazi Germany, the oppressive tactics of the North Koreans, and slavery. Please shut up - and since you're talking about Navy, the last I looked, Sergeant is not a rank in the Navy. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/b426198f/attachment.htm From hallbc2 Tue Feb 18 09:55:16 2003 From: hallbc2 (Brad Hall) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 10:55:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for Georgia Message-ID: <3E525764.11FBBE50@wfu.edu> Can the Georgia teams who are going to districts e-mail Jamie Carroll at carrjf2 at wfu.edu? Thanks, Brad Wake From privethedge Tue Feb 18 09:58:13 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 07:58:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] military is enemy of people In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030218155813.29451.qmail@web10006.mail.yahoo.com> The stupidity of this e-mail has even made me willing to reply - I am Duane's wife, a known Democrat and liberal, much to my husband's dismay. 1st of all to attack our military as an enemy of the people - boy, you obviously don't get out much and do not have any knowledge of the world around you. If we go to war, our military deserves our support - and here is why... 1. You can argue that we shouldn't be involved in the affairs of others - let them straighten it out - considering the amount of time that has been allowed for the middle east to fix its own problems, it is clear that someone else needs to bottom-line the problem and solve it. 2. Even if you don't want to go to war with Iraq, I think you will still agree that Saddam needs to go - the question is how. See point number 1. 3. In situations like this, time does not make the problem better. Think back 1 year ago - we had international consensus - we waited, trying to play "nice" and now look at the situation. Our problem is we waited. If you want to protect the global markets - Saddam needs to go. If you want to protect human rights (a liberal position), Saddam needs to go. Bottom line. Even this liberal can see we need to act. "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/7e94712c/attachment.html From TekUtopia Tue Feb 18 10:32:14 2003 From: TekUtopia (TekUtopia at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:32:14 EST Subject: [eDebate] colonel overbey is a fuckin idiot... [phallus' identity] Message-ID: <120.1dfebed8.2b83ba0e@aol.com> <> after intensive investigation, i have discovered the true identity of Phallus Jerkins. some of you are so astute that you may have figured it out on your own. all of the signs come together to form a clear picture: the biting social commentary, the obsession with all things phallic, a subtle emotional subtext that screams, "I want a Wendy's big bacon classic!"... but mostly, it's the initials. phallus jerkins is none other than the ever nefarious PAUL JOHNSON!!!! sorry, paul. didn't mean to blow your cover ;) aaron From phallusjerkins Tue Feb 18 10:48:57 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:48:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] is stannard a shrink-cop? Message-ID: the vast majority of the radicals who was breakin windows in the streets and fighting the cops hand in hand were psycho-terrorized by judgemental shrink types like yourself who sold out to long hair and rock and roll in the workplace. stannard is just a yuppy apologist for the pathology of pacifism who criminalizes serious resistance seeking peaceful unity of the so-called "progressive". come on, colon stanny where is your evidence -- your accusations remain purely conjecture. sides take a rhetoric class -- you seem to so little understand reflections of a homophobia at the heart of the US military. homosexual rape by superiors w/n the military has never happened and never will. homophobic comments from the sarg have never been uttered. anyone who fucks directly w military personnel and is not a chickenshit fawn of civilized respect must be a mole. right doc? maybe you should apply for activist leader. you are careful and meek enough. how many faggot generals have we had that felt comfortable coming out of the closet? stannard is comfortable with the answer to that question because he is rhetorically straight-jacketed in PC progressivism that makes him feel pure and clean and respectable and chump academician. >From: "matt stannard" >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: [eDebate] is jerkins a mole disruptor? >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 08:21:48 -0700 > >The CIA and FBI have always used paid agents (usually marginal losers >recruited from the sidelines of genuine political organizations, >dissatisfied and alienated from everyone, often depressed or paranoid) to >DISRUPT and DISCREDIT progressive movements. At one point somewhere around >five percent of the membership of certain 1960s and 1970s anti-war groups >were paid informants and discreditors. > >These people are paid to say the most outlandish and offensive things >possible, to make the movement look bad from the outside and to divide it >on the inside. Race-baiting, pitting young against old, and yes, insulting >the U.S. military (that is, making disgusting personal attacks, instead of >examining the role of the military as a social entity, instead of reaching >out to members of the military, many of whom are personally and silently >opposed to war) are all tactics used by paid disruptors. > >If Jerkins is NOT an agent, his last series of posts certainly has him >acting like one. Maybe he is just too stupid to know that--after all, he >apparently thinks insulting military academy debaters is desirable and >constructive (or deconstructive). Nothing he's ever done on this list had >advanced any understanding of the system or laid out accessible methods of >revolutionary agitation. In any event, I hope nobody confuses his position >and rhetoric with the position of the vast majority of the anti-war >movement. > >And has anyone noticed how incredibly and incipiently homophobic Jerkins' >language is? How distracting is that garbage? If he isn't a paid agent, >he's selling himself awfully short. Get a job, Phallus. Your government >needs you. The millions of us opposing the war who really care about human >beings don't. > >stannard > >_________________________________________________________________ >The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From smithr Tue Feb 18 10:56:17 2003 From: smithr (Ross Smith) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:56:17 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] District 6 News Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030218115339.03b78a60@pop.wfu.edu> Last call is today (officially by midnight but appreciated sooner) for declaring "intent to enter" Districts. So far I have heard from Ga, W Ga, Louisville, Ga State, Florida, Alabama, Mercer, Samford, Wake, Kentucky. Others? Let me know. Ross Smith Wake Forest Debate 336-758-5268 Fax: 336-758-4691 From phallusjerkins Tue Feb 18 10:57:48 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:57:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] colonel overbey is a fuckin idiot... [phallus' identity] Message-ID: we know that you military types are stubborn and illiterate but we will repost the site of the radio program for you regarding forced anthrax vaccinations: http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn990820.html actually, clever TekUtopia. my name is Zacchary Johnson of the US Navy -- ZJ. i have come on edabait to call out chickenshit navy dabaiters who won't defend dabait within the military ranks comfortable w the forced administration of a vaccine that kills more than it helps. i am appalled at navy dabaiters who didn't know how to research the history of a vaccine that their superiors gave them no choice but to take. i can't believe that navy dabaiters meekly accept my fate of courtmarshall for simply making an educated choice not to take the vaccine. i am Zacchary Johnson of the US Navy -- forget me -- i know nothing about dabait -- let the military fuck me over -- your dabait is fake. FUCK YOU NAVY DABAIT -- you are traitors to your fellow servicepeople!!! >From: TekUtopia at aol.com >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: Re: [eDebate] colonel overbey is a fuckin idiot... [phallus' >identity] >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:32:14 EST > ><> > >after intensive investigation, i have discovered the true identity of >Phallus >Jerkins. > >some of you are so astute that you may have figured it out on your own. all >of the signs come together to form a clear picture: the biting social >commentary, the obsession with all things phallic, a subtle emotional >subtext >that screams, "I want a Wendy's big bacon classic!"... > >but mostly, it's the initials. > >phallus jerkins is none other than the ever nefarious > >PAUL JOHNSON!!!! > >sorry, paul. didn't mean to blow your cover ;) > >aaron > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From phallusjerkins Tue Feb 18 11:18:07 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:18:07 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] execute unpatriotic zac johnson Message-ID: he refused to just take orders for himself and thinks for himself... http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn990820.html _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From phallusjerkins Tue Feb 18 11:24:27 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:24:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] execute unpatriotic zac johnson Message-ID: correction, zj literally refused to just take orders up the ass and thought for himself... get the story that navy dabait would luv to shuv under the rug... http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn990820.html warning: these are not the opinions of the DOD. >From: "Phallus Jerkins" >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: [eDebate] execute unpatriotic zac johnson >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:18:07 -0500 > >he refused to just take orders for himself and thinks for himself... > >http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn990820.html > > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From MIDNBRUNO Tue Feb 18 11:33:16 2003 From: MIDNBRUNO (MIDNBRUNO at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:33:16 EST Subject: [eDebate] Question about Procedure on the Listserv Message-ID: <14c.1bf82757.2b83c85c@aol.com> I just have a generic question about procedure on the listserv. Does anyone know if it is possible to block a single e-mail address short of unsubscribing? I think most people can understand why I would want to do this. Mike Bruno Navy Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/0b8b5131/attachment.htm From phallusjerkins Tue Feb 18 11:52:38 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:52:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Question about Procedure on the Listserv Message-ID: let me help you gun boy...go into your AOL email account and block the email address for phallus jerkins and then all of the list messages except those from phallus will make into your box. go ahead gun boy forget about navyman zacchary johnson who got courtmarshalled for dabaiting authoritarian forced anthrax vaccinations. the navy has not changed and you still don't know how to think for yourself or stand up for dabait inside the military ranks. adios traitor. >From: MIDNBRUNO at aol.com >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: [eDebate] Question about Procedure on the Listserv >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:33:16 EST > >I just have a generic question about procedure on the listserv. Does anyone >know if it is possible to block a single e-mail address short of >unsubscribing? I think most people can understand why I would want to do >this. > >Mike Bruno >Navy Debate _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From dig Tue Feb 18 12:27:35 2003 From: dig (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:27:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Question about Procedure on the Listserv Message-ID: <200302181827.h1IIRZn08439@fiat.cross-x.com> now thats some suprising shit, a ADA spawned debater who thinks its ok to block himself off from certain discourse and debate, i must say i am suprised that such an open inclusive community of ideas could possibly generate such a closeminded response... From GatorDebate Tue Feb 18 12:41:35 2003 From: GatorDebate (GatorDebate at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:41:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] SE/SEC CEDA / D6 entries to date Message-ID: <59FC45A7.5C2F8F3C.37F60172@aol.com> These are trhe entries I have received to date: We have 5 JV teams and 4 Novice teams plus a bunch of Open teams. I am still waiting for final confirmation from Georgia, West Georgia, Wake, Emory, Georgia State, Kentucky, Miami, Vanderbilt, App State and potentially others. Mercer entry Elizabeth Thatcher & Erin Witte (eligible to qualify for NDT) Ruth Beerman & David Cisneros (eligible to qualify for NDT) Judges: 1. Whit Whitmore 2. Blake Abbott Florida entry Neil Blackmon & Morgan Weinstein (eligible to qualify for NDT) Judge: Gerald Kish Samford entry Radford and Phillips Mann and Streat Judges: Janas Coulter Georgia Entry: Patricia Kelley & Adrianne Carr * Hays Watson & Tom Keane * Brent Culpepper & TBA Reed Hardaway & TBA JV: Ross Benton & Michael Moore Judges: Ed Panetta Ken Rufo Ryan Galloway Michael Lee MTSU JV: Courtney Carver & Allan Lutes NOVICE: Heather Cannon & Vantha Chhoun NOVICE: Markisha Vaughn & Angie Clark JUDGES John Schweri JohnG Mast GSU Entry Erik Mathis & Jernard Sherman. The 2nd team's composition is undecided. We will have 2 JV teams and 1 novice team. I will send names soon. Louisville 2 open (both ndt qualifiers): Robert J. Green/Corey Knox; Sandra Webster/Lori Goodwin 1 jv: Lauren Bernert/Courtney Knox 1 novice: Jennifer Harris/Ebony Floyd Judges: Ede Warner (tab room?), Tiffany Dillard, Mindy Eaves, maybe Daryl Burch Alabama entry UA will have four teams Tameka Phillips and Bryan Grayson (eligible to qualify for NDT) Abi Smith and Nikole Miller (eligible to qualify for NDT) Michael Collins and Brandon Scott Heather Wyatt and Marques Evans Judges Ed Lee James Herndon From Damus Tue Feb 18 12:51:03 2003 From: Damus (Damus at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:51:03 EST Subject: [eDebate] Novice Nationals Invite Request... Message-ID: <1e6.24e18e2.2b83da97@aol.com> Could someone please backchannel to me the NU Novice Nationals Invitation or the link to the web-site. Thanks in advance and sorry for the clutter. David Damus From bodonnel Tue Feb 18 13:17:42 2003 From: bodonnel (O'Donnell, Brett M.) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:17:42 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Need Wayne State Results Message-ID: I need the results for the fall Wayne State Tournament (particularly the speaker awards) for the ADA rankings. Please fax them to 434-582-2113 as soon as possible. Thanks. Brett O'Donnell From jd.rollins Tue Feb 18 13:25:16 2003 From: jd.rollins (Joel Rollins) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:25:16 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] ndt bids Message-ID: i will try this again without compression. joel -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 123904 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/23305146/attachment.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 93696 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/23305146/attachment-0001.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/msword Size: 30720 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/23305146/attachment.dot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/msword Size: 21163 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/23305146/attachment-0001.dot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/msword Size: 14990 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/23305146/attachment-0002.dot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 91648 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/23305146/attachment-0002.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 101376 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/23305146/attachment-0003.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 77824 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/23305146/attachment-0004.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 107520 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/23305146/attachment-0005.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 178176 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/23305146/attachment-0006.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 39077 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/23305146/attachment-0007.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 28894 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/23305146/attachment-0008.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 35840 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/23305146/attachment-0009.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 173568 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/23305146/attachment-0010.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 183808 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/23305146/attachment-0011.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 57344 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/23305146/attachment-0012.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 57344 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/23305146/attachment-0013.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 82944 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/23305146/attachment-0014.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 103424 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/23305146/attachment-0015.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 86864 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/23305146/attachment-0016.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 53248 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/23305146/attachment-0017.obj From matt_bostick Tue Feb 18 13:47:13 2003 From: matt_bostick (Matt Bostick) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 03:47:13 +0800 Subject: [eDebate] Georgia PR or Ryan Galloway please Message-ID: <20030218194714.24361.qmail@graffiti.net> Could one of you backchannel me please? Thanks. --- Hate is baggage. Life's too short to be pissed off all the time. It's just not worth it. -- _______________________________________________ Get your free email from http://www.graffiti.net Powered by Outblaze From let_the_american_empire_burn Tue Feb 18 13:52:43 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:52:43 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] rant in threes Message-ID: i find it more than a bit ironic that Matt-S is accusing Phallus-J of homophobic rhetoric while also defending the military, an institution which forces gays into the closet if they wish to serve their country. Matt-S: "Nothing [Phallus]'s ever done on this list had advanced any understanding of the system or laid out accessible methods of revolutionary agitation." i don't think that's true, considering he's written some insightful things about Foucault, though i happen to agree that his anti-military sentiments are misdirected (http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200302/0382.html). Matt-S: "Get a job, Phallus." so he can pay taxes which go to buy cluster bombs and daisy cutter and land-mines? you seem caught in another contradiction, Mr. Stannard. and now the joke of the day.... _ Duaney: "[A]sshole..historically the US Military is the protector and liberator of the people, not the enemy." uh, come again? would that be the protection of the people of the Phillipenes from colonial Spain, some 20,000 of which were slaughtered at the turn of the 20th century by American forces? or maybe the liberation of Mexicans from Mexico, whose civilians were bombarded with artillery because President Polk couldn't keep his blood-thirsty greed for California under control? no, you must mean the Jews and other 'undesirables' trapped in Nazi Germany who were prevented from emigrating to the USA and who were executed in death camps that the USA military refused to bomb, or even acknowledge the existence of until it was much too late? or perhaps you mean the Kurds, who were gassed by a dictator named Saddam Hussien even as he recieved direct military assistance from your military, and who are being denied their own state by that same military in the up-and-coming regime change? or did you mean when the USA protected the people of Southeast Asia, perhaps as many as two million of whom were killed during the invasion and bombardment of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia? or did you mean the liberation of the people of Afghanistan, upwards of 3,000 of whom were burned to ash, including entire villages of innocent people, the Red Cross Center (twice), and children who were too hungry to discern a cluster bomblet from a food package? no you certainly meant the close to 200,000 Japanese people who were vaporized by atomic weapons, and the tens of thousands who were killed in the saturation bombings of Tokoyo which happened even after Japan surrendered? or maybe you meant the civilian you'll step on a land-mine today, one which your military laid there but refuses to spend the money to pick up? i mean, why on earth would anyone think that your military is an enemy of the people? they must be terrorists who are after our precious bodily fluids, yeah? _ Duaney's spouse (sorry, forgot your name): "If you want to protect the global markets - Saddam needs to go. If you want to protect human rights (a liberal position), Saddam needs to go. Bottom line. Even this liberal can see we need to act." don't delude yourself as to which of those two things come first though - global markets always preceeds humyn rights. after all, the USA didn't lift a finger to stop Saddam from killing close to 200,000 Kurds (nor when Turkey, an ally in the pending war, engaged in similar sized dispossessions and massacres of Kurdish peoples). a long-haired commie-freak from a poor, outlaw town called Bethlehem once said that noted that it is very hypocritical for seemingly rigtheous people to try to remove the splinter from their brother's eye while they've got a wooden plank in their own - if the USA's concern about the life and liberty of world-citizens is genuine, perhaps imposing sanctions which have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis wasn't such a benevolent thing to do? perhaps pouring tens of billions of military aid into a country called Israel, which also invades its neighbors (Lebanon in 82), oppresses and murders its own people (if the Kurds are 'Saddam's own people', then i guess the Palestinians are Israel's), and has a clandestine nuclear program (though much more successful than Iraq's, with hundreds, perhaps thousands, of launch-on-warning nukes), isn't the most ethical of foreign policy decisions, considering the high-priority that humyn rights now occupies on the administration's to-do-list, eh? after 200 years of imperialist conquest, NOW the USA is starting to care about poor, oppressed peoples? well shit, maybe this new Napoleonic America should topple the many totalitarian regimes in Africa and South America first, and then work its way up. is this the liberal position, Ms. Blair? .k _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From pad159 Tue Feb 18 16:57:35 2003 From: pad159 (Philip De Hart) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:57:35 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Question about Procedure on the Listserv References: <200302181827.h1IIRZn08439@fiat.cross-x.com> Message-ID: <012401c2d7a1$2182c540$962a4742@ownert3gdbbaf7> Andy... Normally I'm pretty jive with what you have to say. I was (and still am) cool with the whole refusing to flow things; I come from a liberal/deconstructed/kritiky background myself. That being said, might it not be possible that at some point refusing to engage (e.g. Bruno's blocking Jerkins) can be a viable strategy-- one not just used by "the Man" but also by anyone else who, after attempting deliberation, loses any hope for resolution? Philosopher Henry Johnstone-- something of a speech theorist and founder of Philosophy and Rhetoric-- reminds us that there are preconditions for having a debate (I'm giving you the two I can remember): 1) both parties must have similar stakes in the debate 2) both parties must be willing to change her/his/their minds with the outcome of the debate Phallus Jerkins does bring up some interesting points, but could they not also be perceived as libelous harassments? What are the real chances Jerkins or Bruno will change their opinions at the end of this discussion? Furthermore, can the discussion count as a debate in the first place-- there appears to be no dialogue (except for the very first exchange); thereafter, everything else has been a series of monologues that have not adequately answered either's position entirely (although I feel Navy's answers have been much more persuasive). Jerkin's is employing a fallacy of association, most likely the "what's true of the whole is true of a part", combined with what Dan Bloomingdale calls the link by omission. In this case the link is such that if you aren't actively fighting "the Man" you must be helping Him. This tactic seems to neglect the middleground of outright indifference/lack of political activism. Just as Jerkins might assume that not working against tyrrany is an endorsement of it, so too is it the case that "the Man" might believe that not actively fighting the Other is an endorsement of that Other (e.g. if you don't hate terrorism and fight it, you must be part of the problem). Personally, I resent the comments about ADA, yet your beliefs are your own and you are entitled to them. However, regarding Jerkins and Navy debate, what I propose is that you attempt an additional deconstruction. Instead of only deconstructing the center (the DOD, etc) once, and settling for protest, deconstruct the protest as well. Look to see where Jerkins' comments equally engage in strategies of power that ultimately prove frustrating and silencing-- "Navy debate's" voice(s) has been marginalized. It has been lumped into the larger portrayal of the state, even though the individual actors of navy debate are infinitely unique individuals (remember your Levinas here-- it's pretty important). Deconstruct Jerkins' comments that they are mindless drones who haven't challenged, for example, the vaccinations. Furthermore, remember that Derrida and Levinas encourage the continued deconstructions (in as much as they can encourage anything, or that I can speak about their writings, etc). In fact, if I recall, we are to find ourselves in continual deconstructions of deconstructions, etc. So what exactly does the alternative become? Challenge Bruno and make your remarks about ADA if you will, but please don't forget to challenge Perkin's at the same time. If we blindly accept her/him, we will have silenced some great debaters and people at Navy by only listening to the stories we want to hear. I'm not here to pick a fight. I apologize if the awkward sentence structures I've used are difficult to understand. If anyone has any questions about this post feel free to ask. I'm becoming late for class as we speak, and there's still a lot of snow on the ground. Best of luck with the rest of the season. Peace. Philip DeHart Penn State Debate (another one of Jerkin's sucky programs, I guess, since we have no budget and no coach) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Ellis" To: Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 10:27 AM Subject: Re: [eDebate] Question about Procedure on the Listserv > now thats some suprising shit, a ADA spawned debater who thinks its ok > to block himself off from certain discourse and debate, i must say i am > suprised that such an open inclusive community of ideas could possibly > generate such a closeminded response... > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/da01c3a8/attachment.htm From virgiliacoriolan Tue Feb 18 14:05:36 2003 From: virgiliacoriolan (Alisha Hamilton) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:05:36 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] A Navy Opinion Message-ID: This is the opinion of an individual on the Naval Academy debate team. This is not reflective of the views of any administration or the Navy at large. All profanity and gender/sexually insensitive remarks are quotations taken from the various posts from a "Phallus Jerkins." I do not intend to change your mind about the military. I feel that it is every American's right to have an opinion and express it. You do that. However, I would like to point out some incredible contradictions in what I have recently read. You say that military debaters are not able to comprehend any critical ideas or think for themselves. You berate the military for not allowing "dabait" in its ranks and claim that the "hierarchical command structure of the military" is in direct conflict with the free flowing ideas in debate. I offer that the basis for debate is learning and self-expression. Debating is meant to educate and enlighten people to the different schools of thought in the world. A person's ability to defend their ideas in a coherent format makes a good debater. You, sir, do not offer clear defense of any ideals. You offer racial and prejudiced slurs in a format that is garbled and incoherent. You offer so many derogatory terms: "japs, two little gook girlz" and the continuous references to "taking it up the ass." Not only are these terms demoralizing and damaging, but they are also the very terms that many debaters seek to reject. If you are anti-military, fine. If you do not support the views of President Bush, fine. If you do not support the war with Iraq, fine. However, your right to free speech and free assembly are protected by the Constitution. The rights guaranteed to you by the Constitution are what allow you to speak your mind. I would encourage you to construct those thoughts in a more socially responsible fashion before foisting them on others. Perhaps, with greater articulation, you could influence people to your views. Please remember that everyone is a human being. You should treat them as such, whether they are different from you or not. The derogatory and ignorant nature of your comments are more offensive than its content. Debate cannot exist without at least two viewpoints. Everyone should welcome and encourage free speech, but not to the detriment of others. 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/20030218/0e9c586a/attachment.html From Zompetti Tue Feb 18 14:06:08 2003 From: Zompetti (Zompetti at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:06:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Re: SE/SEC CEDA / D6 entries to date Message-ID: <243D60A6.0DC6B498.008C440C@aol.com> I haven't received anyone's team rankings. From let_the_american_empire_burn Tue Feb 18 14:23:20 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:23:20 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] alisha's freedom to speak incorrectly Message-ID: "However, your right to free speech and free assembly are protected by the Constitution. The rights guaranteed to you by the Constitution are what allow you to speak your mind." actually the Constitution, far from a way of protecting free speech, is meant to provide a way for a government to restrict speech. this is one of the reasons why folks like Jefferson refused to sign it, even with a Bill of Rights attached. think about it - without a state, i'm free to say anything i fucking want; but when a state makes it its job to allegedly 'protect my right to free speech', then suddenly they can restrict all kinds of speech: 'fighting words' and 'hate speech' and 'sedition' and 'i'm going to kill the president' and a whole slew of other various types of speech have historically been restricted by the Supreme Court, the Congress, and the President. and then when the state allows you to burn a flag, they think they deserve some pat on the back, like 'see how free you are? even when you burn a flag, we'll just say you're being obedient to the principles which the flag stands for. gotcha!' i do have to hand it to the federalists though; its one of the most ingenius forms of statism yet invented, still convincing seemingly intelligent people like Alisha some 200 hundred years after the bullshit was first spouted. that's called American ingenuity. .k _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From jhutchin Tue Feb 18 14:15:28 2003 From: jhutchin (Jeremy Hutchins) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:15:28 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] NJDDT Invitation Repost Message-ID: Hotel deadline is March 1. Please enter as soon as you get a chance. ****** 28th National Junior Division Debate Tournament Johnson County Community College March 15-17, 2003 Dear Community: You are invited to attend the 2003 National Junior Division Debate Tournament. We will offer both a novice division and junior division with 8 rounds of policy debate. The following information should help you with your arrangements. If you have any questions or if I can be of any other assistance do not hesitate to contact me. Please join us in March for what I expect to be a competitive and rewarding experience for everyone involved. Sincerely, Jeremy Hutchins Director of Debate JCCC 12345 College Blvd. Overland Park, Kansas 66210 913-469-8500 Ext. 4587 jhutchin at jccc.net LODGING: We will once again use the Wyndham Gardens Hotel located at the Metcalf exit off of I-435 as the tournament hotel. The rate is $59.00 for 1-4 in a room. The tax rate is 13%. The phone number is 913-383-2550. The address is 7000 W. 108th St. - Overland Park, Kansas - 66211. When making reservations, please mention JCCC Debate to get the tournament rate. If you have any problems, contact David Hayden in sales at 913-385-8505. Please call quickly as they are holding the block of rooms only until March 1st. After that date, it will be on an availability basis. The Wyndham offers a hot breakfast buffet each morning for $6.95. Wyndham Hotel is currently offering their ByRequest program. By signing up for the program before your stay you are entitled to express check in and late check out, frequent flyer miles on the airline of your choice, and complimentary local calls, high speed internet access and domestic long distance. There is no cost or future obligation associated with the program. To sign up for the program go to . If you need other options for lodging please let me know. TRANSPORTATION: For transportation from the Kansas City airport to Overland Park, we recommend Quicksilver Shuttle. The phone number is 913- 262-0905. If other accommodations are needed please let me know. ENTRIES, JUDGES & FEES: There is no limit on entries provided there are judges to cover them. It is difficult to find hired judges, so please let me know early if you need to hire and I will see what can be done. [If you know of judges who might want to be hired have them contact me.] The entry fees are $100 per debate team and $100 judge fee per uncovered team. Unfortunately, we have had to increase fees this year to cover tournament expenses such as hired judging, trophies, and hospitality. However, we are including a second meal to increase the convenience and efficiency of the tournament. Please make checks payable to Johnson County Community College. Each judge covers 2 teams or portion thereof. One team requires a 4 round commitment. ALL JUDGES MUST BE AVAILABLE TO JUDGE ONE ROUND AFTER HIS/HER TEAMS HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED. Entries are due by 5:00 pm on Tuesday, March 11th. Please e-mail, mail, or phone your entries. DIVISIONS: We will offer a division in junior and in novice. We will adhere to the CEDA guidelines for eligibility in each division. TOPIC: Each division will use the 2002-2003 policy debate topic. Time limits for the tournament are 9-3-6 with 10 minutes prep. DEBATES: Each team will debate 4 affirmative and 4 negative rounds. In both preliminary and elimination rounds, judges will be required to make a decision awarding one team a win, one team a loss, and award speaker points and ranks to each participant in the debate. The number of elimination rounds will be based on the entries within each division. Elimination round participants will be determined by (1) win-loss record, (2) total speaker points, (3) adjusted speaker points. Brackets will NOT be broken in elimination rounds. Rounds 1-4 will be preset. Rounds 5 and 7 will be high-high within brackets. Rounds 6 and 8 will be high-low within brackets. AWARDS: All teams qualifying for elimination rounds will receive awards. The top speakers in each division will also receive awards. SCHEDULE: Friday March 14th 7:00 pm - 10:00 pm Registration at the Wyndham (Preference sheets due by 10:00 pm) Saturday March 15th 8:00 Breakfast at the school 8:30 Round One 11:00 Round Two 1:30 - 2:30 Lunch at the school 2:30 Round Three 5:00 Round Four Sunday March 16th 7:00 Pairings released at the Wyndham 7:30 Breakfast at the school 8:00 Round Five 11:00 Round Six Lunch (On Your Own) 3:00 Round Seven 5:30 - 7:00 Dinner at the school 7:00 Round Eight ASAP Breaks released at the Wyndham Monday March 17th 7:00 Pairings released at the Wyndham 8:00 Breakfast at the school 8:30 First Elimination Round 11:30 Awards Other elims to follow From Martlno4 Tue Feb 18 14:35:19 2003 From: Martlno4 (Martlno4 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:35:19 EST Subject: [eDebate] alisha's freedom to speak incorrectly Message-ID: <1dc.31007f7.2b83f307@aol.com> You are sadly mistaken, you seem to have your chicken and egg confused. Jefferson was an opponent of any institution that would limit speech, which is why he opposed a document that didn't spell out the write of free speech in it. By your way of thinking, "without government I can say anything I want", would imply that Jefferson was an anarchist and wanted no form of government in place. I think you should read a bit on Jefferson and understand that his first priority has two parts 1) To establish a government of the people, that would provide a framework to protect their rights and 2) To establish a government of the people, that would not provide specifics to protect their rights, rather guidelines to be followed. NM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/1406abc3/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Tue Feb 18 14:39:53 2003 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:39:53 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] rant in threes Message-ID: Sanchez: >i find it more than a bit ironic that Matt-S is accusing Phallus-J of >homophobic rhetoric while also defending the military, an institution which >forces gays into the closet if they wish to serve their country. Your interpretation is incorrect. First, rather than "defending the military," I am pointing out the tactical stupidity of personal attacks against members of the debate community who are in the military. I have never defended the social role of the military or those who serve in it. So eat yer straw. Second, Jerkins" is the one you should be criticizing for equating anal sex with violence and domination. Some people find same-sex anal penetration both desirable and reciprocal. To trivialize anal RAPE, on the other hand, is simply more of Jerkins' bad taste. >i don't think that's true, considering he's written some insightful things >about Foucault, though i happen to agree that his anti-military sentiments >are misdirected (http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200302/0382.html). > Yeah, really freaking accessible to the majority of humanity, those amateurish foucaldian rants. I am not saying there is no way to make Foucault (or Derrida or Levinas, etc) accessible to non-academics, but trust-fund-boy hasn't done it. >Matt-S: "Get a job, Phallus." >so he can pay taxes which go to buy cluster bombs and daisy cutter and >land-mines? you seem caught in another contradiction, Mr. Stannard. Uh, wrong again, Kevin. I was just saying that since he's helping the police state discredit the anti-war movement with his pathetic personal attacks against individuals at military academies, he might as well get paid to do it. Hell, I am surprised some of the neocons on this listserve haven't already sent him money for it. Read more carefully. stannard _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From stannardmatt Tue Feb 18 14:51:50 2003 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:51:50 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Re: is stannard a shrink-cop? Message-ID: You know nothing about me, and so naturally, your ad homs are misdirected. My activist concern is not with academics, but with non-academics who will (to the delight of the police state) reject your rhetoric and, along with it, the whole anti-war movement (but screw them, right?). No positive defense in your post of your asinine reactionary tactics. No justification of your OWN reliance on homophobic language to insult your favorite new targets. No consciousness, more masturbation, just like you always do. Then again, I never had a huge trust fund to help me make political choices without consequences. Maybe that explains why, for the past two years, I've been accusing you of having zero class consciousness, and your behavior has only confirmed that, time after bloody time. Drop dead, faux revolutionary loser. stannard _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From let_the_american_empire_burn Tue Feb 18 15:31:59 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:31:59 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] alisha's freedom to speak incorrectly Message-ID: NM, i wasn't suggesting that all the details of my argument would be agreed upon by the likes of Jeferson; i was merely noting that, even with the Bill of Rights, he refused to sign the Constitution because he disagreed with the position Alisha was advancing - my overall point being that the Constitution's supposed protection of free speech is really a clever way for the Feds to impose limits on speech. Jefferson (the independent thinker, not the President) and the anti-federalists (before they sold out) were believers in decentralized agrarianism which, besides the (unsustainable) evil of slavery, was as close to genuine libertarian government as this country ever came. once the rebels kicked out the British imperialists, Americans could basically vocalize and write anything their hearts desired to express: hell, they could even defame and libel public figures or try their best to incite a riot - there were no restrictions on leaking secrets that might threaten 'national security' or on distributing what 'community standards' deemed to be 'obscene'. at the same time that Supreme Court justices have argued eloquently about how free speech is the cornerstone of democratic society, about how it is necessary to prevent tyranny and search for truth, they've simultaneously put the federal government in the preeminent place of deciding which speech is allowed and which speech is not; cases set precents by re-hashing questions like, is this advertisement deceptive? does that violate copyright? is this appropraite for school-children? does that incite lawlessness?, and so on and on. in other words, questions that would have otherwise been resolved through more free speech (e.g: you say that, President Bush was arrested for fucking baby sheep, and he then responds with, you're a goddamn liar) are now resolved through governmental regulations (there's at least nine categories of what's Orwellianly termed 'unprotected speech' in constitutional law). [i'd like the option of going up to the White House one day and saying: 'umm, yes, i'd like to cede my free speech protections.' 'uh, what's that, sir?' 'well, i'm sure you have a Kevin Sanchez listed somewhere, and please just cross me off the list, i mean, don't worry about bothering to protect my free speech anymore.' 'i don't understand.' 'well, i'm doing you a favor here. it'll save you a lot of time, considering how busy you are protecting my right to rail against the President.' 'ooohkay.' 'and then if i might want to distribute something that my community considers 'obscene', for instance, then you can't arrest me, see?' 'huh?' 'well if you're not in the business of protecting what i can say, then you don't have to worry about not protecting what i normally couldn't say, so.....' 'get security in here.'] now, in saying all this, i'm not advocating either anarchism or statism - looking around at today's society, even Jefferson might say that some restriction on certain types of speech is quite reasonable. all i'm saying is that this notion that 'the Constitution protects free speech' is patently false - what the First Amendment protects is the right of the government to regulate speech, when it sees fit to do so. of course, there've been a couple radical Justices who claimed that the First Amendment actually means what it reads ('Congress shall pass no law, blahblahblah...'), but, as they say, the Constitution is a living document, and dramatic liberal rhetoric aside, it effectively breathed new life into governmental censorship, which is precisely what Jefferson and other prophetic voices at the time feared would occur. .k _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From Steph293 Tue Feb 18 15:33:28 2003 From: Steph293 (Steph293 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:33:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Need Hybrid for Kansas Message-ID: <24C3A432.14B13F34.0084B4FE@aol.com> If anyone needs a hybrid varsity or JV partner for Heart??? If anyone is going and needs a partner please back-channel me? Stephanie Gerali The University of Denver From vrenegar Tue Feb 18 15:40:14 2003 From: vrenegar (Valerie R. Renegar) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 13:40:14 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Aztec results Message-ID: <007501c2d796$5294b9a0$a8ddf492@sdsu.edu> Thanks to all who made the trip to (thankfully!) sunny San Diego for the 2003 Aztec Invitational. Extra special thanks go to Jon Bruschke who makes running a tournament far easier than it should be. Congratulations to our champions, Melissa Newton and Michael Shultz from Kansas State in the open division and the undefeated novice team of Mariana Barajas and Walid Kandeel. Open Finals KSU NS (A) 3-0 over ASU GJ Open Semis KSU NS (N) 2-1 over Redlands AS ASU GJ (N) 2-1 over UMKC GG Open Quarters Redlands AS (A) 3-0 over Kansas HZ KSU NS (A) 2-1 over Kansas JT UMKC GG (A) 3-0 over KSU FS ASU GJ (A) 3-0 over CSU Fullerton DT Novice finals CSU Long Beach (A) 3-0 over Buena Vista WY Thanks ya'll!! Val -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/29f73c8e/attachment.html From let_the_american_empire_burn Tue Feb 18 15:43:37 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:43:37 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] rant in threes Message-ID: sorry, Mr. Stannard, i tried very carefully to read your difficult post, yet being a simple, straw-eating, non-academic member of the majority of humynity, i find your writing style inaccessible, and can't make heads nor tails of anything. please excuse my amateurish lack of understanding, but do feel welcome to fuck me in the ass whenever you're in the south texas area. .k _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From pflaig Tue Feb 18 15:44:39 2003 From: pflaig (Paul Flaig) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:44:39 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Need Judges for Maine East High School Tournament Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/d0d89659/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Tue Feb 18 15:54:00 2003 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 14:54:00 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] rant in threes Message-ID: Funny, but non-responsive. Good day. stannard >From: "Kevin Sanchez" >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: Re: [eDebate] rant in threes >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:43:37 -0600 > >sorry, Mr. Stannard, i tried very carefully to read your difficult post, >yet being a simple, straw-eating, non-academic member of the majority of >humynity, i find your writing style inaccessible, and can't make heads nor >tails of anything. please excuse my amateurish lack of understanding, but >do feel welcome to fuck me in the ass whenever you're in the south texas >area. .k > >_________________________________________________________________ >Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online >http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From MIDNBRUNO Tue Feb 18 16:20:22 2003 From: MIDNBRUNO (MIDNBRUNO at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:20:22 EST Subject: [eDebate] A Unique Opportunity for PJ Message-ID: <12f.233f432d.2b840ba6@aol.com> All of those that E-mail me and PJ, I agree with a lot of your e-mails and I offer a unique opportunity to Jack (PJ). But first, I will comment on Andy's comments about my "closemindedness." Andy, I am not sure whether you remember me personally but I think that I have been willing to engage PJ at least somewhat on the non-slanderous portions of his argumentation. However, according to one of the posts a "willingness to debate and change your beliefs" are a mandatory part of any debate. I will give the olive branch here. I am willing to have a debate. Here are my terms (not to exclude but to promote actual intelligent, educational conversation). I will engage in a debate where no slanderous statements are made. I will engage you on topics like military orders, anthrax vaccinations, etc. I will have a debate in any setting that you want, although I cannot post as quickly as you do. I might even have a unique perspective because I am leaving the military in a few months. Oh and by the way, I have never received an anthrax vaccination (maybe we can start there). Mike Bruno -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/0ecc56f7/attachment.html From let_the_american_empire_burn Tue Feb 18 16:27:34 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 16:27:34 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] rant in threes Message-ID: Matt: "Funny, but non-responsive." actually, i think it posited three responses: one, that the homophobia you see in PJ's posts is satricizing what it seeks to negate, and that any negative implications are typically in your own head, not the text itself (just like my offering of my anus to your good graces). two, that there's a bit of contradictory paternalism in your constant concern for what 'most people' would be able to understand. now, i've never met most people, but i bet they're not reading your e-debate posts, no matter how accessibly you write them - so aren't you as suspectible to the generic critique of pseudo-revolutionism that you're directing at folks like PJ? (and implicitly) three, that though i'm not interested in defending PJ's ad homs against particular debate teams that happen to be in the armed forces, it would seem that if army and navy skools aren't as competitively successful as they could be due to a lack of respect by this community, then, a., perhaps the win-loss system itself requires some seriously playful interruption, and b., perhaps other skools aren't cognizant of how reliant they are on military history/funding ... now, whether this fits into your *FORT* Hays-like kritik of pseudo-activism or not, i'll let you be the judge. good day. .k _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From stannardmatt Tue Feb 18 16:39:35 2003 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:39:35 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] rant in threes Message-ID: >one, that the homophobia you see in PJ's posts is satricizing what it seeks >to negate, and that any negative implications are typically in your own >head, not the text itself (just like my offering of my anus to your good >graces). Forgive me for not noticing the irony I was not informed I should notice. It changes nothing about my opinion of those posts. Confining interpretation to my "own head" is pretty reductionistic, and typical of the bourgeois clap I keep seeing in Jerkins' posts. > >two, that there's a bit of contradictory paternalism in your constant >concern for what 'most people' would be able to understand. now, i've never >met most people, but i bet they're not reading your e-debate posts, no >matter how accessibly you write them - so aren't you as suspectible to the >generic critique of pseudo-revolutionism that you're directing at folks >like PJ? Possibly, but the critique would be pretty generic, like "debate coaches aren't revolutionaries," rather than the fairly specific "it's tactically indefensible to insult individual members of the military" critique I leveled at Jerkins. > >(and implicitly) three, that though i'm not interested in defending PJ's ad >homs against particular debate teams that happen to be in the armed forces, >it would seem that if army and navy skools aren't as competitively >successful as they could be due to a lack of respect by this community, >then, a., perhaps the win-loss system itself requires some seriously >playful interruption, and b., perhaps other skools aren't cognizant of how >reliant they are on military history/funding > If you're so uninterested in defending him, why do you keep doing so? Perhaps the interpretation you posit is the one Jerkins intended, but irony is, also, a very elitist rhetorical strategy. stannard _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From jd.rollins Tue Feb 18 17:58:09 2003 From: jd.rollins (Joel Rollins) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:58:09 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] novi nats Message-ID: hey all, i have seen nothing re: novice nationals. has it been posted and have i missed it? we are planning on bringing two teams: john Long & spencer johnson brian peterson & mariesa herrmann judges: Rollins Nathan If others are planning on attending, could you please post to the web? thanks, joel From arsenalgunners2 Tue Feb 18 19:32:57 2003 From: arsenalgunners2 (Mick Souders) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 01:32:57 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Regis Message-ID: Schrader...Rief-ster...district prep...cites...drop me a line.... mick _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From arsenalgunners2 Tue Feb 18 19:48:27 2003 From: arsenalgunners2 (Mick Souders) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 01:48:27 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] ISU Richard or Isaac Message-ID: Mickolaus Souders says, Just doing my cites work, got some questions... Mick..., I mean "Mic" _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From jleidenberg Tue Feb 18 20:09:20 2003 From: jleidenberg (James Leidenberg) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:09:20 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Who's To Blame? Message-ID: <812HBscJu9968S22.1045620560@uwdvg022.cms.usa.net> I begin this commentary with the following disclaimer: these views are mine, not the military, the academy, or the Army debate team. I pose this question: Who+IBk-s to blame for the atrocities of our past? Are the children and grandchildren, and great grandchildren of the leaders of yesteryear to blame? Are we to deny our existence and commit mass migration to the land of our mothers and fathers? Because in the end, the spectacle of war has overtaken every society at some point. I can advocate giving the land back to the original peoples who possessed the land. These people can advocate that they too deny ownership of their rights for the harms that their ancestors committed against the peoples before them. What about nature; does the humyn species deserve any rights above the simplest of beings? If that+IBk-s true then the natural violence of the lions against the zebra should cease and all creatures should exist as symbiotic beings with each other. But, what about the land itself, does having a bit more carbon in a collection of molecules warrant the ability to change the original earth? The imbalance of the universe is controversial. Some believe that humyn being were endowed the power to utilize the earth+IBk-s resources as needed. They believe that the land, the animals, and other peoples are free at their disposal so long as they can wield the tools of innovation to tap into those resources. Others proclaim that we have no right to conquer, destroy, pillage, and overpower the unwilling. These people say this from the luxury of a state founded on these very notions. They destroy the environment every time they turn on a light, plug in a computer, drive their car, and order out junk food with a dollar that represents the capitalist oppression of the world. Can a person of this stature truly speak for the well being of the entire universe? What then can we as individuals do? So who+IBk-s responsible and how willing are you to back up your contention that humyn society is oppressive. Your arguments about the sanctity of saving the environment stem from the personal belief that it hinders your future. How about advocating a plan to allow people to destroy themselves through war, pollution, and industrialization. Then the world would recover, the balance would be preserved and natural order would arise. But, the bottom line is that you are not willing to stand idly by and watch your friends, family and society destroy itself. Is that so wrong? What if it were possible to redress the wrongs of the past through our daily actions instead of just pointing them out. Is the humyn species so doomed that nothing can ever change and that we can+IBk-t give up our quest to control everything? A society already exists with people unwilling to yield their way of life. War, violence, crime, capitalism, sex, drugs, and oppression all permeate the essence of our being. People argue that evil is inherent in nature, that societies form to protect individuals, and that nothing we do can affect the ultimate outcome of civilization. The truth is that we can change the future, we can make a difference, and we can start right now. Stop complaining about the problems and act. Do something anything, but don+IBk-t sit there and complain from the solitude of your computer. Many people went out and protested the war with Iraq this weekend, but is that enough. How closely do politicians listen to people outside of election year? There are other alternatives to voicing a problem. Stage sit ins at your local capitals, boycott American made products, refuse to pay taxes or something that shows TRUE activism. Look at the Vietnam War era: how much change did the protests bring? This government only operates off of the will of the silence. When the protests got loud enough, the government changed its policy and stopped committing forces to Vietnam. Today, President Bush+IBk-s response was clear: He respects the democratic protests but he feels that regardless of the peoples+IBk beliefs he will do what he deems is best for the nation. Do you think that ONE day of protests will change anything? The protests happened on a weekend where most people were off of work and the audience intended to hear the protests were gone. How about making a real sacrifice and showing true dedication to a cause and spending the entire week outside making a real stand against the harms you feel are in the system. Otherwise, the silence of the majority will end up dictating the legitimacy of policy-making. Such policy-making will end up being guided by businesspeople and elites. However, just like womyn+IBk-s rights movements and minority rights movements, the overwhelming activism led to the elites losing their footing and being forced to protect the rights of everyone. Politicians like Wallace and Thurman change their advocacy and protect their place in our +IBw-representative government.+IB0 So the problem in the system is not the system itself, it is the people. The people are willingly silent. They are too scared to lose their jobs. Complacency dictates policy making. Let me tell you about the military, it acts in the interests of this society. Do you truly believe that military generals sat around at decided to call up the President and say, +IBw-Oh, by the way, we are engaging a war with a Iraq. Hope this doesn+IBk-t cut into your agenda too much.+IB0 The politicians in this nation for centuries have utilized the men and womyn of this nation (just as other nations have) to meet their political ends. So you will say, the military shouldn+IBk-t just willingly act. The fact that the military acts on the nations needs reflects the same reasons you take up a cause. The members of the military of today (and by the way the military of today is all voluntary) seek to protect their families and believe in the American system even with its many flaws. Truthfully, the military of today is much different. How can you criticize an organization with more diversity than any other sector of society? The womyn and men who serve today contend with financial disparity, extremely long hours, and social isolation. The average person in the military can leave with the skills s/he gains from the military and make about 45% more in the +IBw-civilian+IB0 sector. Why do they do it then? The reasons are long and too numerous to name, but the overwhelming majority is because they feel that they can make a difference in the world by protecting freedom. After 9/11, the numbers of people going to recruiting stations across the globe swamped the recruiter staff. People felt that the country and their families needed protection and that there was an obvious shortage of service members. They knew that the risks could ultimately mean their death, but they were willing to sacrifice themselves for a cause. This all happened before the +IBw-brain washing+IB0 highlighted by our good friend PJ. So then, I can honestly say, the men and womyn of the military are ACTIVISTS. Can you condemn them for believing that there is hope for change, that what they do is to protect freedom, that their life is not worth living if there is no security, and that their actions are in the best interests of the people they love? These facts are real. Listen to the interviews every morning on CNN or MSNBC. These soldiers are fighting for you, not themselves. They are suffering in the cold nights and hot days of the desert or training for months at a time to protect the poverty-ridden zones in Bosnia. These people see the blunt of their duty in forms of peacekeeping. They feel righteous about their efforts. Whether or not they are blind to whatever oppression you want to point out, they are trying to make a difference. What about the people who send them to these places that you condemn them for going to? These are the politicians that you elect, that I elect, and that our fellow citizens elect. Don+IBk-t crucify the soldiers for the decisions that they have no voice to decide other than their vote which in many elections goes uncounted (absentee ballots often don+IBk-t get reviewed.) So who+IBk-s to blame? Navy and Army debaters? The soldiers in Iraq? Who? A very interesting debate also occurs over gays and lesbians in the military. The bottom line is that the generals and secretaries of the military don+IBk-t make the decisions on policies like that you do. The congress and the President control that policy. From within, most of the people in the military don+IBk-t care one way or the other. Many people in the military feel the policy is unfair. Again, the policy of exclusion extends from higher levels. It only shows the social biases against the others. If you want to site instances of brutality against homosexuals in the military, I can point to the same thing happening in society at large. The actions of a few individuals don+IBk-t speak for the larger group. Now, I have said what I have to say. The ball+IBk-s in your court. Very Respectfully, James Leidenberg From Hehehe685 Tue Feb 18 20:44:44 2003 From: Hehehe685 (Jeron Jackson) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:44:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ADI case outlines posted Message-ID: does anyone have the sources for the CTBT performance affirmative? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030218/6f844920/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Tue Feb 18 21:51:12 2003 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:51:12 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Iraq: frameworks, religion, empiricism, etc. Message-ID: This started out as a letter to one of my best friends, a christian, liberal-universalist-Wilsonian something-or-other who's in favor of a U.S. invasion of Iraq. It emerged from my frustration with the way pro-war intellectuals play the line between morality and pragmatism. I hope some people find it helpful. It's not very argumentative. There is a noticeable "heads I win, tails you lose" strategy at work within the pro-war camp. Moral imperatives are dismissed when offered against the war. Literate pro-war Christians, when confronted with "Thou shalt not kill," will invoke Augustine?s troubling dichotomy between otherwordly morality and the compromised morality of earthly government to justify military aggression. There will be talk of Just War doctrine, but the skeptic will sense that war proponents are trying a little too hard, stretching and squeezing this season?s war into that doctrine. This is "religion in public life:" conservatives finding exceptions to the unambiguously non-violent message of Christ, essentially picking and choosing and ignoring thousands upon thousands of words, but God forbid that, say, we abandon "thou shalt not commit adultery" with the same ease that we cast off prohibitions against killing. Such inconsistency, after all, is so universally accepted that practically no churchgoing American will question it. Conservatives can cast off cumbersome commandments. Hey, we all wish we could do it. It would help the religious GLBT community tremendously (if one interprets relevant scripture as condemning non-heterosexual behavior). But pragmatism is the province of the privileged. But notice how that pragmatism, like any other framework, can be tossed aside once anti-war arguments take on a pragmatic approach. There are literally hundreds of military problems with this war. Gen. Schwarzkopf, John McCain, certain members of the CIA, Senator Hagel, a gaggle of retired military officers, thousands of veterans, and more than a few other thinking conservatives, people who don?t oppose war categorically (I do not even oppose war categorically, but that?s a different essay), are pointing out all these facts that pro-war folks admit they aren't likely to consider. I appreciate the honesty, but I won?t let them wear that admission like some kind of shield against accusations of careless thinking, of irresponsibly taking a position which, if implemented will (with 100% certainty) result in innocent people dying?people who have never been asked their opinion?and which will, with a negotiable degree of confidence, result in a more unstable Iraq, Middle East, and world. You don?t get to be a pragmatist when defending a capricious global power hierarchy and then invoke your worldview over and above the potential consequences of this particular hegemonic action. That?s unfair and stupid. (Moreover, even if U.S. military action against Iraq doesn?t result in some worst-case scenario, that hardly excuses the refusal to give voice and weight to those possibilities. You don?t get to drive home drunk and then excuse your behavior by pointing out that you didn?t kill anybody this time.) You will undoubtedly know already that writers like Walzer and Hitchens are taking a lot of the same crap as my liberal pro-war friends. Hitchens is a real package, too. You should have heard him on Laura Ingram?s radio show, where she thought he was the greatest thing since sliced bread when condemning Clinton, and suddenly was just another Leftist buffoon when condemning Kissinger. I share his condemnation of both of those men, but his arguments about Iraq are as bad as anyone?s. Saddam is evil, U.S. military power can be used to progressive ends, WMD deployment would kill people, etc. Hitchens ignores both framework-oriented arguments about the role of U.S. hegemony AND utilitarian arguments against the war. So this opportunism requires not only an abandonment of a previous framework, but also an embrace of empirical obfuscation. _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From phallusjerkins Tue Feb 18 22:55:12 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:55:12 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] A Unique Opportunity for PJ Message-ID: Phallus Jerkins would like to dabait first and foremost the powell evidence, recent class-action suit against superior officers who rape, the demand that the grossly incompetent tank buffoons be tried in a civilian S. Korean court, and of course the courthmarshall of certain educated individuals who refused an anthrax vaccination...we will outline the case for how military training is anti-thetical to dabaiting very soon...no-ad homs or rich metaphors will be necessary.... >From: MIDNBRUNO at aol.com >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: [eDebate] A Unique Opportunity for PJ >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:20:22 EST > >All of those that E-mail me and PJ, > > I agree with a lot of your e-mails and I offer a unique opportunity >to >Jack (PJ). But first, I will comment on Andy's comments about my >"closemindedness." Andy, I am not sure whether you remember me personally >but I think that I have been willing to engage PJ at least somewhat on the >non-slanderous portions of his argumentation. However, according to one of >the posts a "willingness to debate and change your beliefs" are a mandatory >part of any debate. I will give the olive branch here. I am willing to >have >a debate. Here are my terms (not to exclude but to promote actual >intelligent, educational conversation). I will engage in a debate where no >slanderous statements are made. I will engage you on topics like military >orders, anthrax vaccinations, etc. I will have a debate in any setting >that >you want, although I cannot post as quickly as you do. I might even have a >unique perspective because I am leaving the military in a few months. Oh >and >by the way, I have never received an anthrax vaccination (maybe we can >start >there). > >Mike Bruno > > _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From phallusjerkins Tue Feb 18 23:03:55 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:03:55 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Iraq: frameworks, religion, empiricism, etc. Message-ID: please, bore me to tears--school boy--you sound like an uncle tom who internalizes his anger and pretends that he has transformed it into christian love... >From: "matt stannard" >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >CC: parli at willamette.edu >Subject: [eDebate] Iraq: frameworks, religion, empiricism, etc. >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 20:51:12 -0700 > >This started out as a letter to one of my best friends, a christian, >liberal-universalist-Wilsonian something-or-other who's in favor of a U.S. >invasion of Iraq. It emerged from my frustration with the way pro-war >intellectuals play the line between morality and pragmatism. I hope some >people find it helpful. It's not very argumentative. > >There is a noticeable "heads I win, tails you lose" strategy at work within >the pro-war camp. Moral imperatives are dismissed when offered against the >war. Literate pro-war Christians, when confronted with "Thou shalt not >kill," will invoke Augustine?s troubling dichotomy between otherwordly >morality and the compromised morality of earthly government to justify >military aggression. There will be talk of Just War doctrine, but the >skeptic will sense that war proponents are trying a little too hard, >stretching and squeezing this season?s war into that doctrine. This is >"religion in public life:" conservatives finding exceptions to the >unambiguously non-violent message of Christ, essentially picking and >choosing and ignoring thousands upon thousands of words, but God forbid >that, say, we abandon "thou shalt not commit adultery" with the same ease >that we cast off prohibitions against killing. Such inconsistency, after >all, is so universally accepted that practically no churchgoing American >will question it. Conservatives can cast off cumbersome commandments. >Hey, we all wish we could do it. It would help the religious GLBT >community tremendously (if one interprets relevant scripture as condemning >non-heterosexual behavior). But pragmatism is the province of the >privileged. > >But notice how that pragmatism, like any other framework, can be tossed >aside once anti-war arguments take on a pragmatic approach. There are >literally hundreds of military problems with this war. Gen. Schwarzkopf, >John McCain, certain members of the CIA, Senator Hagel, a gaggle of retired >military officers, thousands of veterans, and more than a few other >thinking conservatives, people who don?t oppose war categorically (I do not >even oppose war categorically, but that?s a different essay), are pointing >out all these facts that pro-war folks admit they aren't likely to >consider. I appreciate the honesty, but I won?t let them wear that >admission like some kind of shield against accusations of careless >thinking, of irresponsibly taking a position which, if implemented will >(with 100% certainty) result in innocent people dying?people who have never >been asked their opinion?and which will, with a negotiable degree of >confidence, result in a more unstable Iraq, Middle East, and world. You >don?t get to be a pragmatist when defending a capricious global power >hierarchy and then invoke your worldview over and above the potential >consequences of this particular hegemonic action. That?s unfair and >stupid. > >(Moreover, even if U.S. military action against Iraq doesn?t result in some >worst-case scenario, that hardly excuses the refusal to give voice and >weight to those possibilities. You don?t get to drive home drunk and then >excuse your behavior by pointing out that you didn?t kill anybody this >time.) > >You will undoubtedly know already that writers like Walzer and Hitchens are >taking a lot of the same crap as my liberal pro-war friends. Hitchens is a >real package, too. You should have heard him on Laura Ingram?s radio show, >where she thought he was the greatest thing since sliced bread when >condemning Clinton, and suddenly was just another Leftist buffoon when >condemning Kissinger. I share his condemnation of both of those men, but >his arguments about Iraq are as bad as anyone?s. Saddam is evil, U.S. >military power can be used to progressive ends, WMD deployment would kill >people, etc. Hitchens ignores both framework-oriented arguments about the >role of U.S. hegemony AND utilitarian arguments against the war. So this >opportunism requires not only an abandonment of a previous framework, but >also an embrace of empirical obfuscation. > >_________________________________________________________________ >Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From phallusjerkins Tue Feb 18 23:49:08 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:49:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Who's To Blame? Message-ID: respectable, but why not permutate: attack the military on edabait AND go out and break into the FBI COINTELPRO offices to make public hidden documents and raise hell. your false either-or about real activism is being deployed as a military-style social hygeine move to clean up the list. we gonna fuck up everyplace the military goes that we can...but honest it's like all of the moles on the list say "we have a trust-fund and we just sit in front of our computer like a child doing nothing"...the other side of the coin of complacency is military personnel who have taken for granted ancient codes of respect for their status in society..."i mean it is so slanderous and destructive to create a metaphor that links our proud military w ass-fucking, we are shocked but cut us some slack we don't take many lit classes in the military we prefer coherent plain english and none of this artsy fartsy stuff"...part of the expansion of war protest if you review the 60s a little more closely involves a serious public ridicule of military personnel and officials to their chagrin symbolic of the breakdown in authority...you sound academic and hypothetical on protest tactics...and you omitted the clandestine infiltration of activist groups by intelligence, the assassination of activist leaders, the general psychological warfare program that crushed the movements and has largely remained effective since...but we military types don't like to talk about that shit because oh actually the blame is on us...because when the people rise up thank god and jesus christ that we have the military-intelligence apparatus to put em down w the coast guard for christ's sakes firing on students @ kent state...sorry, sound kritik literate all you want but you are the problem, spinmaster... we agree so much with part of what you say about seriously fucking shit up but include the "no mercy on the military killers" caveat. the true litmus test for us in this regard will be the termination of the planet dabait website to provide free evidence. according to deleuze and guattari, your theories about the future sabotage are a bit dated in the cyberworld. >From: James Leidenberg >To: >Subject: [eDebate] Who's To Blame? >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:09:20 -0500 > >I begin this commentary with the following disclaimer: these views are >mine, >not the military, the academy, or the Army debate team. > >I pose this question: Who+IBk-s to blame for the atrocities of our past? >Are >the children and grandchildren, and great grandchildren of the leaders of >yesteryear to blame? Are we to deny our existence and commit mass >migration >to the land of our mothers and fathers? Because in the end, the spectacle >of >war has overtaken every society at some point. > >I can advocate giving the land back to the original peoples who possessed >the >land. These people can advocate that they too deny ownership of their >rights >for the harms that their ancestors committed against the peoples before >them. >What about nature; does the humyn species deserve any rights above the >simplest of beings? If that+IBk-s true then the natural violence of the >lions >against the zebra should cease and all creatures should exist as symbiotic >beings with each other. But, what about the land itself, does having a bit >more carbon in a collection of molecules warrant the ability to change the >original earth? The imbalance of the universe is controversial. Some >believe >that humyn being were endowed the power to utilize the earth+IBk-s >resources as >needed. They believe that the land, the animals, and other peoples are >free >at their disposal so long as they can wield the tools of innovation to tap >into those resources. Others proclaim that we have no right to conquer, >destroy, pillage, and overpower the unwilling. These people say this from >the >luxury of a state founded on these very notions. They destroy the >environment >every time they turn on a light, plug in a computer, drive their car, and >order out junk food with a dollar that represents the capitalist oppression >of >the world. Can a person of this stature truly speak for the well being of >the >entire universe? What then can we as individuals do? So who+IBk-s >responsible >and how willing are you to back up your contention that humyn society is >oppressive. Your arguments about the sanctity of saving the environment >stem >from the personal belief that it hinders your future. How about advocating >a >plan to allow people to destroy themselves through war, pollution, and >industrialization. Then the world would recover, the balance would be >preserved and natural order would arise. But, the bottom line is that you >are >not willing to stand idly by and watch your friends, family and society >destroy itself. Is that so wrong? What if it were possible to redress the >wrongs of the past through our daily actions instead of just pointing them >out. Is the humyn species so doomed that nothing can ever change and that >we >can+IBk-t give up our quest to control everything? > >A society already exists with people unwilling to yield their way of life. >War, violence, crime, capitalism, sex, drugs, and oppression all permeate >the >essence of our being. People argue that evil is inherent in nature, that >societies form to protect individuals, and that nothing we do can affect >the >ultimate outcome of civilization. The truth is that we can change the >future, >we can make a difference, and we can start right now. Stop complaining >about >the problems and act. Do something anything, but don+IBk-t sit there and >complain from the solitude of your computer. Many people went out and >protested the war with Iraq this weekend, but is that enough. How closely >do >politicians listen to people outside of election year? There are other >alternatives to voicing a problem. Stage sit ins at your local capitals, >boycott American made products, refuse to pay taxes or something that shows >TRUE activism. Look at the Vietnam War era: how much change did the >protests >bring? This government only operates off of the will of the silence. When >the protests got loud enough, the government changed its policy and stopped >committing forces to Vietnam. Today, President Bush+IBk-s response was >clear: >He respects the democratic protests but he feels that regardless of the >peoples+IBk beliefs he will do what he deems is best for the nation. Do >you >think that ONE day of protests will change anything? The protests happened >on >a weekend where most people were off of work and the audience intended to >hear >the protests were gone. How about making a real sacrifice and showing true >dedication to a cause and spending the entire week outside making a real >stand >against the harms you feel are in the system. Otherwise, the silence of >the >majority will end up dictating the legitimacy of policy-making. Such >policy-making will end up being guided by businesspeople and elites. >However, >just like womyn+IBk-s rights movements and minority rights movements, the >overwhelming activism led to the elites losing their footing and being >forced >to protect the rights of everyone. Politicians like Wallace and Thurman >change their advocacy and protect their place in our +IBw-representative >government.+IB0 > >So the problem in the system is not the system itself, it is the people. >The >people are willingly silent. They are too scared to lose their jobs. >Complacency dictates policy making. > >Let me tell you about the military, it acts in the interests of this >society. >Do you truly believe that military generals sat around at decided to call >up >the President and say, +IBw-Oh, by the way, we are engaging a war with a >Iraq. >Hope this doesn+IBk-t cut into your agenda too much.+IB0 The politicians >in this >nation for centuries have utilized the men and womyn of this nation (just >as >other nations have) to meet their political ends. So you will say, the >military shouldn+IBk-t just willingly act. The fact that the military acts >on >the nations needs reflects the same reasons you take up a cause. The >members >of the military of today (and by the way the military of today is all >voluntary) seek to protect their families and believe in the American >system >even with its many flaws. Truthfully, the military of today is much >different. How can you criticize an organization with more diversity than >any >other sector of society? The womyn and men who serve today contend with >financial disparity, extremely long hours, and social isolation. > >The average person in the military can leave with the skills s/he gains >from >the military and make about 45% more in the +IBw-civilian+IB0 sector. Why >do >they do it then? The reasons are long and too numerous to name, but the >overwhelming majority is because they feel that they can make a difference >in >the world by protecting freedom. After 9/11, the numbers of people going >to >recruiting stations across the globe swamped the recruiter staff. People >felt >that the country and their families needed protection and that there was an >obvious shortage of service members. They knew that the risks could >ultimately mean their death, but they were willing to sacrifice themselves >for >a cause. This all happened before the +IBw-brain washing+IB0 highlighted >by our >good friend PJ. So then, I can honestly say, the men and womyn of the >military are ACTIVISTS. Can you condemn them for believing that there is >hope >for change, that what they do is to protect freedom, that their life is not >worth living if there is no security, and that their actions are in the >best >interests of the people they love? These facts are real. Listen to the >interviews every morning on CNN or MSNBC. These soldiers are fighting for >you, not themselves. They are suffering in the cold nights and hot days of >the desert or training for months at a time to protect the poverty-ridden >zones in Bosnia. These people see the blunt of their duty in forms of >peacekeeping. They feel righteous about their efforts. Whether or not >they >are blind to whatever oppression you want to point out, they are trying to >make a difference. What about the people who send them to these places >that >you condemn them for going to? These are the politicians that you elect, >that >I elect, and that our fellow citizens elect. Don+IBk-t crucify the >soldiers for >the decisions that they have no voice to decide other than their vote which >in >many elections goes uncounted (absentee ballots often don+IBk-t get >reviewed.) > >So who+IBk-s to blame? Navy and Army debaters? The soldiers in Iraq? Who? > >A very interesting debate also occurs over gays and lesbians in the >military. >The bottom line is that the generals and secretaries of the military >don+IBk-t >make the decisions on policies like that you do. The congress and the >President control that policy. From within, most of the people in the >military don+IBk-t care one way or the other. Many people in the military >feel >the policy is unfair. Again, the policy of exclusion extends from higher >levels. It only shows the social biases against the others. If you want >to >site instances of brutality against homosexuals in the military, I can >point >to the same thing happening in society at large. The actions of a few >individuals don+IBk-t speak for the larger group. > >Now, I have said what I have to say. The ball+IBk-s in your court. > > >Very Respectfully, > >James Leidenberg > > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From mizzoudebate Tue Feb 18 23:58:26 2003 From: mizzoudebate (Mizzou Debate) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:58:26 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] phallus and military academic institutions Message-ID: PJ, Please take a second and question where the power FOR YOU to dissent comes from. These are a bunch of men and women who place their lives on the line so that those of us who are priviledged members of academia can speak our minds. I will be the first to stand up in opposition of the war in Iraq. I will be the first to stand up and claim that our system is unjust. Hell, I will be the first to say that DEBATE is fucked up. I know that you are mad. I can feel the fustration not only in you, but every other person who knows the system is wack and needs a little personal attention. However, I can and will not stand idle while people like yourself sit back in their lazy-boy and degrade people who sacrifice all they have so that we can live the lives we're accustomed to. Let's sit back atop our ivory tower and question the leadership of this country. Dissent right? That's what it is all about. Question the institutions that oppress us, just be careful not to write off the very people that protect our freedom to do so. Their sacrifice is ultimate. Seems fair to me that we should include them in our debates and our dissentions. Is that not what it should be about? James Lawson Mizzou Debate >From: "Phallus Jerkins" >To: MIDNBRUNO at aol.com, edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: Re: [eDebate] A Unique Opportunity for PJ >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:55:12 -0500 > >Phallus Jerkins would like to dabait first and foremost the powell >evidence, recent class-action suit against superior officers who rape, the >demand that the grossly incompetent tank buffoons be tried in a civilian S. >Korean court, and of course the courthmarshall of certain educated >individuals who refused an anthrax vaccination...we will outline the case >for how military training is anti-thetical to dabaiting very soon...no-ad >homs or rich metaphors will be necessary.... > > >>From: MIDNBRUNO at aol.com >>To: edebate at ndtceda.com >>Subject: [eDebate] A Unique Opportunity for PJ >>Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:20:22 EST >> >>All of those that E-mail me and PJ, >> >> I agree with a lot of your e-mails and I offer a unique >>opportunity to >>Jack (PJ). But first, I will comment on Andy's comments about my >>"closemindedness." Andy, I am not sure whether you remember me personally >>but I think that I have been willing to engage PJ at least somewhat on the >>non-slanderous portions of his argumentation. However, according to one >>of >>the posts a "willingness to debate and change your beliefs" are a >>mandatory >>part of any debate. I will give the olive branch here. I am willing to >>have >>a debate. Here are my terms (not to exclude but to promote actual >>intelligent, educational conversation). I will engage in a debate where >>no >>slanderous statements are made. I will engage you on topics like military >>orders, anthrax vaccinations, etc. I will have a debate in any setting >>that >>you want, although I cannot post as quickly as you do. I might even have >>a >>unique perspective because I am leaving the military in a few months. Oh >>and >>by the way, I have never received an anthrax vaccination (maybe we can >>start >>there). >> >>Mike Bruno >> >> > > >_________________________________________________________________ >Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From faery484 Tue Feb 18 23:58:55 2003 From: faery484 (Stephanie Koehl) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 05:58:55 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] navy dabaiters still suck b/c Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030219/a55fef5c/attachment.html From phallusjerkins Wed Feb 19 00:32:18 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 01:32:18 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] military=anti-womyn Message-ID: http://www.libertocracy.com/Transfer/Articles/Military/military_abuse.htm and it doesn't even get into the sore and sticky subject of intra-military rapes... _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From violaillyria Wed Feb 19 01:48:56 2003 From: violaillyria (Alisha Hamilton) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 02:48:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Who's To Blame? Message-ID: Again, these views are my own, alone. While it's difficult to differentiate between your words/thoughts and those of others, it is almost impossible to define the platforms/issues you seek to defend/extole. "the other side of the coin of complacency is military personnel who have taken for granted ancient codes of respect for their status in society" So is this activism in itself as James stated? Or are both sides of your complacency coin...complacency? The logic in this statement is further flawed by your own analysis: "we (I will address your use of "we" further down) don't take many lit classes in the military we prefer coherent plain english and none of this artsy fartsy stuff." So, which is it? Do military personnel prefer the neandertal arts of killing, or do they learn ancient codes of respect and social hierarchy? I would answer this claim with a synthesis of the many arguments that have been levelled in your direction. Treat the military and military personel as different entities. The system--the state, the war machine that you would dismantle--is a different object/entity than the human beings involved in it. If anything, it is the state that perpetuates these "ancient codes of respect," not the individual members of the military. Codes, by their very nature, are social constructs. They can be created by individuals, but they do not become codified law, codes of behavior, etc until a social contract (written or understood) is agreed upon. (and by agreement, to say that people agree to live under that code whether they find flaws in it or not...individuals who find themselves subject to a code that they are not in concurrence with in totality can either choose to remove themselves from its jurisdiction or seek to change it.) Therefore, if you have issue with the place given to the military by the American society-at-large, take issue with the system and not the individuals. As to your interchangeable use of "we" and "military types/individuals," I find it intriguing that you would want to destroy yourself. "we gonna fuck up everyplace the military goes that we can" is your introduction to a later phrase: "but we military types don't like to talk about that shit because oh actually the blame is on us." If you are instead referring to the numerous responses from those associated with the military, I would invite you to make it more clear. Assuming that you are not identifying with the military, but instead with all activism (written and physical) against it, I would say that you should follow the advice of a previous post and look to the ideas of deconstruction in relation to the military. Why is the military the entity that should be demolished? What organ of government would take its place? Would the destruction of the military encourage an increased "security agency" presence? Would the world turn into that of 1984 where the military is a distant idea and government bureacracy is the true mechanism of social control? (I use the 1984 metaphor as an answer to your previous allusion to it.) I am a "military type" and I am asking those questions. Does that contradiction mean that I don't exist in your world? Are military personnel the focus of your attack because it is easier to slander individuals than it is to constructively analyse the weaknesses in a larger system (i.e. the military)? You further assert that one should look to true examples of activism (reference Kent State, and other war protests suppressed by the government) and its subsequent suppression. Those suppressions, by your own admission were not facilitated by the "military" proper. The Coast Guard is under the jurisdiction of the Dept of Transportation (and was not under the Dept of the Navy during that time). If in fact, you mean the National Guard...then I would ask you to look to those who constituted the National Guard. Do you group them in with the mass of "killers" who constitute the "military?" In direct response to your activism...I do believe that all mediums should be used by those who truly have a position that can be defended. The internet and physical activism should both be used to build support/carry out protests/ and other forms of activism. In that spirit, one should not preclude others from their forms of communication and possible activism. You say that people should use the electronic forum to "attack the military on edabait;" and yet you say that planet debate should be shut down? Couldn't that also be perceived as a tool for spreading anti-military evidence and kritik literature? (I forgot, you don't like kritiks (critiques).) In closing, I would invite you to examine the arguments of others and present yours in a more coherent format. If you are anti-military and want to attack it, I would invite you to offer reasons/examples/coherent thoughts as to why it should be dismantled/deconstructed. I would also ask that you make the differentiation between individuals in the military and the system itself (unless you can offer argumentation as to why they are one and the same). Not only could you be more persuasive, but you would also be engaging your critics. (old school dialectic: thesis, antithesis, synthesis...ad infinatum ad nauseum) Alisha ----- Original Message ----- From: Phallus Jerkins Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 12:50 AM To: jleidenberg at usa.net; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Who's To Blame? respectable, but why not permutate: attack the military on edabait AND go out and break into the FBI COINTELPRO offices to make public hidden documents and raise hell. your false either-or about real activism is being deployed as a military-style social hygeine move to clean up the list. we gonna fuck up everyplace the military goes that we can...but honest it's like all of the moles on the list say "we have a trust-fund and we just sit in front of our computer like a child doing nothing"...the other side of the coin of complacency is military personnel who have taken for granted ancient codes of respect for their status in society..."i mean it is so slanderous and destructive to create a metaphor that links our proud military w ass-fucking, we are shocked but cut us some slack we don't take many lit classes in the military we prefer coherent plain english and none of this artsy fartsy stuff"...part of the expansion of war protest if you review the 60s a little more closely involves a serious public ridicule of military personnel and officials to their chagrin symbolic of the breakdown in authority...you sound academic and hypothetical on protest tactics...and you omitted the clandestine infiltration of activist groups by intelligence, the assassination of activist leaders, the general psychological warfare program that crushed the movements and has largely remained effective since...but we military types don't like to talk about that shit because oh actually the blame is on us...because when the people rise up thank god and jesus christ that we have the military-intelligence apparatus to put em down w the coast guard for christ's sakes firing on students @ kent state...sorry, sound kritik literate all you want but you are the problem, spinmaster... we agree so much with part of what you say about seriously fucking shit up but include the "no mercy on the military killers" caveat. the true litmus test for us in this regard will be the termination of the planet dabait website to provide free evidence. according to deleuze and guattari, your theories about the future sabotage are a bit dated in the cyberworld. >From: James Leidenberg >To: >Subject: [eDebate] Who's To Blame? >Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 21:09:20 -0500 > >I begin this commentary with the following disclaimer: these views are >mine, >not the military, the academy, or the Army debate team. > >I pose this question: Who+IBk-s to blame for the atrocities of our past? >Are >the children and grandchildren, and great grandchildren of the leaders of >yesteryear to blame? Are we to deny our existence and commit mass >migration >to the land of our mothers and fathers? Because in the end, the spectacle >of >war has overtaken every society at some point. > >I can advocate giving the land back to the original peoples who possessed >the >land. These people can advocate that they too deny ownership of their >rights >for the harms that their ancestors committed against the peoples before >them. >What about nature; does the humyn species deserve any rights above the >simplest of beings? If that+IBk-s true then the natural violence of the >lions >against the zebra should cease and all creatures should exist as symbiotic >beings with each other. But, what about the land itself, does having a bit >more carbon in a collection of molecules warrant the ability to change the >original earth? The imbalance of the universe is controversial. Some >believe >that humyn being were endowed the power to utilize the earth+IBk-s >resources as >needed. They believe that the land, the animals, and other peoples are >free >at their disposal so long as they can wield the tools of innovation to tap >into those resources. Others proclaim that we have no right to conquer, >destroy, pillage, and overpower the unwilling. These people say this from >the >luxury of a state founded on these very notions. They destroy the >environment >every time they turn on a light, plug in a computer, drive their car, and >order out junk food with a dollar that represents the capitalist oppression >of >the world. Can a person of this stature truly speak for the well being of >the >entire universe? What then can we as individuals do? So who+IBk-s >responsible >and how willing are you to back up your contention that humyn society is >oppressive. Your arguments about the sanctity of saving the environment >stem >from the personal belief that it hinders your future. How about advocating >a >plan to allow people to destroy themselves through war, pollution, and >industrialization. Then the world would recover, the balance would be >preserved and natural order would arise. But, the bottom line is that you >are >not willing to stand idly by and watch your friends, family and society >destroy itself. Is that so wrong? What if it were possible to redress the >wrongs of the past through our daily actions instead of just pointing them >out. Is the humyn species so doomed that nothing can ever change and that >we >can+IBk-t give up our quest to control everything? > >A society already exists with people unwilling to yield their way of life. >War, violence, crime, capitalism, sex, drugs, and oppression all permeate >the >essence of our being. People argue that evil is inherent in nature, that >societies form to protect individuals, and that nothing we do can affect >the >ultimate outcome of civilization. The truth is that we can change the >future, >we can make a difference, and we can start right now. Stop complaining >about >the problems and act. Do something anything, but don+IBk-t sit there and >complain from the solitude of your computer. Many people went out and >protested the war with Iraq this weekend, but is that enough. How closely >do >politicians listen to people outside of election year? There are other >alternatives to voicing a problem. Stage sit ins at your local capitals, >boycott American made products, refuse to pay taxes or something that shows >TRUE activism. Look at the Vietnam War era: how much change did the >protests >bring? This government only operates off of the will of the silence. When >the protests got loud enough, the government changed its policy and stopped >committing forces to Vietnam. Today, President Bush+IBk-s response was >clear: >He respects the democratic protests but he feels that regardless of the >peoples+IBk beliefs he will do what he deems is best for the nation. Do >you >think that ONE day of protests will change anything? The protests happened >on >a weekend where most people were off of work and the audience intended to >hear >the protests were gone. How about making a real sacrifice and showing true >dedication to a cause and spending the entire week outside making a real >stand >against the harms you feel are in the system. Otherwise, the silence of >the >majority will end up dictating the legitimacy of policy-making. Such >policy-making will end up being guided by businesspeople and elites. >However, >just like womyn+IBk-s rights movements and minority rights movements, the >overwhelming activism led to the elites losing their footing and being >forced >to protect the rights of everyone. Politicians like Wallace and Thurman >change their advocacy and protect their place in our +IBw-representative >government.+IB0 > >So the problem in the system is not the system itself, it is the people. >The >people are willingly silent. They are too scared to lose their jobs. >Complacency dictates policy making. > >Let me tell you about the military, it acts in the interests of this >society. >Do you truly believe that military generals sat around at decided to call >up >the President and say, +IBw-Oh, by the way, we are engaging a war with a >Iraq. >Hope this doesn+IBk-t cut into your agenda too much.+IB0 The politicians >in this >nation for centuries have utilized the men and womyn of this nation (just >as >other nations have) to meet their political ends. So you will say, the >military shouldn+IBk-t just willingly act. The fact that the military acts >on >the nations needs reflects the same reasons you take up a cause. The >members >of the military of today (and by the way the military of today is all >voluntary) seek to protect their families and believe in the American >system >even with its many flaws. Truthfully, the military of today is much >different. How can you criticize an organization with more diversity than >any >other sector of society? The womyn and men who serve today contend with >financial disparity, extremely long hours, and social isolation. > >The average person in the military can leave with the skills s/he gains >from >the military and make about 45% more in the +IBw-civilian+IB0 sector. Why >do >they do it then? The reasons are long and too numerous to name, but the >overwhelming majority is because they feel that they can make a difference >in >the world by protecting freedom. After 9/11, the numbers of people going >to >recruiting stations across the globe swamped the recruiter staff. People >felt >that the country and their families needed protection and that there was an >obvious shortage of service members. They knew that the risks could >ultimately mean their death, but they were willing to sacrifice themselves >for >a cause. This all happened before the +IBw-brain washing+IB0 highlighted >by our >good friend PJ. So then, I can honestly say, the men and womyn of the >military are ACTIVISTS. Can you condemn them for believing that there is >hope >for change, that what they do is to protect freedom, that their life is not >worth living if there is no security, and that their actions are in the >best >interests of the people they love? These facts are real. Listen to the >interviews every morning on CNN or MSNBC. These soldiers are fighting for >you, not themselves. They are suffering in the cold nights and hot days of >the desert or training for months at a time to protect the poverty-ridden >zones in Bosnia. These people see the blunt of their duty in forms of >peacekeeping. They feel righteous about their efforts. Whether or not >they >are blind to whatever oppression you want to point out, they are trying to >make a difference. What about the people who send them to these places >that >you condemn them for going to? These are the politicians that you elect, >that >I elect, and that our fellow citizens elect. Don+IBk-t crucify the >soldiers for >the decisions that they have no voice to decide other than their vote which >in >many elections goes uncounted (absentee ballots often don+IBk-t get >reviewed.) > >So who+IBk-s to blame? Navy and Army debaters? The soldiers in Iraq? Who? > >A very interesting debate also occurs over gays and lesbians in the >military. >The bottom line is that the generals and secretaries of the military >don+IBk-t >make the decisions on policies like that you do. The congress and the >President control that policy. From within, most of the people in the >military don+IBk-t care one way or the other. Many people in the military >feel >the policy is unfair. Again, the policy of exclusion extends from higher >levels. It only shows the social biases against the others. If you want >to >site instances of brutality against homosexuals in the military, I can >point >to the same thing happening in society at large. The actions of a few >individuals don+IBk-t speak for the larger group. > >Now, I have said what I have to say. The ball+IBk-s in your court. > > >Very Respectfully, > >James Leidenberg > > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebateGet 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/20030219/c10bbb5e/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn Wed Feb 19 04:18:12 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 04:18:12 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] rant in threes Message-ID: Stannards' 3 rules of extreme logicalness: 1. don't make critiques that are pretty generic. 2. irony is a very elitist rhetorical strategy. 3. don't be reductionistic. you've saved my life, Mr. Stannard, and i'm working hard to be a tactically defensible and rational humyn being; also, if you have any self-help audio tapes for sale, please send me your commericial website. .k _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From let_the_american_empire_burn Wed Feb 19 05:18:48 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 05:18:48 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Who's To Blame? Message-ID: in 'Who's To Blame?', i agree with almost everything James Leidenberg (jleidenberg at usa.net) has to say (about the shared responsibility of atrocities on every member of society, about the futility of lyrical protests, about the need for a disobedience that's not afraid to take risks, and so forth) except when he starts talking about the military. James argues that every society commits atrocities, and that the military 'just follows orders' given by its leaders, absolving the folks of that institution of any special blame. this doesn't sit well with me. first, the underlying assumption is that the military acts in the interests of the society, when in fact it often acts directly counter to those interests. General Einsenhower warned about the perils of a military-industrial complex, how the narrow-minded world-view and unparalled clout of defense contractors and defense cult-ure will tend to invent justifications for their adventures which will ultimately come back to haunt the American people. this is not an abstract critique, and the history of the Middle East bears it out - e.g: when Saddam was a trusted US ally, military advisors were sent in to help Iraqi generals win the war with satellite-pictures of the battlefield, arm sales were diverted away from Iran and into Iraq through countries like France, China, and Russia, and the components necessary for making chemical weapons were sold to Iraq (authorized by the Department of Commerce at the behest of the military). nearly every alleged threat posed to American security over the passed thirty years has been constructed by the US military - bin Laden in Afghanistan was armed, trained, and funded to repel the Soviets and now he's intent on repelling another empire, General Noreiga in Panama was a double agent for the CIA, the fundamentalist regime in Iran wouldn't have taken over if the USA didn't overthrow a democratic government and install the shah, and so on. and if the USA would pull its troops and bases out of the Middle East (Saudi Arabia namely) and stop giving military aid to Israel if it fails to withdrawal immediately from the occupied territories, there'd be no risk of Islamic militants attacking Americans. now, i realize this is hard for the American people to swallow - what i'm essentially saying is that in the modern world they'd be safer without a national military. but think about it: half the federal budget (excluding social security and medicaid) goes to defense - if these folks can't muster up an enemy, then they're out of business. you'll never hear the head of the Department of Defense give a press briefing one day saying, 'yup, we're done. we defeated em all. no one is in any position to directly attack us, so we're gonna give our military to the United Nations. see ya later.' so that's why these continual repetitions of 'the people in the military sacrifice their lives for the freedom of us all' disturbs me. it sounds like Brave New World where people just mindlessly repeated whatever various phrases had been repeated to them in their sleep ('everyone is happy nowadays'). most Americans, it seems, are asleep, especially when it comes to even a basic historical knowledge of the atrocities which built this empire. (2nd and 3rd parts here, http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200302/0416.html) look, most people join the military because they're poor or lower-middle-class folks who couldn't afford to go to college and see the world any other way - now that's just the plain true of it. the military has fucking awesome benefits, and it dangles these in front of people who'd probably otherwise have to get minimum wage jobs; it'll take care of you, your family, your social life, etc., and all you have to be willing to do is be on call to kill people. beats flipping burgers, plus everyone thinks of you as a hero. and, of course, you won't think of your job as killing people, because, for the most part, you'll just be pressing buttons. you're only a small link in the chain of command, a servant of the people, so any mistakes are almost always someone else's fault. but to help you deal with any guilt, should you feel any, the government has a wonder-drug called patriotism, and this causes delightful hallunications, so that bombing a village of innocent people is seen as 'protecting liberty'. i flash back to the massacre at Mai Lai during Vietnam, where American soliders killed noncombatants when ordered to do so and buried them in mass graves. has anything changed, other than the fact that American soliders rarely look their victims in the eyes? 9/11 should've taught us that the government can no longer be trusted to keep us safe, but instead the tragic deaths of those who died were exploited in order to explode military budgets and help Americans forget all the horrible shit that they've done in the past to people just as innocent as those in the World Trade Center that day. as many civilians died in the bombings of Afghanisan as died on 9/11, yet still militarists say the ends justify the means. and now there's a whole legion of folks who agree, and who are quite willing to die in order to terrorize and destroy this empire by mirroring its self-righteous ruthlessness, and just like the military, they're just following orders too. sleep well, kids. .k _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From scrachiolo Wed Feb 19 08:56:18 2003 From: scrachiolo (Sarah Beth Crachiolo) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:56:18 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Zizek, someone Message-ID: <1045666578.39866180scrachiolo@student.gsu.edu> Hello, just wondering if some kind person in the debate community could tell me the cite for the zizek critique of capitalism that NYU GG runs? I'm sure someone knows which book,article, etc that they are citing. Zizek has a crazy number of books, so I'm trying to limit my search. Thank you Sarah Crachiolo Georgia State University From wnewnam Wed Feb 19 08:57:51 2003 From: wnewnam (Bill Newnam) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:57:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Emory Novice Nationals Entry Message-ID: <3E539B6F.25D765D4@emory.edu> Per Joel's suggestion, Emory plans on entering the following teams at Novice Nationals at Northwestern: Roy Levkowitz and Jordan Traister Cecilia Suh and Nick Stabile Cyrus Ghavi and Stephen Chadouin Bob Allen and Vikas Kumar JB Tarter and Marcus Jerkins bill n emory From Mikedavis13 Wed Feb 19 09:11:55 2003 From: Mikedavis13 (Mikedavis13 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:11:55 EST Subject: [eDebate] Academy Debaters, First Rounds, Novices and Program Missions Message-ID: <1cd.3234761.2b84f8bb@aol.com> I have tried to stay out of this as long as I could, but two posts recently which seem unrelated got me thinking about why any of us have the ability to criticize the focus of another program. Neil Berch argued that teams that have First Rounds rarely have novices, while Phallus Jerkins argues that the academies must suck since they never receive first rounds. Programs don't have to meet Berch (who I have a lot of respect for) or Jerkins standard for what marks a successful program. Programs must choose a focus that will appeal to their university (Refer back to the debate I had on edebate with Jason Stone for more on this argument). The last tow programs I have worked with are drastically different. The University of Rochester has never received a first round, but it give hundreds of people the opportunity to debate. If asked to make a choice I would guess that we would have choose to have more debaters instead of going for a first round, and this was an easy sell to he administration there. Here at Georgia we like to get First Rounds, we like to compete nationally and more importantly that is what we can sell to the administration. They understand SEC Champions ships and where we finish in various national tournaments. A large novice based team would not receive the same support here as it did at Rochester. I could make the argument that Rochester or West VA are failures because they don't get first rounds, or that West GA and Gonzaga fail because they don't have novice or that Phallus Jerkins fails . . . well nevermind there. I could make those arguments, but I never will I respect the people who run those programs too much for having a vision about what they think debate should be. If we hope to have a diverse and strong debate community then we need to allow programs to pursue whatever focus they think is most appropriate for themselves, their students and their university. Mike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030219/f63c9360/attachment.html From GatorDebate Wed Feb 19 10:18:58 2003 From: GatorDebate (GatorDebate at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:18:58 EST Subject: [eDebate] Slick Willie changing his tune! Message-ID: <108.1f9272ba.2b850872@aol.com> After seeing Slick Willie one too many times on TV recently taking the pacifist stance on Iraq it was interesting to go for a quick trip back in time to see what ol' Bill had to say about Iraq, Saddam and the use of chemical/biological weapons 5 years ago. Boy he sounded a lot different than the statesman we see yukking it up with Larry King today! I especially like the quote "I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal," referring to Saddam's "inevitable" use of biological / chemical weapons. The Federal News Service quoting Bill Clinton on February 18, 1998 (Clinton) "Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who has really worked on this for any length of time, believes that, too. The Federal News Service quoting Bill Clinton on February 19, 1998 Q Mr. President, do you feel like you've articulated the goals of this policy, if you do indeed have to attack Iraq? PRESIDENT CLINTON: Again, I believe that the speech I gave at the Pentagon was quite clear about that. We want to significantly reduce his capacity to produce chemical and biological weapons and his capacity to deliver them and to visit them on his people, his neighbors and people throughout the world. I believe the more the American people learn about the dangers of chemical and biological warfare, the kinds of problems they can present to us now and in the future, the stiffer their resolve will be. And so I feel that time is on our side. And I believe that 10 years from now, not in the heat of this moment, or 15 years from now when people look back at this time, they will want to look back at a period when those of us in positions of responsibility fulfilled our responsibility by trying to rid the world of this danger. Well, no, you failed. No surprise there. It's five years later and the stakes are higher. Clinton was a disgrace then and he's a disgrace now. frank -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030219/1a82bb67/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Wed Feb 19 10:37:03 2003 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:37:03 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] rant in threes Message-ID: YAWWWWWWN! >From: "Kevin Sanchez" >To: stannardmatt at hotmail.com, edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: Re: [eDebate] rant in threes >Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 04:18:12 -0600 > >Stannards' 3 rules of extreme logicalness: > >1. don't make critiques that are pretty generic. >2. irony is a very elitist rhetorical strategy. >3. don't be reductionistic. > >you've saved my life, Mr. Stannard, and i'm working hard to be a tactically >defensible and rational humyn being; also, if you have any self-help audio >tapes for sale, please send me your commericial website. > .k > _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From lsd041 Wed Feb 19 11:32:04 2003 From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:32:04 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Novice Nationals Invite Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030219112314.02a4c3a0@lulu.it.northwestern.edu> Greetings, all. Some have called for an invitation to the Chicago National Novice Championships. Below is the invitation for BOTH the now passed Owen L. Coon Memorial Tournament and the Chicago National Novice Championships, issued as a joint document in early January, as has been our practice for some years now. The last paragraph addresses differences between the two tournaments, or particularizes the OLC invite to Novice Nationals. It's probably best to start reading there. The deadline for hotel reservations was yesterday; I'm am confident that I can get it extended, however, I urge you to make hotel reservations asap. We hope to see you and your eager first year debaters in March. Best. SD Greetings, Directors, Coaches, and Friends. This serves as invitation for you and your associates to attend the 44th Annual Owen L. Coon Memorial Debate Tournament, to be held on the Evanston campus of Northwestern University on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, February 8-10, 2003. It is also the official invitation for the Chicago National Novice Tournament, again in Evanston, March 8-10, 2003. There are a number of changes in this years tournament, so we ask that you read this invitation carefully. CHANGE NUMBER ONE: Lodging headquarters for the event continues to be the Omni Orrington Hotel. The good news is that the room rate has DROPPED to $79 per night, plus appropriate taxes. That a $20 per night per room savings as compared to last years rate. Its time to put away the capitalism K; the rate drop is due to increased competition from a new Hilton recently opened in Evanston. The Omni remains the lodge of choice. It is within walking distance of campus, and official tournament events (registration, elimination rounds) are slated to occur there. You can reserve rooms by calling the Omni directly at (847)-866-8700. Better yet, send e-mail to the Joe Crocker, the Reservations Manager. You can reach him at joec at omniorrington.com. DEADLINE for reservations at the Omni Orrington is January 17, 2003. WHILE CORRESPONDING WITH JOE, you may wish to make reservations for the Chicago National Novice Tournament, March 8-10, 2003. More details on the National Novice are forthcoming. CHANGE NUMBER TWO: Entries will be accepted via the world wide web. In this vein, we are pleased to announce that Dr. Gary Larson of Wheaton College has agreed to run the tabulation room. Dr. Larson will use the Northwestern tournament to beta-test the new web based entry system for the Smart Tournament Administrator (STA). He is in consultation with our web guru, Mike Kloster, who is putting the finishing touches on our web page. Mike anticipates the availability of a URL for entry detail purposes in early to mid January. Look for an edebate posting from me announcing the availability of that address. A late January entry deadline will be announced with the publication of the web address. IN THE MEAN TIME, feel free to send e-mail reserving a specific number of team slots for your school and the number of judges you intend to bring. PLEASE LIMIT your entry to no more than SIX teams per school. If you desire to bring more than six teams from your school, so indicate in your e-mail message, and they will be placed on a waiting list. IT IS NOT NECESSARY to send me the details of your entry (names, round commitments, etc.); those details will be collected on the web page, which will then upload directly to the STA. IMPORTANT: Your entry will NOT BE COMPLETE until you have registered via the web page. To date, I can confirm entries, in order of receipt, from Whitman College (2), Cornell University (3), the University of Texas (6), and the University of Richmond (1). CHANGE NUMBER THREE: The location of the Sunday evening banquet is Carmens Pizza & Pasta Restaurant. Carmens, maker of Chicagos Famous Stuffed Pizza, is a close two-block drive or walk from the Omni. They offer a private dining facility that can accommodate up to 300 people. The Omni has an event booked in their ballroom on the evening in question, hence the change. We should be happier at Carmens; the food is better, and the atmosphere warm and inviting. There is ample parking near Carmens. Details will be available at tournament registration and on the day of the event. As per usual, continental breakfast as well as lunch will be provided to all tournament participants on both Saturday and Sunday. Unique dietary needs of participants will be collected on the web page. We will make every effort possible to satisfy the dietary needs of participants. CHANGE NUMBER FOUR: This isnt really a change in policy, however it was not in writing before. Now it is. Each judge will be REQUIRED to declare ONE AND ONLY ONE WINNER and ONE AND ONLY ONE LOSER in each debate to which they are assigned by the tab room. Compliance with this rule requires each judge to complete an official judge ballot as designated by the tab room. Completion of the ballot requires the judge to clearly designate affirmativeor negativeto signify a winning team. Judges will also be required to confirm their choice by indicating the school with which the designated winner is affiliated. The side (affirmativeor negative) and school affiliation must match the assignments made by the tab room. Judges will also be required to assign speaker pointsand speaker ranksto each participant in the debate. Speaker points are accepted in increments of 0.5 from a minimum of 0to a maximum of 30. Speaker ranks are accepted in whole numbers only from 1to 4. If you or one of your judges is unable or unwilling to fulfill these requirements, please submit an alternative judge prior to the start of the tournament. If, during the course of the tournament, any judge representing your school refuses to comply with these requirements, teams affiliated with your school will be removed from the competition by the tab room. Judges must render to the tab room a ballot comporting to these standards no later than two hours and fourty-five minutes beyond the scheduled start time for each round. NOW, SOME OLDIES BUT GOODIES. You are almost done. You might as well keep reading!!! Students are required to debate the topic selected for the 2002-03 season by a vote of the Cross Examination Debate Association membership, 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 of 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. Brackets will be broken in both preliminary and elimination debates to prevent teams from the same school from meeting. Side equalization will be employed in both preliminary and elimination rounds. Details on the procedure for elimination round side equalization will be provided at the tournament. Said procedures are the same as those employed in previous Owen L. Coon tournaments. Hybridteams are permitted. Prior to the tournament, maverickentries are NOT accepted. Once the tournament begins, maverickdebaters may or may not be permitted to continue. The tournament director will evaluate mavericksituations on a case-by-case basis. The tournament employs the now traditional 9-3-6 format with ten minutes of preparation time allocated to each team. The first four rounds are preset. Round five is high-high;six through eight are high-low. We continue to employ a mutual judge preference(MJP) placement system, administered obviously via the STA. Eight preliminary rounds are scheduled, followed by an appropriate number of elimination rounds, typically five. Northwestern teams may compete in the tournament. If so, they are eligible to receive speaker awards and to compete in elimination rounds. We will enter via the web page and declare our participation publicly. Northwestern teams will be required to complete a judge preference sheet; judge assignments for Northwestern teams will be assigned by the STA and changed only at Dr. Larsons option. ENTRY FEES: Entrants and their guests are welcome at the fee of $60 per person. This covers two continental breakfasts, two lunches, and the Carmens dinner. It also contributes to the cost of appropriate team and speaker awards, room and building clean-up as required by the University, a reception for coaches and judges, and supplies required for tournament administration. Should you need to drop a participant, please do so no later than Noon Central Standard Time on Wednesday, February 5, 2003. Drops are official ONLY if confirmed at the official tournament web site, the same URL where you enter. Should you need to drop one or more participants after the aforementioned deadline, a drop fee of $45 per person will be assessed. We do understand that drops are typically beyond your control. They happen because of illness, poor traveling conditions, and other causes. However, we are required by our caterers to provide a guarantee number for meals no later than the scheduled drop deadline. Accordingly, after that point, we must pay for your meals no matter if you are present or not. We will make a full financial disclosure at the conclusion of the tournament. JUDGES: Schools are required to provide four rounds of preliminary judging for each team entered. Each judge is committed to hear the first two elimination rounds. Per community practice, each judge is expected to be available one round beyond the elimination of the team with whom they are associated. A limited number of hired judges are available at $25 per round. Early notice of your need to hire a judge is appreciated. TOURNAMENT SANCTION: The Owen L. Coon subscribes to the Sexual Harassment policy of the Cross Examination Debate Association, and is sanctioned by that body. Team participation contributes both to your CEDA and NDT ranking totals, as governed by each organization. NATIONAL NOVICE: First year college debate participants are invited to join us for the Chicago National Novice Tournament, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday, March 8-10, 2003. Any undergraduate student participating in their first year of college debate is welcome to participate. Potential participants should beware that historically most tournament participants are students who have substantial high school debate experience under their belt. (We welcome and encourage noviceparticipation, and, in particular, alternative national competitions for those who lack high school experience). Owing to our definition of novice,the tournament is NOT CEDA sanctioned. We understand that rational, and embrace it. The tournament otherwise operates by the same standards and guidelines outlined in this invitation, with these exceptions: (1) No dinner is provided on Sunday evening; (2) The entry fee is $40 per participant, with a $25 per person drop fee; (3) Judge preference options are more limited in March, owing to a substantially smaller judge pool, and the tournament will likely employ the Tab Room on the PC (TRPC). TRPC is authored by Rich Edwards of Baylor University, also a person who has contributed freely to the debate community. The hotel reservation deadline for the National Novice is February 17, and the drop deadline is March 5. Rather than entering via the web page, complete entry information can be sent to me via e-mail. Please include: (a) the first and last names of both students and judges; (b) unique dietary needs that each person may have (vegan, vegetarian, etc.); (c) constraints for judges (i.e. teams and or schools they should not hear); (d) your request for transportation between the hotel and the campus, should you need it. We do hope that you and your students can join us in February. I hope you enjoy a nice winter break. Best. SD Scott Deatherage Director of Debate Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030219/de391855/attachment.html From BERCHNORTO Wed Feb 19 11:46:31 2003 From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:46:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Academy Debaters, First Rounds, Novices and Program Missions Message-ID: <7221A803.2F491868.09C05152@aol.com> In a message dated 2/19/2003 10:11:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, Mikedavis13 writes: > Neil Berch argued that teams that have First Rounds rarely have novices, while Phallus Jerkins argues that the academies must suck since they never receive first rounds. Programs don't have to meet Berch (who I have a lot of respect for) or Jerkins standard for what marks a successful program. Programs must choose a focus that will appeal to their university (Refer back to the debate I had on edebate with Jason Stone for more on this argument). The last tow programs I have worked with are drastically different. The University of Rochester has never received a first round, but it give hundreds of people the opportunity to debate. If asked to make a choice I would guess that we would have choose to have more debaters instead of going for a first round, and this was an easy sell to he administration there. Here at Georgia we like to get First Rounds, we like to compete nationally and more importantly that is what we can sell to the administration. They understand SEC Champions ships and where we finish in various national tournaments. A large novice based team would not receive the same support here as it did at Rochester. > > I could make the argument that Rochester or West VA are failures because they don't get first rounds, or that West GA and Gonzaga fail because they don't have novice or that Phallus Jerkins fails . . . well nevermind there. I could make those arguments, but I never will I respect the people who run those programs too much for having a vision about what they think debate should be. If we hope to have a diverse and strong debate community then we need to allow programs to pursue whatever focus they think is most appropriate for themselves, > their students and their university. Hi, Mike! Your points are well-taken. We all do need to respond to our institutional environments. What works for me at WVU clearly would not work at Georgia, and vice versa. I have great respect for any program that is about educating students, and that includes many varsity-only programs. I don't, however, recall saying that programs are failures if they don't have novices. I've always been intrigued and awed by programs that manage to do both and do it well, in part because it is difficult to do both well. Thus, my compliments to Wake. In previous years, I've mentioned the success of other programs in competing nationally and producing novice debaters (I even took what in Morgantown is the heretical step of praising Pitt). There are other programs that are on the verge of this (Rochester, Vermont, Louisville, and Catholic, to name four), and I simply think this difficult balancing act should be recognized (perhaps I came at it a bit negatively in response to the discussion about first rounds as the sole measure of success for a program). Best wishes, Neil From epmr Wed Feb 19 11:56:47 2003 From: epmr (Michael Roston the eminently practical) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 18:56:47 +0100 Subject: [eDebate] George Mason University <---Read This Message-ID: <1045677407.3e53c55f1cd2f@www.omnimail.sm> Allison Harper/Matt Bostick/Jomel Angat/Jake Weiner, other concerned parties, I'd love to gain the cites attached to your Kyoto affirmative. Please contact me, and I will be happy to reciprocate any information you require from GWU. apologies to the list for the pollution. -- Michael Roston -what was your name, anyway? "My friend's got a book about dreams, I look and laugh I dream a book about my friends and still can't decipher the half" -Aesop Rock ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attiva la tua mail gratuita con Omnimail all'indirizzo http://www.omnimail.sm Il servizio ? offerto da Intelcom San Marino S.p.a. http://www.intelcom.sm From jeradfor Wed Feb 19 12:09:01 2003 From: jeradfor (James Edgar Radford Jr.) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:09:01 -0600 (CST) Subject: [eDebate] District 6 Rankings - Important Message-ID: <25162661.1045678141562.JavaMail.cpadmin@cp.samford.edu> I think a lot of people may have been sending their rankings to jradford23 at hotmail.com .. I don't really use this address anymore. I was, however, able to sift through the piles of spam and fish out rankings from Mercer, Wake, Alabama, Florida, and an email minus the attachment from Georgia. Anyone else please send their rankings to this address, jeradfor at samford.edu. Sorry for the confusion Jamie Radford Samford U. From privethedge Wed Feb 19 12:12:14 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:12:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Academy Debaters, First Rounds, Novices and Program Missions In-Reply-To: <7221A803.2F491868.09C05152@aol.com> Message-ID: <20030219181214.50480.qmail@web10005.mail.yahoo.com> Surely, it is written somewhere, that when a West Virginia person praises Pitt, the end of the world is nigh. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030219/f26de61a/attachment.htm From kenrjohnson Wed Feb 19 12:37:36 2003 From: kenrjohnson (Ken Johnson) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:37:36 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] U VERMONT!!! Message-ID: please holla back ken _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From dabaitjd Wed Feb 19 13:15:50 2003 From: dabaitjd (Former Debater) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 11:15:50 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Fun With Quotes Message-ID: <20030219191550.19267.qmail@web41003.mail.yahoo.com> A conservative is a man who believes that nothing should be done for the first time. Alfred E. Wiggam A conservative is a man who does not think that anything should be done for the first time. Frank Vanderlip A conservative is a man who is too cowardly to fight and too fat to run. Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915) - Epigrams A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin Delano Roosevelt A conservative is one who admires radicals centuries after they're dead. Leo Rosten --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030219/7e2986a7/attachment.html From omri Wed Feb 19 13:31:51 2003 From: omri (Omri Ceren) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:31:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Fun With Quotes In-Reply-To: <20030219191550.19267.qmail@web41003.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3E539557.3401.2E0D758E@localhost> "If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have "racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple them." -- Ann Coulter Its sad when those who are among the least moderate spokespeople on the Right still underestimate the degree to which many on the Left have been reduced to smug moral exhibitionism. Clown. Omri. On 19 Feb 2003 at 11:15, Former Debater wrote: > A conservative is a man who believes that nothing should be done > for the first time. Alfred E. Wiggam > > A conservative is a man who does not think that anything should be > done for the first time. Frank Vanderlip > > A conservative is a man who is too cowardly to fight and too fat to > run. Elbert Hubbard (1856-1915) - Epigrams > > A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, > has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin Delano Roosevelt > > A conservative is one who admires radicals centuries after they're > dead. Leo Rosten > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day Omri. -------------- "I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us." -------------- From Greg.Achten Wed Feb 19 14:09:06 2003 From: Greg.Achten (Achten, Greg) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 12:09:06 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Arizona Debate Institute Seeks Fellows for 2003 Message-ID: Greetings, The ADI is seeking fellows for the 2003 institute. The position is open to students currently in their second or third year of college debate who will be competing next year and who have a track record of success on the national level. The ADI Fellows serve in a number of capacities at the institute, but essentially are assistants to the lab instructors, though the fellows are also given time for individual research and practice debates with other fellows judged by the faculty. Additionally, the role of the fellows at this year's institute has been radically altered to reduce the amount of time spent in the copy center. Fellows receive a tuition remission for the institute, free housing at the Twin Palms Hotel as well as a stipend of $200. Fellows in previous years have included participants in elimination rounds of CEDA Nationals and the NDT as well as 1st round recipients and a CEDA National Champion. ADI fellowships are an excellent way to get a great jump on the topic by working with some of the top debaters and coaches in the country while using the outstanding library facilities at Arizona State University. The dates for the ADI will be July 28-August 10, 2003. If you are interested please backchannel me at this address or feel free to call me at 310-506-4524. A full brochure and website for the ADI are currently in the works and will be available soon for interested parties. Greg Achten Co-Director Arizona Debate Institute -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030219/550adab2/attachment.htm From Catherine.Palczewski Wed Feb 19 16:16:01 2003 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 16:16:01 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] PRELIMINARY NDT district bid allocation Message-ID: <3E540220.F8B01501@uni.edu> Greetings all, Below is the PRELIMINARY bid allocation for each district. In case you missed it, the allocation is PRELIMINARY. The allocation MAY be affected by a variety of things, such as pending appeals or teams that indicated an intent to attend districts but do not. For those unfamliar with the process, district chairs, at the start of round one of their district tournament, report to the district bid allocation chair (Sarah Partlow), either confirming the numbers did not change, or reporting a change in numbers. If a change in numbers occurs, then bids will be reallocated. Final allocations will not be determined until the start of round one, during the second weekend of district tournaments, held Feb 28-March 2 this year As of now, the following number of bids to the NDT have been allocated to each district. District Bids D1 7 D2 3 D3 7 D4 3 D5 5 D6 7 D7 7 D8 3 D9 4 For an explanation of how bids are allocated to the districts, please read section IIB1 of the NDT's Standing rules, located at: http://www.wfu.edu/organizations/NDT/Documents/ndtrules.html From xebate111 Wed Feb 19 16:40:13 2003 From: xebate111 (xebate111 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:40:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Catholic DP Message-ID: <15C07192.54CF644B.0360F834@aol.com> hey, could you please send me the cite for your link on your north korea da? I would appreciate it. Thanks Ben Fink GMU From tejinder Wed Feb 19 16:57:21 2003 From: tejinder (Tejinder Singh) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 14:57:21 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] On Cite Requests and Genius Message-ID: <007901c2d86c$ad9584c0$0401a8c0@Tejinder> The following cite request came here to the Berkeley squad a little while ago. Names have been removed to protect the sender. > I saw the round robin round reports posted to edebate > and noted the name "Ibid" mentioned next a litany of > cards, specifically some about IAEA and nuclear power, > could you tel me what the full cite on that is? Thanks > a ton We award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030219/11e47038/attachment.html From olneyce Wed Feb 19 17:27:15 2003 From: olneyce (Charles Olney) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:27:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] On Cite Requests and Genius In-Reply-To: <007901c2d86c$ad9584c0$0401a8c0@Tejinder> Message-ID: ladies and gentlemen, the fastest cite request response time in the history of berkeley debate... charles is our guilt erased by the pain that we've endured? --sleater kinney On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Tejinder Singh wrote: > The following cite request came here to the Berkeley squad a little while ago. Names have been removed to protect the sender. > > > I saw the round robin round reports posted to edebate > > and noted the name "Ibid" mentioned next a litany of > > cards, specifically some about IAEA and nuclear power, > > could you tel me what the full cite on that is? Thanks > > a ton > > We award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. > From jbhdb8 Wed Feb 19 14:51:45 2003 From: jbhdb8 (jbhdb8 at earthlink.net) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 15:51:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [eDebate] On Cite Requests and Genius Message-ID: <8095352.1045698708130.JavaMail.nobody@misspiggy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Isnt the more stupifying fact that not only someone from Cal but specifically Tejinder was looking at emails about citation requests????? Josh Original message attached. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MESSAGE.28669DEFANGED-HTML Type: application/octet-stream Size: 924 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030219/f20dd171/attachment.obj From jdfeldma Wed Feb 19 18:47:53 2003 From: jdfeldma (Jonah D Feldman) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:47:53 -0500 (EST) Subject: [eDebate] On Cite Requests and Genius In-Reply-To: <007901c2d86c$ad9584c0$0401a8c0@Tejinder> Message-ID: Doesn't Ibid write those nuclear testing global warming cards? On Wed, 19 Feb 2003, Tejinder Singh wrote: > The following cite request came here to the Berkeley squad a little while ago. Names have been removed to protect the sender. > > > I saw the round robin round reports posted to edebate > > and noted the name "Ibid" mentioned next a litany of > > cards, specifically some about IAEA and nuclear power, > > could you tel me what the full cite on that is? Thanks > > a ton > > We award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. > From randyluskey Wed Feb 19 19:24:29 2003 From: randyluskey (Randy Luskey) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 20:24:29 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] On Cite Requests and Genius References: Message-ID: I tried to do a quick Lexis search on this Ibid character, but it seems like s/he has written A TON of law review articles and it looks like s/he really likes writing footnotes. I think that might be like his/her specialty, actually. I think Jonah is correct about Ibid writing those global warming cards. . . if memory serves me correctly, I think Ibid writes a lot about the environment. Tejinder - as funny as that email might have sounded to you, I wouldn't put it past the Berkeley squad to actually read some evidence cited Ibid in 95 (Trust me - I've seen worse cites out of you folks, and by you folks, I obviously mean me. . . ) Ibid your honor. . . Luskey From GatorDebate Wed Feb 19 20:28:47 2003 From: GatorDebate (GatorDebate at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 21:28:47 EST Subject: [eDebate] James Roland please backchannel Message-ID: James, Drop me a line please. Sorry for the clutter. frank gator debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030219/f355cfc3/attachment.html From bdurham Wed Feb 19 20:52:39 2003 From: bdurham (bdurham at mail.utexas.edu) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 20:52:39 -0600 (CST) Subject: [eDebate] is jerkins a mole disruptor? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1045709559.3e5442f74d47f@webmailapp2.cc.utexas.edu> ehhh....WRONG QUESTION. IF JERKINS IS A MOLE DISRUPTOR, IS HE AN EFFECTIVE ONE? Jerkins is a disrupter-- but not the kind you are thinking of...S/He ain't Abbie Either-- Nor is s/he part of CoIntel Pro.... S/He's just someone that does more than just read news-- s/he reads through it-- looks at alternative perspectives to piece together the tapestry of lies. Maybe you should try it- -- then you would realize s/he ain't spouting as much babble as you think-- and even if it is babble, I don't think s/he is an effective disrupter in the manner you have framed--- her disruptions just function to open up space for discussion. Smells like a lil Debord to me... maybe i am wrong- but I think that 'attack' is onto something and s/he is playing you and I like a harp-- but the response is a beautiful symphony of diverse notes and poetic discourses that some call constructive dialogue...Or at least in his lil' Stoic head thats what s/he thinks...Even if I personally agree more with his posts than most of the republic pig shit responses that are just samples of public speeches by officials-- I still think the most important element of the posts are its positionality of constant criticism of how the "crisis" is being constructed for us by republican babble thats is spat back out through corporate sponsored media resources. the other important question concerns jerkin's susceptibility to disruption-- he is always on the offensive-- psychoanalytically I would say the over confidence is a front to hide personal weakness. He's gotta a short temper-- easy to push the big red button and sit back to watch someone analytically implode through odd little squiggles called letters, that make these even stranger things called words. Thats the weakness he has to overcome is he wants to 'succeed'. Prescription: If you wanna be more than a self proclaimed digital martyr you have to come out from Hiding behind the computer screen... -- at least set up digital shop- or a webpage so others besides those in this elite academic circle have access to your "preaching of the truth(s)"...I think you should atleast fwd you analysis to indymedia.com...why wouldn't you? All of your negative responses would fundamentally come down to you not wanting to let go of your precious intellectual property rights...we both know that ain't your style... Or maybe freud was right and thats just me selfprojecting... time for a new generation to climb down from the trees. b From marcus Wed Feb 19 21:27:18 2003 From: marcus (Marcus L. Leach) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 22:27:18 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Notre Dame 1979 team members or friends of Message-ID: <200302200327.h1K3RIs14192@fiat.cross-x.com> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ViewItem&item=2159771700&category=4036 NOTRE DAME DEBATE AWARD 1979 OCTAFINALS Item # 2159771700 ___________________________________________________ I was surfing ebay and came accross that... I hope all debate trophies dont end up like that one... kinda funny... but kinda sad when you think about it... Im sure someone knows someone (yea, lol) that might have interest in reclaiming that trophy... and no... I dont know the ebay seller. Marcus L. Leach KC Central 03' Chief Technology Officer Fiat Utopia Inc. & Assc. marcus at cross-x.com marcus at ndtceda.com marcus at hsdebate.com marcus at fiatutopia.com From marcus Wed Feb 19 21:27:24 2003 From: marcus (Marcus L. Leach) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 22:27:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Notre Dame 1979 team members or friends of Message-ID: <200302200327.h1K3ROm14221@fiat.cross-x.com> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ViewItem&item=2159771700&category=4036 NOTRE DAME DEBATE AWARD 1979 OCTAFINALS Item # 2159771700 ___________________________________________________ I was surfing ebay and came accross that... I hope all debate trophies dont end up like that one... kinda funny... but kinda sad when you think about it... Im sure someone knows someone (yea, lol) that might have interest in reclaiming that trophy... and no... I dont know the ebay seller. Marcus L. Leach KC Central 03' Chief Technology Officer Fiat Utopia Inc. & Assc. marcus at cross-x.com marcus at ndtceda.com marcus at hsdebate.com marcus at fiatutopia.com From marcus Wed Feb 19 21:54:27 2003 From: marcus (Marcus L. Leach) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 22:54:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Notre Dame 1979 team members or friends of Message-ID: <200302200354.h1K3sR022784@fiat.cross-x.com> Sorry, I'm having troubles with this broswer... and it's preventing me from entering raw strings... so to see the ebay seller page of that teams trophies.. visit ebay.com and search for item: debate award. sorry again... ~M > http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? > ViewItem&item=2159771700&category=4036 > > NOTRE DAME DEBATE AWARD 1979 OCTAFINALS > Item # 2159771700 > > ___________________________________________________ > > I was surfing ebay and came accross that... I hope all debate trophies > dont end up like that one... kinda funny... but kinda sad when you > think about it... > > Im sure someone knows someone (yea, lol) that might have interest in > reclaiming that trophy... and no... I dont know the ebay seller. > > Marcus L. Leach > KC Central 03' > > Chief Technology Officer > Fiat Utopia Inc. & Assc. > marcus at cross-x.com > marcus at ndtceda.com > marcus at hsdebate.com > marcus at fiatutopia.com > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > Marcus L. Leach KC Central 03' Chief Technology Officer Fiat Utopia Inc. & Assc. marcus at cross-x.com marcus at ndtceda.com marcus at hsdebate.com marcus at fiatutopia.com From jbruschke Wed Feb 19 22:22:59 2003 From: jbruschke (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 20:22:59 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Debate points update Message-ID: Dear debate community, The debate points pages have been updated; they are at www.debateresults.com for those who haven?t visited yet. They include almost all tournaments to date and all tournaments that I have received data for except the Dartmouth Round Robin, which I hope to have up by next Tuesday. As a kind of fun note, 15 of the 16 first-round teams were in the top 16 teams in the Bruschke 2 rankings, which makes me feel like that measure ended up being a pretty decent way to gauge overall team performance. Finally, I am literally begging everyone who is holding a district tournament to (a) do it on a computer, and (b) make the results file and send it to me. A startling number of tournaments have been run on the TRPC, did NOT create a points file, did NOT save a backup disk, and it creates hours of needless work for me to enter those by hand. Please, please, please, if you use the computer take the additional 2 minutes and send me the points file. No faxing, no mailing, much easier for you, and MUCH easier for me. Good luck to everyone at districts! Jon From swhalen Wed Feb 19 22:38:03 2003 From: swhalen (Shawn Whalen) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 20:38:03 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Nats Entry Deadline is Feb. 24th! Message-ID: <3E545BAB.2070903@sfsu.edu> Just a reminder that entries must be made on-line and sent to me thru certified mail by the 24th. The full invitation can be found at: http://www.cedadebate.org/tourney.htm Highlights from the invite: 1. 2002-2003 CEDA dues must be paid to register teams. 2. Entries must be postmarked by February 24, 2003. 3. Your entry must be sent by certified mail AND entered on-line. 4. Your entry will only be considered complete if it includes: a. A completed entry form, b. A check for the correct amount made payable to CEDA, (This money is non-refundable, except in the case of wait-listed teams not accommodated by the tournament. However, wait-listed teams must be paid for in advance.) c. Official stamp from your university registrar verifying student status, (Start this process early as it may take longer than you think.) d. A completed on-line entry at: http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/DebateEntry/index.asp. e. Judging philosophy forms for all judges, f. Judge preemption information, g. Student and judge demographic information sheet, and h. ADA Accommodation Form. Number of Teams: We anticipate being able to accommodate all of your teams, but we will wait-list teams over five and include them on a first to register basis. Entries must be made on-line AND sent Certified Mail, postmarked by February 24, 2003 to: Shawn Whalen, CEDA President Dept. Of Speech & Communication Studies San Francisco State University 1600 Holloway Ave. San Francisco, CA 94132 Feel free to contact me with any questions you might have. I look forward to seeing everyone in Tempe. Shawn From phallusjerkins Wed Feb 19 23:30:29 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:30:29 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] tell us military womyn... Message-ID: what is your defense of the disproprortionate numbers on the side of domestic abuse in "military families" that we posted for yo pleasure last night? since you have none, how come you goin along for the ride? oh yeah, we forgot womyn are inferior to men according to the military way of life and violence is as much the answer to domestic squabbles as it is to energy dependence...in the end, we military zombies conclude that the military is actually pro-womyn since abuse is deserved as well as well as we fail to see a connection between jerkins' #s and the violence learned in military training...of course, military womyn don't have anything important to say about this because they have learned well not to think for themselves which is the only reason why they remain in uniform...take a look @ dem #s and report back...that's an order... _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From phallusjerkins Wed Feb 19 23:33:11 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:33:11 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] tell us military womyn... Message-ID: what is your defense of the disproprortionate numbers on the side of domestic abuse in "military families" that we posted for yo pleasure last night? since you have none, how come you goin along for the ride? oh yeah, we forgot womyn are inferior to men according to the military way of life and violence is as much the answer to domestic squabbles as it is to energy dependence...in the end, we military zombies conclude that the military is actually pro-womyn since abuse is deserved as well as well as we fail to see a connection between jerkins' #s and the violence learned in military training...of course, military womyn don't have anything important to say about this because they have learned well not to think for themselves which is the only reason why they remain in uniform...take a look @ dem #s and report back...that's an order... _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From phallusjerkins Wed Feb 19 23:33:15 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:33:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] tell us military womyn... Message-ID: what is your defense of the disproprortionate numbers on the side of domestic abuse in "military families" that we posted for yo pleasure last night? since you have none, how come you goin along for the ride? oh yeah, we forgot womyn are inferior to men according to the military way of life and violence is as much the answer to domestic squabbles as it is to energy dependence...in the end, we military zombies conclude that the military is actually pro-womyn since abuse is deserved as well as well as we fail to see a connection between jerkins' #s and the violence learned in military training...of course, military womyn don't have anything important to say about this because they have learned well not to think for themselves which is the only reason why they remain in uniform...take a look @ dem #s and report back...that's an order... _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From phallusjerkins Wed Feb 19 23:41:25 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:41:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] military wives beat their husbands... Message-ID: well the #s turn up a higher incidence of wives beating husbands in military families than in say civilian families. after a hard day of strenuous physical exercise and unloading thousands of rounds at the practice range, military wives would rather just handle matters violently as we see in military husbands as well...we need to protect our families at home with more beating....where would we be w/o the military? _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From schizoliberation Wed Feb 19 23:59:31 2003 From: schizoliberation (Schizo Liberation Front) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 00:59:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] beat me!!! Message-ID: whoooo!!! we get hard 4 beatings! spank me, mama!!! yeah, really like that!!! _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From terri_easley Mon Feb 17 12:07:15 2003 From: terri_easley (terri easley) Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 18:07:15 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Iowa LN and Iowa EJ Message-ID: Hey, Could ya'll backchannel me - Thanks, Terri UT-Dallas _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From hansonjb Thu Feb 20 01:57:37 2003 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 23:57:37 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] coming to nw ceda champs? References: Message-ID: <000e01c2d8c4$778e9da0$a9b3bd42@hansonjb> if you are coming to northwest ceda champs and you will need a ride from the airport (pasco or walla walla), please contact me by this coming wednesday, feb. 26. after that point, i can't guarantee a ride. http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/54college2003.htm jim hanson :) whitman college -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030219/991d559f/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Thu Feb 20 07:22:10 2003 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 06:22:10 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] the anti-imperialism of fools Message-ID: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/rads-s22.shtml _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From b2thec Thu Feb 20 08:14:56 2003 From: b2thec (BrianCampbell) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 08:14:56 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Heart judge for hire Message-ID: <000901c2d8ea$72056be0$d1580c44@ok.cox.net> jackie massey is available for a full committment at the Heart. Backchannel if you're interested. "we're not hitchhiking anymore . . .WE'RE RIDING!"-ren hoek -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030220/f219c4ff/attachment.html From Samnelson4 Thu Feb 20 09:06:43 2003 From: Samnelson4 (Samnelson4 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:06:43 EST Subject: [eDebate] Special Awards for Vermont tournament! Message-ID: <133.1b5a51d6.2b864903@aol.com> It is time again to start nominating people for the SAMBA (Society Advocating More and Better Argumentation) Awards which this year will be given out the University of Vermont during the CEDA East championship tournament. The awards are: (1) The Michael K. Davis award for the top graduating senior debater who did not debate in high school. (2) The program of the year award. (3) The coach of the year award. (4) The director of the year award. Please send me your nominations and appropriate letters of support. Thanks. Best, Sam From violaillyria Thu Feb 20 10:44:34 2003 From: violaillyria (Alisha Hamilton) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:44:34 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Statistics vs reality Message-ID: I'd like to offer my own experience in response to the "statistics" that were posted concerning domestic abuse and military families. I am the daughter of a retired Army colonel and major. Growing up, my mother had already retired from the service and continued her career as a pediatric nurse. My father, after spending 22 years in the Army as an armor officer, retired and now works for IBM. My sister is currently a first lieutenant in the US Army as an ordnance officer (and is married to an Army helo pilot). I am a member of the US Navy. With all of this military background and influence, you might say that I have been brainwashed into the military way of life. You might say that I'm so "entrenched" in the system that I would not be able to see domestic violence for what it really is. And I would say that you are wrong. Spending my first eight years of life in Germany, I was able to live both on and off base housing. While living on base, I had a best friend who stayed with me almost every night for two weeks. Her father beat her mother and her. After the first three days, the military police came and took the father into custody and held him in the base prison. My friend stayed at my house for those two weeks because her mother had to arrange for transportation home to the U.S. There was prompt action taken against all episodes of domestic abuse. However, since I was only 8 years old when that happened, I might not have known the full story. My father has worked for five different commands in three different branches of the Army. He has Never threatened or raised a hand with the intention of violence. When there was an issue of domestic violence commited by those under his command, it was dealt with promptly and severely. In my personal experience, which is all that I claim to be an expert on, the military is far more expedient and effective when dealing with domestic violence. I would challenge you to post the reported domestic violence statistics for civilian population centers. I would encourage you to post domestic violence statistics from a social or ethnic or regional perspective. I would ask you to delve into the statistics that were posted and find out where those incidences took place (if the family is living off base, the military does not have direct jurisdiction in preventing domestic violence. It falls to the civilian authorities to step in and prosecute.) While it may be valid that the statistics report more incidents of domestic violence, couldn't you also conclude that military cases are the ones that are actually reported? How many silenced and intimidated womyn live in the civilian sector under the bane of domestic violence? I'd like to conclude that I am Not an expert on domestic violence. I have never experienced that living nightmare. Above all, I have never seen a complacent attitude towards domestic violence expressed by any military command. I do not deny that domestic violence occurs in military familes, but I would ask you to look at domestic violence through a larger lens. I would ask you to look at this serious problem not as a tool for lambasting the military but as its own serious problem. The following links are some statistics for civilian and comparative domestic violence rates. Please do not take these as the only sources...I would encourage you to look for yourself and come to your own conclusions. http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats.html A national view of statistics compiled from various medical sources http://endabuse.org/facts/ More national statistics with sources http://www.ilj.org/dv/dv_state_statistics.htm Statistics given by state http://www.nj-vlc.com/domestic.html This includes some statistics that say military incidents are more common than civilian. Sincerely, AlishaGet 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/20030220/0e346ca2/attachment.htm From bodonnel Thu Feb 20 11:14:31 2003 From: bodonnel (O'Donnell, Brett M.) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 12:14:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 2002-03 NDT Subscribers (Updated) Message-ID: Below is the current list of NDT subscribers (this list does not include those who have paid through AFA since February 1). To participate in the NDT bid allocation process, attend the NDT or be ranked in the final NDT rankings, you must be a subscriber. To pay your NDT dues you can contact Jim Pratt at the American Forensic Association at 1-800-228-5424 or send a check for $30.00 made payable to the National Debate Tournament to: Brett O'Donnell Liberty University Debate 1971 University Blvd Lynchburg, VA 24502 I urge all District Chairs to collect NDT dues at their district tournaments from all schools participating and send them to me. NDT Subscribers 2002-03 Albertson College of Idaho Angelo State University Arizona State University Augustana College Boston College Fulton Debating Soc California Poly State University - San Luis Obispo California State University Fullerton California State University Long Beach California State University Northridge Capital University Clarion University Concordia College Cornell University Dartmouth College DePaul University Eastern New Mexico University Emory University Emporia State University Fordham University Franklin Pierce College Fresno State University Georgetown University Georgia Military College Gonzaga University Harvard University Illinois College James Madison University John Carroll University Lewis & Clark College Liberty University Macalester College Marist College Mercer University Miami University of Ohio Michigan State University Northwest College Pepperdine University Sacramento State University Samford University San Diego State University Southern Illinois University Southern Utah University Southwest Missouri State University St. Mary's College of California Trinity University University of Central Oklahoma University of Georgia University of Kentucky University of Michigan University of Michigan-Dearborn University of Missouri-Kansas City University of Northern Iowa University of Oregon University of Pittsburgh University of Redlands University of Richmond University of Rochester University of South Carolina University of Texas University of Texas at Dallas University of Vermont University of Wyoming Wake Forest University Washington State University Wayne State University Webster University Western Washington University West Virginia University Whitman College Wichita State University William Jewell College From miamidebate Thu Feb 20 11:21:01 2003 From: miamidebate (Miami Debate Team) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:21:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] anyone from michigan Message-ID: <20030220172101.88223.qmail@web13803.mail.yahoo.com> Could you please write me back thanks Stephen Solomon, Miami University Debate --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030220/eb5378f1/attachment.html From Catherine.Palczewski Thu Feb 20 11:33:59 2003 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:33:59 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] NDT dues and eligibility -- Important, really Message-ID: <3E551188.ECCDFD34@uni.edu> Greeting all, As we move into the district process, I want to remind you all of a rule concerning eligibility. In order to participate in the district process, a team must have paid its NDT dues. As rule IIB1b states: "b.Eligible teams: To submit for the bid allocation process, a team must have paid their NDT subscription fee" and also have the minimum number of rounds. Accordingly, in order to be allowed to participate in districts, and in order for your participation to count toward bid allocations, YOUR SCHOOL MUST HAVE PAID ITS NDT DUES. When you register for the district tournament, the district chair will ask for you to confirm NDT membership. It is your burden to prove membership. The only surefire way to prove membership is if your name appears on the NDT Board of Trustees Treasurer's list -- that would be the list Brett O'Donnell has been posting to edebate quite regularly over the past few weeks (and which he has just re-posted). If your name is not there, then you will be asked to pay your NDT subscription fees before you are allowed to participate in the district tournament. Checks should be made payable to the NDT in the amount of $30.00. If you have already paid, but have no proof of payment, then you WILL be asked to write a check anyway. If, at a later date, it is discovered you have paid twice, the second payment will be reimbursed. In other words, one of two things needs to happen if you want to participate in the district process: 1) your name appears on the NDT subscribers list, or 2) you provide the district chair with a check in the amount of $30.00 made payable to the NDT If you have any questions about this, please feel free to ask. Cate Palczewski NDT chair From sykesjason Thu Feb 20 11:41:31 2003 From: sykesjason (Jason Sykes) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:41:31 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Virtual March on Washington February 26 Message-ID: <005501c2d907$4e6f2320$46d1a942@computer> >FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >FEBRUARY 19, 2003 >12:33 PM > CONTACT: Win Without War >In Washington: Trevor FitzGibbon, Fenton Communications (202) 246-5303 >In Los Angeles: Michelle Mulkey, Fenton Communications (415) 987 - 7377 > > > >Online Campaign Headquarters Unveiled >Win Without War Announces the Virtual March on Washington on February 26th >Celebrities and Coalition Leaders Call on Opponents of Iraq War to >Overwhelm >the White House and U.S. Senate By Phoning, Faxing and E-mailing >New TV Ad Featuring Martin Sheen Calls on Public to Participate > >WASHINGTON / HOLLYWOOD - February 19 - Last weekend we marched in the >streets, next week we are taking it to the suites of official >Washington, >said former Congressman Tom Andrews, National Director of Win Without War. >Political leaders need to know we are serious, we are organized and we >are >growing in strength, he said. On February 26th, we will let our >fingers do >the marching and demand that our voices be heard. > >Martin Sheen, who plays President Jeb Bartlet on the NBC hit series, The >West >Wing, is featured in a Win Without War TV ad released at the news >conference. >He called on Americans from every state to participate in the Virtual >March >on Washington: Our message to Washington will be clear "Dont >invade >Iraq! We can contain Saddam Hussein without killing innocent people, >diverting us from the war on terrorism and putting us all at risk. > >Our leaders in Washington are out of step with millions of >Americans, aid >Janeane Garofalo at the LA news conference. This is clearly a time when >we >must join together and lead Washington back to its senses, she said. >The >Virtual March on Washington is an opportunity to do just that. > >The National Council of Churches is calling February 26th ~A Day of >Prayer >and Faxing, said Rev. Brenda Girton-Mitchell, Director of the >Washington >DC office of the National Council of Churches We are urging all of our >member denominations and congregations to join the march. They can do so >without even leaving their homes, she said. > >Organizers of the Virtual March on Washington hope to overwhelm the White >House and every member of the US Senate with calls, faxes and e-mails on >February 26th. An Online Headquarters was unveiled at the news >conference >" a web site, hosted by Win Without War affiliate MoveOn.org. Virtual >March >participants are being asked to register for the march at www.MoveOn.org. >They will be asked to pledge to call and fax their two US Senators and the >White House at particular times during the day. > >We hope to keep the phones and fax lines busy with marchers from 9:00 >in the >morning through 5:00 in the afternoon, said Terry ONeill, Vice >President >for membership of the National Organization of Women, another Win Without >War >affiliate. Senators can expect a call a minute, she said, and I >hope they >listen. > >The Virtual March was announced at press conferences in Washington, DC and >Hollywood, CA that featured Artists United to Win Without War members >Martin >Sheen, Anjelica Huston, Janeane Garafolo, James Cromwell, Mike Farrell, >members of the cast of the West Wing and Win Without War coalition >leaders. The action follows close on the heels of last weeks record >setting >worldwide antiwar protests. Win Without War is Americas largest, >mainstream >coalition of organizations opposed to pre-emptive war with Iraq. > >The press conference was sponsored by Win Without War, the nations >mainstream coalition of organizations opposed to war with Iraq. Members >include: > >American Friends Service Committee >Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities >Campaign for UN Reform >Council for a Livable World >Conference of Major Superiors of Men >Evangelical Lutheran Church in America >Fourth Freedom Forum >Global Exchange >Greenpeace >Leadership Conference of Women Religious >MoveOn >NAACP >National Council of Churches >National Gay and Lesbian Task Force >National Organization for Women (NOW) >NETWORK - A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby >Oxfam America >Pax Christi USA >Peace Action >Physicians for Social Responsibility >Rainbow/Push Coalition >Sierra Club >Sojourners >Soulforce >The Tikkun Community >TrueMajority >Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations >United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society >Us Foundation >Veterans for Common Sense >Women's Action for New Directions >Working Assets From partsara Thu Feb 20 11:43:24 2003 From: partsara (partsara at isu.edu) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:43:24 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Need to hire judging for CEDA Message-ID: contact me thanks Sarah Partlow Idaho State Debate From sykesjason Thu Feb 20 11:55:14 2003 From: sykesjason (Jason Sykes) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 11:55:14 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] HEART housing offer/request Message-ID: <000a01c2d909$38a70c40$46d1a942@computer> sorry for the clutter... we have 1 female debater. does anyone else have motel space for her OR does some other school have 1-2 female debaters who need housing and would like to consolidate? alternatively, if anyone in lawrence has a bed for natalie at their house we would really appreciate that. please backchannel. thanks, jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030220/4da764cf/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn Thu Feb 20 13:00:13 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:00:13 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] the anti-imperialism of fools Message-ID: i agree entirely that to speak of the USA as a monolithic entity, as Raven apparently did in the Guardian, waters down authentic anti-imperialism with stereotypical anti-Americanisms, but i must confess that i see the cause of global socialism as no less foolish. and no article like the one Stannard cites would be complete without the typical naive delusions: 'the socialist future of mankind', 'the petty bouregious', 'the postmodernist drivel', and other such predictable phrases. there's no more two Americas (one rich, one working-class, say the Trotskites) than there are fifty Americas - 'America' itself does not exist except as a collective dream, 9/11 being, before anything else, a wake-up call. what's troublesome about both Raven and North&Walsh isn't anti-Americanism or anti-capitalism, but their anti-terrorism - what's the alternative? crossing one's fingers and praying for some return to universal communism? public singalongs and internet articles no one reads? yes, al-Qaeda is chalk-full of devout believers in Islam, but they're less fanatical than socialist wack-jobs for one simple reason: they're not demanding that everyone join in their vision. al-Qaeda demands an end to the oppresion of Muslims worldwide, whether it is done by the US military or the Saudi monarchy or Saddam Hussien, and they are using the only language that empires and dictators ever understand: blood. as someone who lives in this arbitrary, map-drawing labelled America, i acknowledge that i too may be murdered by al-Qaeda, but they're only holding up a mirror to the ruthless cruelty of American imperialism, so if you don't like what you see in that mirror, then don't bad-mouth Islamic fundamentalism, but throw what support you can to the only empire-toppling hope of this new century. if you object to killing civilians, that's great - so did Abullah Azzam (bin Laden's mentor), but realize that as long as bombs paid for by your taxes are dropped on Muslim peoples (as will soon happen in Iraq) that there is now a real political force which, unlike Stannard's friends, isn't just talk, and this force will retaliate. no other option has been left to these people except to lay down and die - and that's hardly the American way. .k _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From lraymer Thu Feb 20 13:15:44 2003 From: lraymer (Lauren Raymer 94) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:15:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Heart Swing Partner Message-ID: <200302201915.h1KJFkv09960@apollo.capital.edu> Hi Everyone! I need a partner for Heart because my partner bailed at the last minute. If anyone needs a swing partner in JV, I would be eternally grateful. I know Macalester needed someone, but I lost their address. Thanks for the help. ~Lauren Raymer Capital Debate From lraymer Thu Feb 20 13:22:44 2003 From: lraymer (Lauren Raymer 94) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:22:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Heart Swing Partner Part II Message-ID: <200302201922.h1KJMkv10718@apollo.capital.edu> Sorry for the clutter, but if you have someone who needs a swing partner in JV for Heart, please post it to edebate rather than backchanneling me, because I will not be able to access my email after an hour from now. My team is leaving for the tournament, and I am going to be there no matter what. Thanks again! ~Lauren Raymer Capital Debate From eber Thu Feb 20 13:26:01 2003 From: eber (Michael Eber) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 14:26:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Also Need CEDA Judging Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030220142525.02641ea0@pilot.msu.edu> Please contact me. thanks, Mike -- Michael Eber Interim Director of Debate Michigan State University 10 Linton Hall East Lansing, MI 48824 (517) 432-9667 (office/fax) (517) 214-6435 (mobile) From sharris Thu Feb 20 13:51:30 2003 From: sharris (Harris, Scott L) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 13:51:30 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Heart entry update Message-ID: <06EB4CB0225B3F498418311D9D6A28AA01FF1D73@bluebird.mail.ku.edu> HEART ENTRIES Open Arizona State Nicholas Russell & Eric Forslund ASU/Denver Jared Adams & Chris Kryieger Cornell Lara Douglas and Dan Klaff Dartmouth Hunter Brooks & David Marks ENMU Mick Souders & Lawrence Williams Emporia Austin Case/David Register Tiara Naputi/Kelly Winfrey Eli Crittenden/David Keller Fort Hays chance (the gardener) & william s. princess & emma g Fullerton/West Georgia Matt Kennedy and James Thomas Gonzaga Chris Losnegard & Eric Sullivan Jonathan Dingle & Charlie Hutchison Lewis and Clark Brandon Berg and Matt Ehrman Amelia Still and Nate Whittaker\ Louisville Sandra Webster/Lori Goodwin Tonia Green/Elizabeth Jones R.J. Green/Corey Knox Macalester Ben Kantor/Andy Tweeten NYU Richard Garner & Nate Gorelick Danyaal Moin & Jen Schramm Northern Iowa Michelle Kelsey and Eric Short Melanie Johnson and Mark Langgin North Texas John Prieur & Max Archer SMS Ben Warner and Sarah Wilson Isaac Allen and Scott Pierson Adam Caine and Micheal Thomas Britton Jobe and Simon Mahan UMKC Bob Goodin & Bryce Dietrich Josh Westmoreland & Malcom Gordon Andy Culp & Chris Loghry Vermont Jillian Marty & Sheila Limprevil Teresa Hill & Lana Langsweirdt Carlos Varela & Colin Kern Weber State Mike Shackelford and Rob Roake West Point Elliot Press / Adam Scher Ricky Waters / Adam Karr Wichita State Kathleen Doris / Martha Moon Wyoming Caroline Simpson & Seth Ellsworth Brian DeLong & Chris Crowe JV Baylor Marty Gallagher and Jennifer Gilbreath Capital JOHN KOCH/ CHRIS PIAZZA ELYCIA TAYLOR/LAUREN RAYMER ANGIE NAUGLE/MIKE JONES Cornell Craig Murray and Jeff Granillo Denver Lee Morehead & Carolynn Frankovilla ENMU Mark Henley & Darrick Matthews Sam Strain @ Matt Hayes Emporia Dustin Rimmey/Chad Woolard JCCC April Jones and Aaron Williams Derek Crocker and Andy Myers Candice Moore and Mandy Trood Chirs Baize and Robert Smyth Kansas City Kansas Community College Dan Rundus & Richard Quijas North Texas Cade Hamilton & Natalie Triplett SMS Tara Andre and Wendy Pennington Weber State Paige Huff and Jenni Rigby Brian Horman and Kyle Jeffrey's Wichita State Phil Bouska / Amanda Wasson Novice Capital JULIE BARNHILL/JEN MOONEY KCKCC Joseph Lynch and Steve Lyon Northern Iowa Kelsey Harr and Joe Rankin From ccooper Thu Feb 20 15:20:27 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:20:27 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] DU munitions for war? Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370710C9B78@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Does anyone have any information about whether the U.S. military has plans to use depleted uranium munitions in our coming war with Iraq? Or have we sworn off their use entirely? Perhaps some of the esteemed members of our armed forces who recently posted have some insight? COOP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030220/86b50e08/attachment.html From ermo Thu Feb 20 16:51:53 2003 From: ermo (Eric Morris) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:51:53 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Heart of America - Email problems? Message-ID: <002f01c2d932$aa22e140$e9fbed81@ku.edu> We just figured out that the KU email system seems to be kicking back some of the email heading into Scott Harris' account. Apparently, it is doing this quite selectively. If you think you might have been bumped back (e.g. you sent in an entry and it doesn't show up or hasn't been revised), please send it to me as well (at ermo at ku.edu) so that we can get everything updated. The only changes we now have since Scott's early post are Western Washington and a KCKCC name problem. If there should be anything else, please re-send it to me as well. Eric Morris Univ of Kansas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030220/9fdf3832/attachment.htm From matt Thu Feb 20 17:08:39 2003 From: matt (Matthew Schiros) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:08:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] RE: [CX-L] Virtual March on Washington February 26 In-Reply-To: <005501c2d907$4e6f2320$46d1a942@computer> Message-ID: Yeah, because nothing says dissent and meaningful fucking discussion like a bunch of fucking Hollywood millionaires doing what they get PAID to do: run from the fucking mouth. Yeah, they fucking SCREAM "We're the voice of the oppressed!" > >WASHINGTON / HOLLYWOOD - February 19 - Last weekend we marched in the >streets, next week we are taking it to the suites of official >Washington, >said former Congressman Tom Andrews, National Director of Win Without War. >Political leaders need to know we are serious, we are organized and we >are >growing in strength, he said. On February 26th, we will let our >fingers do >the marching and demand that our voices be heard. Right. And you know what will happen? THe same thing that happened when your dumb asses were out in the cold with the rest of the Unemployed Left. Everyone else is gonna laugh at you, because, ******DRUM ROLL******* NO ONE GIVES A FUCK WHAT YOU THINK!!!!! I mean, honestly, do you think that anyone that, you know, makes important decisions is going to change their mind because a bunch of smelly hippies and college students used community computers to E-Sign some gay ass petition? Of course not. It's gonna get funneled into their /dev/null on the auto-tip. >Martin Sheen, who plays President Jeb Bartlet on the NBC hit series, The >West >Wing, is featured in a Win Without War TV ad released at the news >conference. Wow. He's a bad president even on TV. It's scary to think how fucked we'd be if the Left Wing became a reality. Out of curiosity, how do you propose that we win without war? Should we ASK saddam nicely to disarm, stop killing people, and form a democracy? Or perhaps we should give weapons inspectors another 8 years so they can do nothing? >He called on Americans from every state to participate in the Virtual >March >on Washington: Our message to Washington will be clear "Dont >invade >Iraq! We can contain Saddam Hussein without killing innocent people, >diverting us from the war on terrorism and putting us all at risk. How? >Our leaders in Washington are out of step with millions of >Americans, aid >Janeane Garofalo at the LA news conference. You know, there's a REASON that she never gets jobs outside of Ben Stiller movies.... >This is clearly a time when >we >must join together and lead Washington back to its senses, she said. >The >Virtual March on Washington is an opportunity to do just that. Right. Lead it back to its senses like in the Clinton days, where Bosnia et al were bombed and invaded by the forces of US imperialism. OUt of curiosity, where were you people then? >The National Council of Churches is calling February 26th ~A Day of >Prayer >and Faxing, said Rev. Brenda Girton-Mitchell, Director of the >Washington >DC office of the National Council of Churches We are urging all of our >member denominations and congregations to join the march. They can do so >without even leaving their homes, she said. Jesus hates the Fax machine. Isn't this curious??? When religion is on your side, all of hte sudden it's a good thing, but if it opposes what you want, they're EEEVILLLLL. You're all such hypocrites. >Organizers of the Virtual March on Washington hope to overwhelm the White >House and every member of the US Senate with calls, faxes and e-mails on >February 26th. Well, besides the questionable legality of the issue (for example, it's illegal to fax SPAM), you know that it won't work right? They'll just filter their shit. And you'll be defeated. Damn that technology. Damn that procmail. Damn that delete key. > An Online Headquarters was unveiled at the news >conference >" a web site, hosted by Win Without War affiliate MoveOn.org. Virtual >March >participants are being asked to register for the march at www.MoveOn.org. >They will be asked to pledge to call and fax their two US Senators and the >White House at particular times during the day. I'd like to propose that everyone who ISN'T a complete moron instead log on to www.amiblackornot.com that day. It's got nothing to do with the war, but you might as well get a laugh out of the day. >We hope to keep the phones and fax lines busy with marchers from 9:00 >in the >morning through 5:00 in the afternoon, said Terry ONeill, Vice >President >for membership of the National Organization of Women, another Win Without >War >affiliate. Senators can expect a call a minute, she said, and I >hope they >listen. Perhaps NOW proposes that we can defeat the Iraqi threat by just having the women of the world spread their legs and spread the smell over the Persian Gulf? > >The Virtual March was announced at press conferences in Washington, DC and >Hollywood, CA that featured Artists United to Win Without War members >Martin >Sheen, Anjelica Huston, Janeane Garafolo, James Cromwell, Mike Farrell, >members of the cast of the West Wing and Win Without War coalition >leaders. The action follows close on the heels of last weeks record >setting >worldwide antiwar protests. Win Without War is Americas largest, >mainstream >coalition of organizations opposed to pre-emptive war with Iraq. So there are... 5 members? 6? Roider From parcherj Thu Feb 20 17:48:23 2003 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:48:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [eDebate] Job Opening: Director of Debate, Georgetown University Message-ID: <7326118.1045784888141.JavaMail.nobody@wamui01.slb.atl.earthlink.net> As many of you already know, I have decided to leave Georgetown after this season. Below is the job announcement for the position. If you have any questions about the position, Georgetown or the city, do not hesitate to backchannel me or call: (H) 703-645-8040 (c) 703-314-6778. Georgetown University seeks a Director of Debate to start in the fall of 2003. The Director oversees a nationally competitive policy debate program. The position is responsible for all day-to-day activities including but not limited to: coaching, recruiting, research, tournament travel and managing a budget. Interested candidates should have extensive experience in national level NDT/CEDA debate. A graduate degree in communication, law or another appropriate field is preferred. The position is salaried (level commensurate with experience) and includes full benefits. Applicants should submit a cover letter, resume and 2 references to: Martha Swanson Director of Student Organizations Student Programs Leavey Center 316 Georgetown University Washington, DC 20057 Georgetown University is an Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action Employer. Qualified candidates will receive consideration in employment without regard to race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religion, national origin, marital status, veteran status or disability. We are committed to diversity in the workplace. From phallusjerkins Thu Feb 20 17:51:23 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:51:23 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] the anti-imperialism of fools Message-ID: well thst's a little better stanny and not nearly as boring as what you write yourself >From: "matt stannard" >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: [eDebate] the anti-imperialism of fools >Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 06:22:10 -0700 > >http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/rads-s22.shtml > >_________________________________________________________________ >The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From iriamenzo Thu Feb 20 18:08:39 2003 From: iriamenzo (Phillip Samuels) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:08:39 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Attn: Kansas Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030220/7fd9adc0/attachment.html From iriamenzo Thu Feb 20 18:09:48 2003 From: iriamenzo (Phillip Samuels) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:09:48 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] ATTN: SMS Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030220/e8eb50ea/attachment.htm From iriamenzo Thu Feb 20 18:11:29 2003 From: iriamenzo (Phillip Samuels) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:11:29 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UNT please Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030220/8f564001/attachment.html From iriamenzo Thu Feb 20 18:12:48 2003 From: iriamenzo (Phillip Samuels) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:12:48 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Texas please Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030220/6231e333/attachment.htm From iriamenzo Thu Feb 20 18:14:40 2003 From: iriamenzo (Phillip Samuels) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:14:40 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UMKC please Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030220/dd37b8a6/attachment.html From iriamenzo Thu Feb 20 18:13:43 2003 From: iriamenzo (Phillip Samuels) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:13:43 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] K-State please Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030220/b66b2029/attachment.htm From iriamenzo Thu Feb 20 18:15:30 2003 From: iriamenzo (Phillip Samuels) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:15:30 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Baylor please Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030220/64ef653c/attachment.html From paulj567 Thu Feb 20 18:34:26 2003 From: paulj567 (Paul Johnson) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:34:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Lonely Message-ID: <20030221003426.6100.qmail@web11207.mail.yahoo.com> I feel left out....why doesn't Phillip Samuels want a backchannel from me...since he is wasting more bandwith than i previously thought possible, even in Stroube/Phallus/atfks heyday. -pj __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From potatopeeler Thu Feb 20 18:36:47 2003 From: potatopeeler (Eric Short) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 00:36:47 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] matt moore Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030221/475a3eec/attachment.htm From gordonm+ Thu Feb 20 21:30:02 2003 From: gordonm+ (Gordon Mitchell) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:30:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] "Ineffective, irrelevant debating society" Message-ID: <314085.3254769002@41.22.20-22.142.136.in-addr.arpa> President George W. Bush has now pejoratively attacked debating societies on multiple occasions by connecting his indictment of United Nations deliberation with the practice of academic debate. His latest: "Speaking to sailors and other naval personnel here, Bush enumerated the countries and groups that have expressed support for military action against Iraq, and dared the U.N. Security Council to authorize military force or become an 'ineffective, irrelevant debating society.'" - Maura Reynolds and Paul Richter, "On eve of inspectors' report, Bush puts the heat on U.N." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 14 February 2003. Do we have a response? From michelle_lancast Thu Feb 20 21:47:22 2003 From: michelle_lancast (Michelle Lancaster) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:47:22 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] KRISTEN DYBVIG ONLY Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030220/16ee820f/attachment.html From omri Thu Feb 20 21:49:43 2003 From: omri (Omri Ceren) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:49:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] "Ineffective, irrelevant debating society" In-Reply-To: <314085.3254769002@41.22.20-22.142.136.in-addr.arpa> Message-ID: <3E555B87.32168.34FBA354@localhost> On 20 Feb 2003 at 22:30, Gordon Mitchell wrote: > "Speaking to sailors and other naval personnel here, Bush > enumerated the countries and groups that have expressed support for > military action against Iraq, and dared the U.N. Security Council > to authorize military force or become an 'ineffective, irrelevant > debating society.'" > > - Maura Reynolds and Paul Richter, "On eve of inspectors' report, > Bush puts the heat on U.N." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 14 February > 2003. > > Do we have a response? I think that's unfair. The college debate community is far more relevant (not to mention effective) as a forum for policy formation and social change than is the UN. Plus, we don't have Lybia on our human rights committee. Omri. -------------- "I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us." -------------- From tshuman Thu Feb 20 22:06:35 2003 From: tshuman (Terrance Shuman) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:06:35 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] "Ineffective, irrelevant debating society" In-Reply-To: <3E555B87.32168.34FBA354@localhost> References: <314085.3254769002@41.22.20-22.142.136.in-addr.arpa> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030220220127.00a23da0@mail.magiccablepc.com> De-cloaking again, briefly... At 10:49 PM 2/20/2003 -0500, Omri Ceren wrote: >I think that's unfair. The college debate community is far more relevant >(not to >mention effective) as a forum for policy formation and social change than is >the UN. Plus, we don't have Lybia on our human rights committee. You've been reading too much Lacan, my brother... ;-) I'm fairly sure Gordon was kidding. If he was, I think LPW's take on the relevance of debate to the real world was funnier, but tastes vary. If he wasn't, well...even by eDebate standards it would be a bit of a stretch to powertag that card as "Bush thinks debate is irrelevant." Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and...well, not so tall as I used to be, Terrance Shuman Bishop LeBlond Memorial High School St. Joseph, Missouri From sharris Thu Feb 20 22:07:35 2003 From: sharris (Harris, Scott L) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 22:07:35 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] "Ineffective, irrelevant debating society" Message-ID: <06EB4CB0225B3F498418311D9D6A28AA01FF1D7D@bluebird.mail.ku.edu> If CEDA and NDT would only shoot a few people or invade another organization think how much more relevant and effective they would become. -----Original Message----- From: Omri Ceren To: Gordon Mitchell Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: 2/20/2003 9:49 PM Subject: Re: [eDebate] "Ineffective, irrelevant debating society" On 20 Feb 2003 at 22:30, Gordon Mitchell wrote: > "Speaking to sailors and other naval personnel here, Bush > enumerated the countries and groups that have expressed support for > military action against Iraq, and dared the U.N. Security Council > to authorize military force or become an 'ineffective, irrelevant > debating society.'" > > - Maura Reynolds and Paul Richter, "On eve of inspectors' report, > Bush puts the heat on U.N." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 14 February > 2003. > > Do we have a response? I think that's unfair. The college debate community is far more relevant (not to mention effective) as a forum for policy formation and social change than is the UN. Plus, we don't have Lybia on our human rights committee. Omri. -------------- "I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us." -------------- _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From omri Thu Feb 20 22:12:37 2003 From: omri (Omri Ceren) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:12:37 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] "Ineffective, irrelevant debating society" In-Reply-To: <06EB4CB0225B3F498418311D9D6A28AA01FF1D7D@bluebird.mail.ku.edu> Message-ID: <3E5560E5.21412.35109A25@localhost> On 20 Feb 2003 at 22:07, Harris, Scott L wrote: > If CEDA and NDT would only shoot a few people or invade another > organization think how much more relevant and effective they would > become. At least then they'd have an ethos... Omri. -------------- "I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us." -------------- From omri Thu Feb 20 22:16:31 2003 From: omri (Omri Ceren) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:16:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] "Ineffective, irrelevant debating society" In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030220220127.00a23da0@mail.magiccablepc.com> References: <3E555B87.32168.34FBA354@localhost> Message-ID: <3E5561CF.14937.35142C50@localhost> On 20 Feb 2003 at 22:06, Terrance Shuman wrote: >> I think that's unfair. The college debate community is far more >> relevant (not to mention effective) as a forum for policy >> formation and social change than is the UN. Plus, we don't have >> Lybia on our human rights committee. > You've been reading too much Lacan, my brother... ;-) I'm fairly > sure Gordon was kidding. If he was, I think LPW's take on the Damnit! I hate it when I'm too dense to catch other people's irony or sarcasm... Omri. -------------- "I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us." -------------- From paulj567 Thu Feb 20 22:20:01 2003 From: paulj567 (Paul Johnson) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:20:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] "Ineffective, irrelevant debating society" In-Reply-To: <3E5560E5.21412.35109A25@localhost> Message-ID: <20030221042002.38702.qmail@web11204.mail.yahoo.com> > > At least then they'd have an ethos... Walter, man, you're missing the point. -Paul > > Omri. > > -------------- > "I wish it need not have happened in my time," said > Frodo > "So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to > see such > times. But that is not for them to decide. All we > have to > decide is what to do with the time that is given > us." > -------------- > > _______________________________________________ > 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! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From gordonm+ Thu Feb 20 22:36:57 2003 From: gordonm+ (Gordon Mitchell) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:36:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Presidential attack on debating Message-ID: <555717.3254773017@247.22.20-22.142.136.in-addr.arpa> With all due respect Terrance, I meant my query as a serious provocation. What does it mean when the president of a nation derides the practice of his own citizens' academic debating in order to leverage his diplomatic hand on the world stage? To me, it seems ominous. But even before that, it seems misguided, because the silencing of debate can lead to groupthink. Consider the 1998 U.S. missile attack on the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. In this case, an uncritical environment prevailed in the White House and in Pentagon circles to such an extent that a single analyst was able to make the case for a military attack, which was in fact based on flawed and incomplete threat evidence. This error might have been avoided if the evidence had been vetted more carefully in deliberations prior to the strike. From tshuman Thu Feb 20 23:46:12 2003 From: tshuman (Terrance Shuman) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:46:12 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Presidential attack on debating In-Reply-To: <555717.3254773017@247.22.20-22.142.136.in-addr.arpa> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030220224824.00a22ec0@mail.magiccablepc.com> De-cloaking again, briefly... At 11:36 PM 2/20/2003 -0500, Gordon Mitchell wrote: >With all due respect Terrance, I meant my query as a serious provocation. I see. If you don't mind my asking, then, how do you get from "'ineffective, irrelevant debating society" to your conclusion that Bush is indicting debate in general, or even academic debate in particular? Is it your claim that he thinks ALL "debating societies" are ineffective and irrelevant? That would seem to be what you are suggesting. Why, then, the adjectives? Wouldn't he think "ineffective" and "irrelevant" would be redundant? Wouldn't he assume "debating society" would be enough to make the point he wished to make? As for "serious provocation," is it really your sense of things that this community is insufficiently provoked about Mr. Bush at the present time? And, if so, is it really your belief that the denizens of this cyber-village are so self-absorbed that Mr. Bush's (alleged) debate-bashing would accomplish what his foreign and/or domestic policies have failed to accomplish on that score? I'll reiterate what I wrote earlier: the card is powertagged outrageously. And I've got some counter-ev, to boot: On January 23, 2001: "Parents and children who have only bad options must eventually get good options if we're to succeed all across the country. There are differences of opinions about what those options should be. I made my opinion very clear in the course of the campaign. I'm going to take my opinion to the Hill and let folks debate it." On countless stops during the 2000 election campaign: "I believe that the American people want an honest, open and vigorous debate about the issues." Guy sounds like a believer in debate to me. Perhaps your demonizing of the President could abate long enough to consider the possibility that he was just, after all, talking about the U.N. Security Council, and not about what goes on at the Dixie, the Henry Clay, Heart of America, etc. Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and...well, not so tall as I used to be, Terrance Shuman Bishop LeBlond Memorial High School St. Joseph, Missouri From cpwiii Thu Feb 20 23:52:37 2003 From: cpwiii (charles woodbury) Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:52:37 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] (no subject) Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030220/7ce087ac/attachment.htm From 11OGORMAN Fri Feb 21 00:21:29 2003 From: 11OGORMAN (11OGORMAN) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 01:21:29 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] "Ineffective, irrelevant debating society" Message-ID: <3E566E70@136.242.14.28> >===== Original Message From Paul Johnson ===== >> >> At least then they'd have an ethos... > >Walter, man, you're missing the point. > >-Paul > >> >> Omri. Forget it, Donny, you're out of your element! Tom --"[T]he way to make your fate your choice is to choose it, fearlessly, your lungs drinking the air. It makes the gods ashamed." -Elizabeth Cook, Achilles From ermo Fri Feb 21 00:51:11 2003 From: ermo (Eric Morris) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 00:51:11 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] KU Heart of America - Judge Selection Sheet (Open) Message-ID: <004c01c2d975$9ee1e2c0$e9fbed81@ku.edu> These will be due at 10pm Friday night. We expect many people will fill them out during registration. Some people, however, will arrive late. Anyone registered may feel free to email them back to me at ermo at ku.edu if you want to do them by email. Please be clear whether they are for an individual team or an entire school. There is a separate sheet for JV/Novice strikes. Eric Morris Kansas Team Name: _______________ Directions: You must mark AT LEAST 11 judges as number one (most preferred). You must mark AT LEAST 11 judges as number two (more preferred). You must mark AT LEAST 8 judges as number three (preferred). You must mark AT LEAST 8 judges as number four (OK). You may mark NO MORE THAN 5 judges as number six (strike). The remaining judges may be marked as five (not preferred). Baisley, Matt (UMKC) Cram-Helwich, David (Mac) Cushman, Chris (UMKC) Davisson, Amber (SMS) Delaughder, Ken (ESU) Dennis, Doug (Kansas) Elliott, Darren (KCKCC) Foy, John (ENMU) Gaston, Bryan (UCO) Gerali,Stephanie (Denver) Harris, Martin (Kansas) Hovden, Jan (Weber) Hudkins, Jay (Baylor) Hutchins, Jeremy (JCCC) Jacobsen, Trond (Cornell) Jarman, Jeff (WSU) Kenyon, Chris (WSU) Lohr, Jeff (Capital) Massey, Jackie (ENMU) Maurer, Sam (ESU) McDonald, Kelly (ASU) Morgan, Helen X (Vermont) Mueller, Eric (Weber) Neal, Travis (UNT) Palczewski, Cate (UNI) Parmett, Justin (Vermont) Perkins, Jessica (WSU) Peterson,Melissa (UNI) Pointer, Steven (Lewis & Clark) Rubino, Kathryn (NYU) Russell, Jason (Gonzo) Sawyer, Reid (West Point) Seymour, Tom (Kansas) Shanahan, Bill (Fort Hays) Slusher, Eric (Gonzo) Stannard, Matt (Wyoming) Stevens, Monte (UMKC) Stone, Jason (UCO) Stone, Sarah (Wyoming) Strange, Ken (Dartmouth) Sykes, Jason (UNT) Taylor, J T (ESU) Walters, Heather (SMS) Warner, Ede (Louisville) Woods, Steve (WWU) Zahorcak, Owen (Lewis & Clark) The following KU judges are technically in the pool, but are unlikely to be used except in a crunch. Don't rank them as part of the mutual preference system, but you may strike up to three of them for the prelims: Gerber, Matt (Kansas) Harris, Scott (Kansas) Magariel, David (Kansas) McCollum, Rich (Kansas) Morris, Eric (Kansas) Thompson, Jacob (Kansas) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030221/fe2ad26d/attachment.html From ermo Fri Feb 21 00:51:13 2003 From: ermo (Eric Morris) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 00:51:13 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] KU Heart of America - Judge Selection Sheet (JV and Novice) Message-ID: <005001c2d975$9fb2ee60$e9fbed81@ku.edu> These will be due at 10pm Friday night. We expect many people will fill them out during registration. Some people, however, will arrive late. Anyone registered may feel free to email them back to me at ermo at ku.edu if you want to do them by email. Please be clear whether they are for an individual team or an entire school. There is a separate sheet for JV/Novice strikes. Eric Morris Kansas Team Name: _______________ Directions: You may choose to complete this sheet providing information to the tab room about your judge preferences. If you choose not to turn in this sheet, the tab room will assume that you do not wish to strike any judge. If you DO turn in the sheet, may not strike more than 3 judges. Your sheet will take effect in the first power-matched round if you turn it in to the tab room as soon as possible. Baisley, Matt (UMKC) Cram-Helwich, David (Mac) Cushman, Chris (UMKC) Davisson, Amber (SMS) Delaughder, Ken (ESU) Dennis, Doug (Kansas) Elliott, Darren (KCKCC) Foy, John (ENMU) Gaston, Bryan (UCO) Gerali,Stephanie (Denver) Gerber, Matt (Kansas) Gill, Jason (Kansas) Harris, Martin (Kansas) Harris, Scott (Kansas) Hovden, Jan (Weber) Hudkins, Jay (Baylor) Hudson, Ryan (Kansas) Hutchins, Jeremy (JCCC) Jarman, Jeff (WSU) Kenyon, Chris (WSU) Lohr, Jeff (Capital) Magariel, David (Kansas) Massey, Jackie (ENMU) Maurer, Sam (ESU) McCollum, Rich (Kansas) McDonald, Kelly (ASU) Morgan, Helen X (Vermont) Morris, Eric (Kansas) Mueller, Eric (Weber) Neal, Travis (UNT) Palczewski, Cate (UNI) Parmett, Justin (Vermont) Perkins, Jessica (WSU) Peterson,Melissa (UNI) Pointer, Steven (Lewis & Clark) Rubino, Kathryn (NYU) Russell, Jason (Gonzo) Sawyer, Reid (West Point) Seymour, Tom (Kansas) Shanahan, Bill (Fort Hays) Slusher, Eric (Gonzo) Stannard, Matt (Wyoming) Stevens, Jeremy (Cornell) Stevens, Monte (UMKC) Stone, Jason (UCO) Stone, Sarah (Wyoming) Strange, Ken (Dartmouth) Sykes, Jason (UNT) Taylor, J T (ESU) Thompson, Jacob (Kansas) Walsh, James (Kansas) Walters, Heather (SMS) Warner, Ede (Louisville) Wilson, Melanie (Kansas) Woods, Steve (WWU) Zahorcak, Owen (Lewis & Clark) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030221/ac8d1e0f/attachment.htm From phallusjerkins Fri Feb 21 01:20:13 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 02:20:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] military dabaiters = irrelevant Message-ID: sorry miss hamilton, but you are frightening the list w your "defense" (which you would spin to not be a "defense") of unique domestic abuse by military personnel. you tried an old personal narrative trick in response to documented evidence broadcast on CBS's "60 Minutes" that for some unknown reason we find 5 TIMES greater incidences of domestic abuse including spouse killings in military families than in civilian families. sorry, your testimony is an irrelevant distraction from issues of domestic security in the United States. we do thank you so much for stepping forward in an effort to prove that military training creates dangerous individuals who do not think for themselves. YES miss hamilton you are as frightening as john "muhammed" the recent serial killer, sniper, (who before he was identified was without any evidence to support his claim was played off as an Al-Qaeda member by our great president who in its rhetorical tactics and deliberate statements is attempting to squash debate to denationalize iraqi oil and steamroll through a fascist agenda to suppress fundamental rights). faced w documented evidence, you turn the other cheek and point to domestic abuse throughout the population. you refuse to address the unique abuse that comes from the military. now, we understand that you were raised by a military man and it is hard for you to see the military "lambasted" with documented evidence but that too is irrelevant. when it turns out that the sniper was US military, you refuse to acknowlege that offensive military training can easily have "dual use" purposes and end up backfiring on the civilians who paid for it. honestly, i refuse to pay taxes to train MILITARY FUCKERS LIKE JOHN MUHAMMED. i refuse to pay taxes to have a joker president get up with ZERO EVIDENCE and suggest that the sniper is al-qaeda to name one example of conscious deception. i refuse to pay taxes to fund military dabait programs when they can not take responsibility for the harm they have done and are doing to society. your warped obedience program created Charles Whitman, the original UT sniper too. oh yeah, the guy in arizona who shot his professor and some others was ex-military, too. the pattern is more than circumstantial, little girl. what is it about the military that produces snipers that endanger our security here at home more than they protect? i am sure you are more intelligent that your military training has sold you short for. i am sure you can learn to acknowledge the dangers of learning aggression and the adverse psychological effects of combat with long-term consequences. i am sure you even know deep down the total irrelevance of your personal narrative to the case at hand. everyone on the list but brainwashed military supporters can see that the 5 TIMES greater incidence of domestic abuse in military families is correlated with training in killing. please, STOP embarrassing military dabait programs with more evidence of your denial. there is no way out. you have to address the problem. we intentionally chose an issue that demonstrated a UNIQUE military problem so that you could not deflect into analyzing the larger society as a whole. now, we have added the SNIPER problem which is very connected to the issue of domestic abuse and shows how even though the military claims to protect the people many times they become the enemies of the people and threaten our security. this problem is compounded further by incompetent personnel who do not think for themselves and who look the other way or maybe they are intimidated by a system built on intimidation and so can not come forward and challenge the military. if you and your friends had truly studied revolutionary tactics of the 60s, then you would see that i have done nothing more than replicate strategies of the Situationist International and Guy Debord. this is old hat, my dear. nothing new under the sun. the shock only comes to the uneducated. so stop your paternalistic recommendations on the best means to protest. everyone laughed at Guy Debord in the 1959 when he started writing his tracks but in May of '68 it was debord who was laughing. i have more patience and foresight than your military industrial complex of urgent ultimatums against iraq. dumb girl, you have been trapped by da bait. . unlike you and george bush who are deliberately trying to stifle dabait, in the end we judge off the flow. if you don't answer the relevant arguments, you lose. whine about the cheap shots all you want we'll accept the speaker point reduction. even your whines about the cheap shots end up biting you in the ass. see in your weak opinion "lambasting" the military with terrible rhetoric is worse than killing innocent civilians in iraq and worse than creating real sniper monsters. your military training has totally distorted your understanding of what violence really is. either make an argument or shut the fuck up, because you are making us sick. phallusjerkins at harvardabaitfailure, inc. _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From phallusjerkins Fri Feb 21 01:22:56 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 02:22:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] a hamilton is irrelevant Message-ID: sorry miss hamilton, but you are frightening the list w your "defense" (which you would spin to not be a "defense") of unique domestic abuse by military personnel. you tried an old personal narrative trick in response to documented evidence broadcast on CBS's "60 Minutes" that for some unknown reason we find 5 TIMES greater incidences of domestic abuse including spouse killings in military families than in civilian families. sorry, your testimony is an irrelevant distraction from issues of domestic security in the United States. we do thank you so much for stepping forward in an effort to prove that military training creates dangerous individuals who do not think for themselves. YES miss hamilton you are as frightening as john "muhammed" the recent serial killer, sniper, (who before he was identified was without any evidence to support his claim was played off as an Al-Qaeda member by our great president who in its rhetorical tactics and deliberate statements is attempting to squash debate to denationalize iraqi oil and steamroll through a fascist agenda to suppress fundamental rights). faced w documented evidence, you turn the other cheek and point to domestic abuse throughout the population. you refuse to address the unique abuse that comes from the military. now, we understand that you were raised by a military man and it is hard for you to see the military "lambasted" with documented evidence but that too is irrelevant. when it turns out that the sniper was US military, you refuse to acknowlege that offensive military training can easily have "dual use" purposes and end up backfiring on the civilians who paid for it. honestly, i refuse to pay taxes to train MILITARY FUCKERS LIKE JOHN MUHAMMED. i refuse to pay taxes to have a joker president get up with ZERO EVIDENCE and suggest that the sniper is al-qaeda to name one example of conscious deception. i refuse to pay taxes to fund military dabait programs when they can not take responsibility for the harm they have done and are doing to society. your warped obedience program created Charles Whitman, the original UT sniper too. oh yeah, the guy in arizona who shot his professor and some others was ex-military, too. the pattern is more than circumstantial, little girl. what is it about the military that produces snipers that endanger our security here at home more than they protect? i am sure you are more intelligent that your military training has sold you short for. i am sure you can learn to acknowledge the dangers of learning aggression and the adverse psychological effects of combat with long-term consequences. i am sure you even know deep down the total irrelevance of your personal narrative to the case at hand. everyone on the list but brainwashed military supporters can see that the 5 TIMES greater incidence of domestic abuse in military families is correlated with training in killing. please, STOP embarrassing military dabait programs with more evidence of your denial. there is no way out. you have to address the problem. we intentionally chose an issue that demonstrated a UNIQUE military problem so that you could not deflect into analyzing the larger society as a whole. now, we have added the SNIPER problem which is very connected to the issue of domestic abuse and shows how even though the military claims to protect the people many times they become the enemies of the people and threaten our security. this problem is compounded further by incompetent personnel who do not think for themselves and who look the other way or maybe they are intimidated by a system built on intimidation and so can not come forward and challenge the military. if you and your friends had truly studied revolutionary tactics of the 60s, then you would see that i have done nothing more than replicate strategies of the Situationist International and Guy Debord. this is old hat, my dear. nothing new under the sun. the shock only comes to the uneducated. so stop your paternalistic recommendations on the best means to protest. everyone laughed at Guy Debord in the 1959 when he started writing his tracks but in May of '68 it was debord who was laughing. i have more patience and foresight than your military industrial complex of urgent ultimatums against iraq. dumb girl, you have been trapped by da bait. . unlike you and george bush who are deliberately trying to stifle dabait, in the end we judge off the flow. if you don't answer the relevant arguments, you lose. whine about the cheap shots all you want we'll accept the speaker point reduction. how does it feel to go for all of the decoys and then get ambushed? sucks don't it. maybe you should reflect a litte. the nuances are tough but our wide readership gets more than you prefer. even your whines about the cheap shots end up biting you in the ass. see in your weak opinion "lambasting" the military with terrible rhetoric is worse than killing innocent civilians in iraq and worse than creating real sniper monsters. your military training has totally distorted your understanding of what violence really is. either make an argument or shut the fuck up, because you are making us sick. phallusjerkins at harvardabaitfailure, inc. _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From debatekorea Fri Feb 21 02:08:29 2003 From: debatekorea (Jason Jarvis) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 03:08:29 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Presidential attack on debating Message-ID: Gordon has an excellent question. This seems to be an even more relevant question given two things: 1. The embarrassingly bad evidence used by Powell and the UK to justify an attack (lifted word for word from an article 12 years old. Hell if they had hired some debaters from the states they could have fashioned better args....) 2. The global protests. Seems that most citizens in the world want to have a reasoned debate. Perhaps the reason that the majority of the American public, and the US government is so out of touch with the situation is the LACK of academic debate taking place on the subject amongst the Bush administration. Its clear that attacking Iraq has been a done deal since Dubya got into office, were it not for 9/11 the war would have already happened.... I only pray that North Korea isn't next and the NYTimes reports that they are considering air strikes are wrong. jj Jason L. Jarvis Visiting Professor Graduate School of Journalism and Communication Kyung Hee University 1 Hoeki-dong, Dongdaemun-ku Seoul 130-701, Korea home:82-2-957-2305 mobile: 82-019-381-2305 ----Original Message Follows---- From: Gordon Mitchell To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Presidential attack on debating Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 23:36:57 -0500 With all due respect Terrance, I meant my query as a serious provocation. What does it mean when the president of a nation derides the practice of his own citizens' academic debating in order to leverage his diplomatic hand on the world stage? To me, it seems ominous. But even before that, it seems misguided, because the silencing of debate can lead to groupthink. Consider the 1998 U.S. missile attack on the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. In this case, an uncritical environment prevailed in the White House and in Pentagon circles to such an extent that a single analyst was able to make the case for a military attack, which was in fact based on flawed and incomplete threat evidence. This error might have been avoided if the evidence had been vetted more carefully in deliberations prior to the strike. _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From phallusjerkins Fri Feb 21 02:12:15 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 03:12:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] if mil dabaiters weren't brainwashed? Message-ID: then of course we would find at least one example of a military dabaiter who had become a conscientious objector to the war in iraq. you may think that we are jumping the gun on this conclusion but the new military tactics have created new resistance tactics with the largest (and therefore most irrelevant) anti-war protest in history taking place BEFORE the war. likewise, we would like to new forms of intra-military resistance to include conscientious objection now before the war. see, an intelligent man on this, Philip De Hart i believe, made the statment that "dabaiting requires that the contestants be capable of changing their opinions through the course of the dabait". the problem with dabaiting military personnel is that they will never change their opinion about the necessity of killing innocent civilians to accomplish geopolitical aims. case in point: so far there are no military dabaiters who have shown a willingness to change their opinion about the war and become conscientious objectors like their brethren who proceeded them in the Vietnam War and their brothers and sisters in the IDF who refuse to work in the occupied territories. and now that the president has made official statements against "dabaiting societies", we can conclude no other way but that military dabaiters who are not yet conscientious objectors are traitors to dabaiters! join the international majority in a relevant, democratic decision to stop the war and stop playing fascist guard for the dangerous, out of control president. _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From phallusjerkins Fri Feb 21 03:21:52 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 04:21:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] imagine this... Message-ID: first of all sorry for duplicate post "military dabaiters = irrelevant" and "a hamilton is irrelevant" -- the only addition to the second were the lines "how does it feel to go for all of the decoys and then get ambushed?? sucks don't it.? maybe you should reflect a litte.? the nuances are tough but our wide readership gets more than you prefer." imagine military dabaiters conscientiously objecting to the war in iraq based on the deplorable depravity of the powell evidence presented in the case before the war to the UN. military dabaiters cite the blix reply to the satellite photos noting the two-week time differential, the irrelevance of the audio recordings, and the british dossier, plagiarizing a source from 1991, cited to support the concept of mobile CBW units. military dabaiters conscientiously object to the war based on insufficient "evidence". now that would be fucking beautiful but unrealistic given how bad military dabait sucks these days... _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From let_the_american_empire_burn Fri Feb 21 05:57:12 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 05:57:12 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Presidential attack on debating Message-ID: well, i think Gordon did take that quotation a little out-of-context - the United Nations is not the League of Nations, and in the spirit of the Charter, the UN should be capable of acting with force when necessary. naturally, i would differentiate between the Kofi Annan doctrine of humanitarian intervention and the Bush doctrine of preemption, and am as disturbed as world-citizens should be that a coalition of nations led by the USA is considering violating that Charter (or 'destroying the UN to save it', to quote a Vietnam-ism). still, Bush's remarks have absolutely nothing to do with condemning debate or debating societies in general, and even the Secretary of Defense, in his press briefings, constantly refers to the need for reasoned debate (as well as referring constantly to 'fact-patterns' and 'plumb-lines'). what's interesting is that these so-called 'reasonable people' never seem to seriously oppose the coming invasion - Prime Minister Blair talks often about some member-state of the UN Security Council dropping an 'unreasonable' veto, and yet isn't it completely within the sphere of reason to weigh the consequences of war and say, 'it isn't worth it'? so the pro-war team talks about debate, not as a back-and-forth exchange between equal participants, but as a question-and-answer session, where reasonable people raise questions and once the administration gives its answer (which is often, 'that's classified'), then that's that. a genuine debate leaves open the question of how an issue will be resolved, but it is quite clear that this administration is going to go to war, whether half of the American people disagree, whether 95% of the Iraqi people disagree, whether 3/4ths of the world's people disagree, this matters not. and in this political context, i'd agree with the power-tagging of President Bush's remarks - debate *is* irrelevant and ineffective. (if people want to talk about disarmament, then i'd be more than happy to give reasons for why the USA should unilaterally disarm all its nuclear weapons and cut off military aid to any allies that do not follow suit (namely Israel) - that's the kind of unilateral leadership i like.) but as the debate is currently framed, its only goal seems to be to desensitize people to the fact that 'the decision [for war] has already been made' (to quote my favorite Bush-ism) and that tens of thousands of Iraqis are about to be incinerated by 'smart' weaponry, and on that point, for me at least, there's no grounds for discussion. .k _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From privethedge Fri Feb 21 07:43:30 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 05:43:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] "Ineffective, irrelevant debating society" In-Reply-To: <314085.3254769002@41.22.20-22.142.136.in-addr.arpa> Message-ID: <20030221134330.18567.qmail@web10009.mail.yahoo.com> and dared the U.N. Security Council to authorize military force or become an 'ineffective, irrelevant debating society.'" I'm not sure how you are expanding these words to link Bush attacking the activity that we engage in. I think the UN is kind of a useless debating society. They are the only organization on earth, besides an ineffective parent, who says "Now, Now, Sadaam...you'd better cooperate with our inspectors, and straighten up and fly right, young man, or else...we'll simply keep repeating our demands and nothing will ever happen to you." Just like a kid who hear's those kinds of threats from mom/dad, but who never sees any punishment for those actions, eventually the kid, like Sadaam, just stops listening, because the kids kows nothing will happen. But, if mom/dad puts the boot down on the kid, then, normally, the kid shapes up. I think what Bush is saying is that the UN must act, or it becomes a laughing-stock, incapable of even dealing with a tinpot dictator. Bush is simply speaking the truth, not condeming debate. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030221/e3c3115a/attachment.html From bodonnel Fri Feb 21 08:13:44 2003 From: bodonnel (O'Donnell, Brett M.) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:13:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 2002-03 NDT Subscribers (Updated 2-21-03) Message-ID: Below is the current list of NDT subscribers (this list does not include those who have paid through AFA since February 1). To participate in the NDT bid allocation process, attend the NDT or be ranked in the final NDT rankings, you must be a subscriber. To pay your NDT dues you can contact Jim Pratt at the American Forensic Association at 1-800-228-5424 or send a check for $30.00 made payable to the National Debate Tournament to: Brett O'Donnell Liberty University Debate 1971 University Blvd Lynchburg, VA 24502 I urge all District Chairs to collect NDT dues at their district tournaments from all schools participating and send them to me. NDT Subscribers 2002-03 Albertson College of Idaho Angelo State University Arizona State University Augustana College Baylor University Boston College Fulton Debating Soc California Poly State University - San Luis Obispo California State University Fullerton California State University Long Beach California State University Northridge Capital University Catholic University Clarion University Concordia College Cornell University Dartmouth College DePaul University Eastern New Mexico University Emory University Emporia State University Fordham University Franklin Pierce College Fresno State University George Mason University Georgetown University Georgia Military College Gonzaga University Harvard University Idaho State University Illinois College James Madison University John Carroll University Lewis & Clark College Liberty University Loyola University Macalester College Marist College Mercer University Miami University of Ohio Michigan State University New York University Northwest College Pepperdine University Queens College Sacramento State University Samford University San Diego State University Southern Illinois University Southern Utah University Southwest Missouri State University St. Mary's College of California Trinity University University of Central Oklahoma University of Georgia University of Kentucky University of Michigan University of Michigan-Dearborn University of Missouri-Columbia University of Missouri-Kansas City University of North Texas University of Northern Iowa University of Oregon University of Pittsburgh University of Redlands University of Richmond University of Rochester University of South Carolina University of Texas University of Texas at Dallas University of Vermont University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh University of Wyoming Wake Forest University Washington State University Wayne State University Webster University Western Washington University West Virginia University Whitman College Wichita State University William Jewell College From ccooper Fri Feb 21 08:28:11 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:28:11 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Presidential attack on debating Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370710C9B81@exm01w.apac.planning.org> I'm with Gordon on this. I think there is a place for the academic debate community to make a public statement about the necessity of "irrelevent" debate...something for the PR Committee perhaps? Coop -----Original Message----- From: Gordon Mitchell [mailto:gordonm+ at pitt.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 11:37 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Presidential attack on debating With all due respect Terrance, I meant my query as a serious provocation. What does it mean when the president of a nation derides the practice of his own citizens' academic debating in order to leverage his diplomatic hand on the world stage? To me, it seems ominous. But even before that, it seems misguided, because the silencing of debate can lead to groupthink. Consider the 1998 U.S. missile attack on the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. In this case, an uncritical environment prevailed in the White House and in Pentagon circles to such an extent that a single analyst was able to make the case for a military attack, which was in fact based on flawed and incomplete threat evidence. This error might have been avoided if the evidence had been vetted more carefully in deliberations prior to the strike. _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030221/b14988b7/attachment.htm From ccooper Fri Feb 21 08:43:12 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:43:12 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] "Ineffective, irrelevant debating society" Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370710C9B85@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Duane says: "But, if mom/dad puts the boot down on the kid, then, normally, the kid shapes up." Are you advocating beating your children, Duane? -----Original Message----- From: Duane Hyland [mailto:privethedge at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 8:44 AM To: Gordon Mitchell; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] "Ineffective, irrelevant debating society" and dared the U.N. Security Council to authorize military force or become an 'ineffective, irrelevant debating society.'" I'm not sure how you are expanding these words to link Bush attacking the activity that we engage in. I think the UN is kind of a useless debating society. They are the only organization on earth, besides an ineffective parent, who says "Now, Now, Sadaam...you'd better cooperate with our inspectors, and straighten up and fly right, young man, or else...we'll simply keep repeating our demands and nothing will ever happen to you." Just like a kid who hear's those kinds of threats from mom/dad, but who never sees any punishment for those actions, eventually the kid, like Sadaam, just stops listening, because the kids kows nothing will happen. But, if mom/dad puts the boot down on the kid, then, normally, the kid shapes up. I think what Bush is saying is that the UN must act, or it becomes a laughing-stock, incapable of even dealing with a tinpot dictator. Bush is simply speaking the truth, not condeming debate. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." _____ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030221/fe24e02b/attachment.html From ragedebate Fri Feb 21 08:52:04 2003 From: ragedebate (Richard Garner) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 06:52:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] "Ineffective, irrelevant debating society" In-Reply-To: <20030221134330.18567.qmail@web10009.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20030221145204.44387.qmail@web21001.mail.yahoo.com> "But, if mom/dad puts the boot down on the kid, then, normally, the kid shapes up." veryone is entitled to their opinion, but let's be frank: this statement only makes sense if by "boot" you mean "war" or "prolonged military bombings of both the PGM and carpet bombing persusasion". i suppose it's not enough to "ground" the child, aka- a decade plus of sanctions, but instead we should start beating these wayward children. yeah, beating children. makes for a happy family i hear. on second thought, i take back my criticism of this statement. i think it is indeed a good analogy. don't beat your children. ricky nyu 2oo3 --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030221/b04e94fd/attachment.htm From privethedge Fri Feb 21 09:05:26 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 07:05:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] "Ineffective, irrelevant debating society" In-Reply-To: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370710C9B85@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Message-ID: <20030221150526.21128.qmail@web10003.mail.yahoo.com> Funny, you pick up on that line and ignore the rest. No, I'm not advocating the beating of children. I abhore the beating of children. There are lots of ways for mom and dad to "put the boot down" on kids without laying a hand on them - the point of my post is that there is no consequence to Sadaam's continued defiance of the UN. He doesn't even get sent to his room. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030221/c8dea125/attachment.html From ccooper Fri Feb 21 09:18:41 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:18:41 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] "Ineffective, irrelevant debating society" Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370710C9B8B@exm01w.apac.planning.org> As Ricky has pointed out...what is the appropriate response given your analogy then? I think there are few who are advocating "doing nothing". So, short of beating the child...what are some alternative remedies? -----Original Message----- From: Duane Hyland [mailto:privethedge at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 10:05 AM To: Christopher Cooper; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: RE: [eDebate] "Ineffective, irrelevant debating society" Funny, you pick up on that line and ignore the rest. No, I'm not advocating the beating of children. I abhore the beating of children. There are lots of ways for mom and dad to "put the boot down" on kids without laying a hand on them - the point of my post is that there is no consequence to Sadaam's continued defiance of the UN. He doesn't even get sent to his room. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." _____ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030221/300c828f/attachment.htm From privethedge Fri Feb 21 09:41:28 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 07:41:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] "Ineffective, irrelevant debating society" In-Reply-To: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370710C9B8B@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Message-ID: <20030221154128.97700.qmail@web10008.mail.yahoo.com> Hmmm....well....if the child in question is gang raping, murdering, and torturing the inhabitants of the house, you tell me? I don't think taking away the TV and X-Box for a month will solve that problem. Sadly, we aren't talking about children here, we are talking about a dictator. I would support exile for him, I would support assassionation, I would support inspiring the people of Iraq to rebell - but in the end, it might well be that only military might solves the problem(s) that Sadaam presents. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030221/d5dbe8ca/attachment.html From OBESECRET Fri Feb 21 09:42:29 2003 From: OBESECRET (OBESECRET at aol.com) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:42:29 EST Subject: [eDebate] Please remove me! Message-ID: <1e7.29c7cef.2b87a2e5@aol.com> I would like to be taken off the e-debate listing. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030221/8dd4cf7c/attachment.htm From ccooper Fri Feb 21 09:52:22 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:52:22 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] "Ineffective, irrelevant debating society" Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370710C9B8C@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Hey Duane...the analogy was yours, not mine. Don't nash your teeth because unfortunately, "we're talking about a dictator." Should different rules apply? I have often been perplexed by the political exploitation of children. What the fuck makes them so special? We're all children...just a little taller. COOP -----Original Message----- From: Duane Hyland [mailto:privethedge at yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 10:41 AM To: Christopher Cooper; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: RE: [eDebate] "Ineffective, irrelevant debating society" Hmmm....well....if the child in question is gang raping, murdering, and torturing the inhabitants of the house, you tell me? I don't think taking away the TV and X-Box for a month will solve that problem. Sadly, we aren't talking about children here, we are talking about a dictator. I would support exile for him, I would support assassionation, I would support inspiring the people of Iraq to rebell - but in the end, it might well be that only military might solves the problem(s) that Sadaam presents. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." _____ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030221/5fa5b5be/attachment.html From ehrlenmeyerflask Fri Feb 21 09:54:21 2003 From: ehrlenmeyerflask (Aaron Klemz) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 09:54:21 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Duane's child abuse analogy Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030221/800353cc/attachment.htm From wnewnam Fri Feb 21 10:23:35 2003 From: wnewnam (Bill Newnam) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 11:23:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Presidential attack on debating References: <555717.3254773017@247.22.20-22.142.136.in-addr.arpa> Message-ID: <3E565287.E70DC99E@emory.edu> You surely aren't worried about groupthink settling in on this white house. So open to external input, sharing information to get various points of view, encouraging open discussion all of these things help to minimize the risks of group think. bill n emory Gordon Mitchell wrote: > With all due respect Terrance, I meant my query as a serious provocation. > > What does it mean when the president of a nation derides the practice of > his own citizens' academic debating in order to leverage his diplomatic > hand on the world stage? > > To me, it seems ominous. But even before that, it seems misguided, because > the silencing of debate can lead to groupthink. Consider the 1998 U.S. > missile attack on the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. In > this case, an uncritical environment prevailed in the White House and in > Pentagon circles to such an extent that a single analyst was able to make > the case for a military attack, which was in fact based on flawed and > incomplete threat evidence. This error might have been avoided if the > evidence had been vetted more carefully in deliberations prior to the > strike. > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From cheodekirk Fri Feb 21 10:24:49 2003 From: cheodekirk (Scott Odekirk) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 16:24:49 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] "Ineffective, irrelevant debating society" Message-ID: I think the problem here is not whether we view 'the child'[iraq] as a 'good' or a 'bad' kid, but maybe there is something wrong with seeing the u.s. as a concerned global parent grappling with conflicts over sparing 'the rod.' iraq/saddam/whatever isn't a troubled teenager who's gotten a little rebellious who now needs to be 'scolded'. you want to pretend the world is made up of parents and children [states] in one big disfunctional family, go ahead, but what kind of power does that give the *daddy*. Beating kids never made the parent or the children less violent anyway. peace scott odekirk weber state debate >From: Duane Hyland >To: Christopher Cooper , edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: RE: [eDebate] "Ineffective, irrelevant debating society" >Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 07:41:28 -0800 (PST) > > >Hmmm....well....if the child in question is gang raping, murdering, and >torturing the inhabitants of the house, you tell me? I don't think taking >away the TV and X-Box for a month will solve that problem. > > >Sadly, we aren't talking about children here, we are talking about a >dictator. I would support exile for him, I would support assassionation, I >would support inspiring the people of Iraq to rebell - but in the end, it >might well be that only military might solves the problem(s) that Sadaam >presents. > >Duane > > > >"You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson > >"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he >(or she) proposes to pay off with your money." > > > >--------------------------------- >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From wrhailer Fri Feb 21 10:19:11 2003 From: wrhailer (William Hailer) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:19:11 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Louisville Only Message-ID: <000801c2d9c4$f9102f00$6d10818a@cord.edu> Come someone on the Louisville team backchannel me please. I am looking for cites about why hip hop and rap should be included in academic forums (it doesn't have to be specific to debate). I am trying to get some of these cites for one of my high school students giving an original oratory about bringing back the underground Hip Hop. Thank you. William R. Hailer School (218) 299-3122 CPO 3882 Concordia College Moorhead MN 56562 Moorhead High School ~Asst. Debate and Speech Coach Concordia College Democrats ~President Concordia College Forensics -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030221/0024a8fb/attachment.html From privethedge Fri Feb 21 10:36:25 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 08:36:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Duane's child abuse analogy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030221163625.41610.qmail@web10009.mail.yahoo.com> Forget it..it was a bad analogy. I don't support child abuse, or hitting children. However, I don't support Sadaam either. I was just trying to be clever..but my sense of repartee is not that well developed. In the end, all the UN has said is "Sadaam, straighten up and fly right, or we'll simply just pass another resolution urging you to straighten up and fly right." The last time the UN was effective on a military basis was Korea, and that was largely due to the US leading the way. In recent years: Somolia, Bosnia, Rwanda, the UN has been a joke. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which he (or she) proposes to pay off with your money." --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030221/de929397/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn Fri Feb 21 12:22:13 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:22:13 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] "Ineffective, irrelevant debating society" Message-ID: Duaney: "The last time the UN was effective on a military basis was Korea, and that was largely due to the US leading the way. In recent years: Somolia, Bosnia, Rwanda, the UN has been a joke." the reason that 'the United Nations is a joke' is quite simple: the UN must rely on an irresponsible empire for its political legitimacy, a rogue hegemon that doesn't want to obey any law higher than its own self-interest. take Rwanda, for instance: there were United Nations peace-keeping forces already in that country, and they wanted to stay there and provide what little help they could muster, but along came a powerful nation which led an initiative to pull those peace-keepers out, and of course, that nation got its way. why? because that nation is the USA. and so the world watched as 800,000 people were slaughtered, making the post-Shoah commitment of 'Never again' as superificial as the USA's recent concern for the Kurds and the Iranians gassed in the hundreds of thousands by Saddam Hussien. seeing this, one needn't be perplexed at why Iraq and the USA take similar positions on a lot of international concerns - both oppose the International Criminal Court, for instance, because both hegemons are worried that their own militaries might be prosecuted in tribunals of global justice. (for another instance, both countries also oppose treaties which would forbid state executions.) so the real joke here is the good ol' American Catch-22 - the USA wants to use the UN for so-called 'international credibility' whenever it is feeling a bit randy (militaristically speaking), but at the same time it maintains the god-given right of an empire to shit on the most basic tenets of the UN Charter (which it, ironically, was instrumental in writing). the UN is either ineffective in standing firm against proposed imperial aggressions or it is irrelevant thanks to a loss of imperialist funding - so trapped between Iraq and a hard place. and we've seen this all before - from Vietnam to Nicaragua to Sudan to Iraq now. of course, this isn't a very funny joke, because the death toll keeps rising on those who've been killed by American hypocrisy. how much more reasonable would the USA look if it used its disporportionately massive clout to work for an entire Middle East without Weapons of Mass Destruction (which is, if i recall correctly, what resolution 687 calls for anyway)? do you know how much more respect the Arab world would show the USA if it demanded Israeli disarmament with the same fervor as it now demands Iraqi disarmament? but then again i'm being naive - this has never been about disarmament, or violated UN resolutions, or humyn rights; all of these things are only cited insofar as they serve as a pretext for an invasion which no international organization can now prevent. that is the sad reality of the situation, made even sadder by the fact that it leaves naked terrorism as the only last resort. see ya at the next 9/11. .k (p.s. i do not intend the terms 'USA' or 'Iraq' to mean the actual populations who live under the rule of these police states.) _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From papa_smurf1069 Fri Feb 21 12:39:46 2003 From: papa_smurf1069 (King Anti-Social) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:39:46 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] K-State, Texas, UNT, SMS and KU Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030221/f96bbca7/attachment.html From papa_smurf1069 Fri Feb 21 12:45:05 2003 From: papa_smurf1069 (King Anti-Social) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 12:45:05 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Fort Hays, Baylor, UMKC and UTD Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030221/f580303f/attachment.htm From theonlykellen Fri Feb 21 12:56:39 2003 From: theonlykellen (kellen mcaffee) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 18:56:39 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] odekirk is right Message-ID: i think ODEKIRK is right that's all for now kellen mcaffee _________________________________________________________________ From kkuswa Fri Feb 21 13:28:48 2003 From: kkuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:28:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Presidential attack on debating Message-ID: <3E4B3C6D@webmail.richmond.edu> is there an implicit argument in Bush's rhetoric that debate is an alternative to violence? You won't drop bombs--you just want to debate. Right, exactly. kevin >===== Original Message From Bill Newnam ===== >You surely aren't worried about groupthink settling in on this white house. > >So open to external input, sharing information to get various points of view, >encouraging open discussion all of these things help to minimize the risks of >group think. > >bill n >emory > >Gordon Mitchell wrote: > >> With all due respect Terrance, I meant my query as a serious provocation. >> >> What does it mean when the president of a nation derides the practice of >> his own citizens' academic debating in order to leverage his diplomatic >> hand on the world stage? >> >> To me, it seems ominous. But even before that, it seems misguided, because >> the silencing of debate can lead to groupthink. Consider the 1998 U.S. >> missile attack on the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan. In >> this case, an uncritical environment prevailed in the White House and in >> Pentagon circles to such an extent that a single analyst was able to make >> the case for a military attack, which was in fact based on flawed and >> incomplete threat evidence. This error might have been avoided if the >> evidence had been vetted more carefully in deliberations prior to the >> strike. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 mch766s Fri Feb 21 14:15:39 2003 From: mch766s (Harris, Martin C ) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 14:15:39 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Nationals Question for an Official Message-ID: <236063CE3D22594BA7C9613B71D654A8A37CBF@ruby.smsu.edu> Someone, Shawn or Kelly or Jeff, whoever is appropriately in charge of such things. I would like the official definition of "qualified" for judges at Nationals. I have seen it referenced in documents, like the invitation, but have not been able to find a definition. What are the minimum requirements for judging at Nationals. Any clarity welcomed. Smart a** comments ok too, as long as they are followed by the professional answer. Thanks Martin Harris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030221/4fe36e37/attachment.html From cl001k Fri Feb 21 14:18:55 2003 From: cl001k (Cedric Logan) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:18:55 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Ryan or someone from Boston College Message-ID: Hey, could someone from BC backchannel me? Cedric From drwiese1 Fri Feb 21 17:20:40 2003 From: drwiese1 (DANIELLE WIESE) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 15:20:40 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA JUDGING STILL AVAILABLE Message-ID: Hello All-- Scott Varda and I are planning to travel to CEDA nats... we're both available for hire.... Danielle Wiese University of Iowa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030221/b405577c/attachment.htm From delliott Fri Feb 21 17:40:51 2003 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 17:40:51 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Congrats to new ESU Director Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030221174051.00d1e648@kckcc.toto.net> Let me be the first to congratulate Ken DeLaughder as the new Director of Debate at Emporia State University. As an alum of ESU, I am happy that the alma mater chose someone with Ken's HANADWEEDAD. A spin off of my old HS B-Ball coach, in Kens case it stands for: H A rd N osed A ggressive D ebating W ith E xtra E ffort D esire A nd D etermination As an debater who saw ESU rise to one of the best in the nation, then as an alum who saw it have some down years, then become a debate program to contend with again since Ken's arrival, I am proud they picked him to continue the job he was doing for some years just without the title. If you see Ken this weekend at Heart, give him a congrats. He works hard and has built a succesful program. CONGRATS KEN D!! Chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate Kansas City Kansas Community College From phallusjerkins Fri Feb 21 18:06:38 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 19:06:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] military=obstacle 2 democratic elections Message-ID: top story --- majority of queer magazines confirm indictment. we provide one example: gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/events/071601ev.htm the armed forces again were a tool of the republican party to stage a virtual coup d'etat: http://members.tripod.com/~reno4governor/index-20.html a quote:" In Washington, Republicans on the House Armed Services Committee helped the campaign obtain private contact information for military voters, violating the tradition of impartiality of the military and directly involving Congress in a partisan hunt for pro-Bush votes. The Supreme Court, in ruling on the necessity of ?equal protection? for all voters, deliberately ignored the fact that this standard was wholly ignored by those canvassing boards that the Republicans convinced to include illegal overseas ballots in favor of Bush, while excluding many legally cast votes in favor of Gore. The very basis of the decision that gave the election to Bush, in other words, was a sham." six month nytimes investigation confirms the indictment of fraudulent activity on the part of the military: http://www.carvercodfl.org/articles/NYTballot1.htm and by the way we have already seen all of your websites that try to legitimate illegal military ballots -- the problem for those spurious claims is the above cited NYTimes study which you must answer if you wish to participate in a dabait instead of being a military PR yahoo: http://www.buzzflash.com/southern/2002/06/06_southern.html another quote: "They fixed military ballots that arrived not completely filled out. They had illegal military ballots included in the final count, but told the American people Gore was trying to keep military ballots from being counted