From bgaston76 Mon Mar 31 23:10:36 2003 From: bgaston76 (Bryan Gaston) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 21:10:36 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] A ride from the airport to the hotel, anyone? Message-ID: Hey, If anyone could let me catch a ride 7:00pm April, 3d Thursday before the NDT, at the Atlanta airport I would be very grateful. If not I'll get a cab. Bryan Gaston UCO Assistant Debate Coach _____________________________________________________________ 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 oguevara Thu Mar 27 19:31:30 2003 From: oguevara (Omar G Guevara) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 17:31:30 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Vegas Party Help Message-ID: If anyone coming for the big end of the party needs some local advice on cheap rooms, good eats, etc just drop me a line. i know many of you are veteran vegas visitors, but in case you are not I might be able to lend a helping hand. And I guess my floor is available if you can't afford a hotel room! Happy NDT and CEDA Nats, OG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030327/db034bd2/attachment.html From phallusjerkins Sat Mar 1 00:53:45 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 01:53:45 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] http://www.awolbush.com/ Message-ID: the president deserted his national guard unit fucking off drinking alcohol and snorting cocaine. count 'em like 10 major newspaper articles expose the hypocrisy of coward who is the commander-in-chief. a fuck off son of a millionaire CIA director who failed to meet his obligations w the military. he's the best example of what all military personnel should do now which is desert. don't report to duty for more than 30 days and go AWOL just like the commander in chief did. it is punishable by death in vigilante military courts with no appeals. what a laughingstock. duane is stuck w crap cards. what a bluffing jackass. _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From phallusjerkins Sat Mar 1 01:26:03 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 02:26:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] klemz+articles of impeachment Message-ID: would you say that the case made by the former attorney general of the united states is completely unfounded or would you say that there are reasonable grounds to impeach the president of the united states? is this pure fool's play going on or do you take seriously claims to remove the president for many of the reasons that he makes you so irate? actually we thought you might be able to convince duane since he "says" that if all protesters were as friendly and rational as you he would join you in the streets. we don't believe duane. we think he is bluffing and is casting calls for impeachment as vague and "irrational anti-americanism" to protect the president and his henchmen from prosecution. we thought he was trying to play you and so we came with our serious query regarding the legitimacy of the bush administration. is clark just when he leaves powell off the list given his involvement in the failed my lai cover-up and his doctrine of slaughtering civilians realized in the highway of death "shooting in a pen" scenario? trivia question: technically, if all 4 criminals in question were indicted, who would end up president of the united states according to the laws of impeachment dictated in the constitution? that's right, trent lott. under what circumstances could ramsey clark end up becoming the next ken starr? who do you think are the likely big money democrats who would foot the bill for the high-profile trial? here are the articles. Articles of Impeachment of President George W. Bush Vice President Richard B. Cheney Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Attorney General John David Ashcroft The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors. --Article II, Section 4 of The Constitution of the United States of America Acts which require the impeachment of President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld; and Attorney General John David Ashcroft include: 1) Ordering and directing a proclaimed "pre-emptive", or "first strike" war of aggression against Afghanistan causing thousands of deaths indiscriminately, a major proportion non combatants, leaving millions homeless and hungry and installing a government of their choice in Kabul. 2) Authorizing daily intrusions into the airspace of Iraq by U.S. military aircraft in violation of the sovereignty of Iraq and aerial attacks on facilities and persons, on the soil of Iraq, killing hundreds of people indiscriminately, initially falsely claiming self defense though over a period of eleven years not a single U.S. aircraft has been struck or damaged by gunfire from Iraq, but later admitting the targeting of defense installations in Iraq, as war preparations they ordered progressed. 3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, civilians facilities and locations where civilian casualties are unavoidable. 4) Threatening Iraq with proclaimed "pre-emptive", or "first strike" attack and a war of aggression by overwhelming force and military superiority including specific threats to use nuclear weapons while engaged in a massive military build-up in nations and waters surrounding Iraq. 5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently proclaiming an intention to change its government by force while preparing to assault Iraq in a war of aggression. 6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 7) Authorizing, directing and condoning bribery and coercion of governments and individuals to cause them to act in violation of their duty and the law, including to maintain and tighten enforcement of economic sanctions against Iraq which continue to increase the death rate of infants, children and elderly persons; to attack and kill designated groups, or persons; to permit use of land, facilities, territorial waters, or air space for U.S. attacks on Iraq; to vote, abstain in a vote, or publicly proclaim support for a U.S. or U.N. attack on Iraq; to defect from Iraq, or to falsely accuse it of weapons concealment to break down opposition to a U.S. war of aggression; and to reject ratification of the Treaty creating an International Criminal Court, or reject its jurisdiction over the United States. 8) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks by the U.S. 9) Violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of America in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in "pre emptive" wars, first strike attacks and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and other nations by assuming powers of an imperial executive who is not accountable to law and usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and the people of the United States to prevent interferences with the unlawful executive exercise of military power and economic coercion against the international community. 10) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and international law in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and by rejecting, violations and frustrating compliance with treaties in order to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic power against the international community. Ramsey Clark Former Attorney General of the United States of America January 15, 2003 _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From privethedge Sat Mar 1 07:16:23 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 05:16:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] klemz+articles of impeachment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030301131623.34298.qmail@web10005.mail.yahoo.com> Ramsey Clark? Look, on the WMD topic my kids ran lift Cuban Sanctions, we used Clark. One judge, a person I know to be far left of center, took me aside and said "Duane, uh...tell your kids not to use Clark, the man is whack-job 1st class, and hardly credible." Please, Ramsey Clark, Phallus........ "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/20030301/38198da0/attachment.htm From parcherj Sat Mar 1 10:36:24 2003 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 11:36:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Shuman : ans Jarvis References: Message-ID: <011801c2e010$b3664dc0$2060fea9@Jeff> > NONE of the rationales that you provide for war do anything beyond exposing > the hypocrisy and double standards inherent in our policy. Yeah, Saddam is > an asshole, but there are a dozen other examples of people that we tolerate > or ally with (lets start with Musharraf) who are just as bad if not worse. This is nonsense. I suspect you know it. No country in the world has as bad a human rights record as Iraq. Pakistan isn't close. Nor is Burma. If you want to be for appeasement, fine. But be honest about what you are appeasing. If military force to remove someone as bad as Saddam is unjustified, then it's NEVER justified. Crimes committed under Saddam Hussein's government include, but are not limited to: the gassing of up to 5,000 Kurdish villagers in one chemical weapons attack in Halabja killings and disappearances of Shi`a and other segments of the populations - with victims believed to range between 250,000 and 290,000 over the past two decades, among them at least 100,000 people who are believed to have perished in the Anfal campaign against the Kurds; the use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq War; and crimes incident to the occupation of Kuwait. 1 Million persons were killed in the war with Iran. Over 100,000 were killed in the invasion of Kuwait. The invasion of Kuwait included thousands of documented rapes and the material plundering of the entire country. Iraq has had at times more political prisoners as a proportion of its population than any country on earth. Opponents of the government are regularly tortured and murdered. Most of these violations past and ongoing are documented by independent and highly respected sources such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. These are organizations who oppose war. (too bad their policy wings aren't as respected as their documentation people.) In its backgrounder, Human Rights Watch argued that Iraq's commissions constitute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/iraq0117.htm . Iraq has forcibly relocated through military reprisals, disappearances and other human rights violations the so called "March Arabs." There were about 250,000 of them - there are now only 40,000. http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/marsharabs1.htm Families of defectors and political dissidents are subjected to imprisonment, torture, and execution. In May 2001, for example, according to the U.S. Human Rights Report: "The government reportedly tortured to death the mother of three Iraqi defectors for her children's opposition activities." In its 2001 report, Amnesty International describes the methods used by Iraqi torturers: Torture victims in Iraq have been blindfolded, stripped of their clothes, and suspended from their wrists for long hours. Electric shocks have been used on various parts of their bodies, including the genitals, ears, the tongue, and fingers. Victims have described to Amnesty International how they have been beaten with canes, whips, hosepipe, or metal rods and how they have been suspended for hours from either a rotating fan in the ceiling or from a horizontal pole, often in contorted positions, as electric shocks were applied repeatedly on their bodies. Some victims had been forced to watch others, including their own relatives or family members, being tortured in front of them. According to Amnesty International, Iraq has the worst record of unaccounted disappearances of any country in the world. This was documented during Saddam's recent prison release when families all across Iraq waited in vain for their sons, daughters, fathers and mothers to step out of prisons. Conditions in Iraq are so bad that there are now nearly four million Iraqis in exile round the world, including 350,000 now in Britain. jp From acb221 Sat Mar 1 11:54:40 2003 From: acb221 (ANDREW CHARLES BANDUCCI) Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2003 12:54:40 -0500 (EST) Subject: [eDebate] In defense of Ted Turner- K debaters get the shaft Message-ID: <200303011754.MAA24967@webmail8.cac.psu.edu> http://www.nflonline.org/Admin/RostrumFiles/Section%2024d.pdf This is the kind of crap that high school debate preaches, that kritikal arguments are "counterintuitive" and that, for example, discussion a foucauldian criticism is a waste of time. It seems he's also against the idea of evidence sharing. This guy is the secretary of the nfl. No wonder there's a backlash. If you really want to make a difference in college debate, take time away from your intellectual masturbation about iraq and innundate mr. james copeland with angry comments. oh, and encourage K's and performance the high school level. better high school debate makes for better and more open college debate. Andy Banducci Penn State Debate Big School- Small Team- No Coach From phallusjerkins Sat Mar 1 17:52:57 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 18:52:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] whose behind the wheel of the nation? Message-ID: http://www.geocities.com/green_party_dwi_jokes/greendwijokes.html _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From phallusjerkins Sat Mar 1 18:09:13 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 19:09:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] turkey rejects Message-ID: http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp?vts=030120031550 2 setbacks --- UN confirms destruction of iraqi missiles and turkey rejects in the parliament. all week the US news hyped up how turkey was finally ready to confirm. the bush admin really knows how to go out on a limb looking for the most meager victories. oh maybe new guinea will back or chile or some other broke nation we can bribe. a continuous series of predicted diplomatic victories turned failures -- one of the all-time great runs of white house bluffs in history including "bush saying that he can convince france to give up their oil contracts and hand 'em over". we've got spain but they HATE rumsfeld. we've got puppet britain but blair's tied to the UN with risk of revolution if he agrees to unilateralism. we can't convince anyone of the case to go to war in iraq because the case is terrible, the evidence non-existent. this is not a dabaiter's dabait case all. we all know it's better not to lie and bribe our way to victory like career criminals. duane will shout on the sinking ship until it's only him and the leaders left on board with not one argument to paddle with. the dabait is almost over not to mention US war plans. early april is the absolute latest they can initiate conflict due to rising summer temperatures incompatible w ground troops in hot and heavy CBW suits. we are already way behind the scheduled and predicted february start. late march at best. a tiny window of opportunity is left and shrinking. we bet W spends the summer crying and saucing it up in the white house heavy on the booze like a punching bag ready for impeachment. the whole thing is going to deflate once the april deadline goes by and everyone is going to lay the heat on our "great, intelligent corporate executives" in the white house who have sunk the economy. and when we're all still broke and pissed @ the arrogance of the administration nothing would be more entertaining than a public lynching of the jerkoffs. _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From phallusjerkins Sat Mar 1 18:25:31 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 19:25:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] klemz+articles of impeachment Message-ID: duane's got it all ass-backwards. what you are saying about clark is really what people in the UN are saying about the bush admin and klemz has been trying to let you know this in very polite fashion. "right wing crackpots face total diplomatic failure to go murder iraqi civilians". they talk a bunch of hype and try to bribe their way to a "coalition". bad satellite photos 2 weeks a part, a crackpot british dossier plagiarizing spelling-errors and all a 1991 article on mobile iraqi CBW units, come on duane your wetdream heros are the real crackpots transparent to the whole world. you refuse to acknowledge the rational raging international opposition to your wetdream crackpot fascists. actually the UN has been heeding clark's testimony he gave there all along -- don't attack iraq, it will lead to WWW. clark has a lot more sway over international opinion than W dipshit who deserted his national guard unit, snorted cocaine for years, was convicted of a DUI, and dodged the draft during the vietnam war. http://www.internationalanswer.org/news/update/082902clarkreuters.html great hearsay evidence you got from the halls of a dabait tournament regarding clark's credentials. hell you can probably make up a similar story to make seymour hersh just disappear. what a sad and terrible state of affairs. our president is a jerkoff completely unskilled in the art of persuasion like duane hyland, a military yahoo who thinks he can scream his way to war w a temper tantrum. come on, duane like your wetdream hero you're supposed to say that "dabait is irrelevant focus group input" after you get your face incinerated in front of the podium of death, i.e. LOSE the dabait internationally, domestically, everywhere on every list. i am sure we will hear intelligent commentary from Mr. Klemz who apparently "does not roll on shabas" and will report back some time after the holy day on the articles of impeachment. >From: "Phallus Jerkins" >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: [eDebate] klemz+articles of impeachment >Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 02:26:03 -0500 > >would you say that the case made by the former attorney general of the >united states is completely unfounded or would you say that there are >reasonable grounds to impeach the president of the united states? is this >pure fool's play going on or do you take seriously claims to remove the >president for many of the reasons that he makes you so irate? > >actually we thought you might be able to convince duane since he "says" >that if all protesters were as friendly and rational as you he would join >you in the streets. we don't believe duane. we think he is bluffing and >is casting calls for impeachment as vague and "irrational anti-americanism" >to protect the president and his henchmen from prosecution. we thought he >was trying to play you and so we came with our serious query regarding the >legitimacy of the bush administration. is clark just when he leaves >powell off the list given his involvement in the failed my lai cover-up and >his doctrine of slaughtering civilians realized in the highway of death >"shooting in a pen" scenario? trivia question: technically, if all 4 >criminals in question were indicted, who would end up president of the >united states according to the laws of impeachment dictated in the >constitution? that's right, trent lott. > >under what circumstances could ramsey clark end up becoming the next ken >starr? who do you think are the likely big money democrats who would foot >the bill for the high-profile trial? > >here are the articles. > > >Articles of Impeachment > >of > >President George W. Bush > >Vice President Richard B. Cheney > >Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld > >and > >Attorney General John David Ashcroft > > >The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, >shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, >Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors. --Article II, >Section 4 of The Constitution of the United States of America > >Acts which require the impeachment of President George W. Bush, Vice >President Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld; and >Attorney General John David Ashcroft include: > >1) Ordering and directing a proclaimed "pre-emptive", or "first strike" war >of aggression against Afghanistan causing thousands of deaths >indiscriminately, a major proportion non combatants, leaving millions >homeless and hungry and installing a government of their choice in Kabul. > >2) Authorizing daily intrusions into the airspace of Iraq by U.S. military >aircraft in violation of the sovereignty of Iraq and aerial attacks on >facilities and persons, on the soil of Iraq, killing hundreds of people >indiscriminately, initially falsely claiming self defense though over a >period of eleven years not a single U.S. aircraft has been struck or >damaged by gunfire from Iraq, but later admitting the targeting of defense >installations in Iraq, as war preparations they ordered progressed. > >3) Authorizing, ordering and condoning direct attacks on civilians, >civilians facilities and locations where civilian casualties are >unavoidable. > >4) Threatening Iraq with proclaimed "pre-emptive", or "first strike" attack >and a war of aggression by overwhelming force and military superiority >including specific threats to use nuclear weapons while engaged in a >massive military build-up in nations and waters surrounding Iraq. > >5) Threatening the independence and sovereignty of Iraq by belligerently >proclaiming an intention to change its government by force while preparing >to assault Iraq in a war of aggression. > >6) Authorizing, ordering and condoning assassinations, summary executions, >kidnappings, secret and other illegal detentions of individuals, torture >and physical and psychological coercion of prisoners to obtain false >statements concerning acts and intentions of governments and individuals >and violating within the United States, and by authorizing U.S. forces and >agents elsewhere, the rights of individuals under the First, Fourth, Fifth, >Sixth and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the >Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on >Civil and Political Rights. > >7) Authorizing, directing and condoning bribery and coercion of governments >and individuals to cause them to act in violation of their duty and the >law, including to maintain and tighten enforcement of economic sanctions >against Iraq which continue to increase the death rate of infants, children >and elderly persons; to attack and kill designated groups, or persons; to >permit use of land, facilities, territorial waters, or air space for U.S. >attacks on Iraq; to vote, abstain in a vote, or publicly proclaim support >for a U.S. or U.N. attack on Iraq; to defect from Iraq, or to falsely >accuse it of weapons concealment to break down opposition to a U.S. war of >aggression; and to reject ratification of the Treaty creating an >International Criminal Court, or reject its jurisdiction over the United >States. > >8) Making, ordering and condoning false statements and propaganda about the >conduct of foreign governments and individuals and acts by U.S. government >personnel; manipulating the media and foreign governments with false >information; concealing information vital to public discussion and informed >judgment concerning acts, intentions and possession, or efforts to obtain >weapons of mass destruction in order to falsely create a climate of fear >and destroy opposition to U.S. wars of aggression and first strike attacks >by the U.S. > >9) Violations and subversions of the Constitution of the United States of >America in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against peace and >humanity and war crimes in "pre emptive" wars, first strike attacks and >threats of aggression against Afghanistan, Iraq and other nations by >assuming powers of an imperial executive who is not accountable to law and >usurping powers of the Congress, the Judiciary and the people of the United >States to prevent interferences with the unlawful executive exercise of >military power and economic coercion against the international community. > >10) Violations and subversions of the Charter of the United Nations and >international law in an attempt to commit with impunity crimes against >peace and humanity and war crimes in wars and threats of aggression against >Afghanistan, Iraq and others and usurping powers of the United Nations and >the peoples of its nations by bribery, coercion and other corrupt acts and >by rejecting, violations and frustrating compliance with treaties in order >to destroy any means by which international law and institutions can >prevent, affect, or adjudicate the exercise of U.S. military and economic >power against the international community. > >Ramsey Clark >Former Attorney General of the United States of America >January 15, 2003 > > > > >_________________________________________________________________ >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 _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From smithr Sat Mar 1 20:50:34 2003 From: smithr (Ross Smith) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 21:50:34 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] District 6 qualifiers Message-ID: <5.1.1.6.0.20030301212034.02fda150@pop.wfu.edu> 1) West Georgia ET 2) Samford PR 3) Kentucky HS 4) Georgia KW 5) Kentucky BW 6) Alabama GP 7) Mercer TW Alts 1) Florida BW 2) Wake CG Ross Smith Wake Forest Debate 336-758-5268 Fax: 336-758-4691 From debatekorea Sat Mar 1 21:42:16 2003 From: debatekorea (Jason Jarvis) Date: Sat, 01 Mar 2003 22:42:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Worst Human Rights Abusers (AT: Parcher) Message-ID: Jeff Parcher details a litany of atrocities committed by Saddam. I do not suggest that Saddam is a "nice guy" that should be praised. However, I have suggested that there are many other equally despicable regimes, and that attempts to paint him as a modern day Hitler amount to little more than rhetoric. I will admit that i do not have access to Lexis or other such research tools, however, I did come across two surveys that attempted to compare the human rights situations in countries around the world. Both were conducted by the Guardian/Observer in London. While the reports are a couple of years old, they support the notion that Iraq is one of MANY countries with abysmal human rights records. There are many things contributing to human rights problems in Iraq: sanctions and the enforcement of the no fly zones that kills civilians who become forgotten pieces of "collateral damage" in a war that never really ended (Amnesty explicitly refers to these problems). I think that it is also interesting that people constantly point to the gassing of the Kurds as proof that Saddam is oh-so-evil when Turkey's record regarding these same people is much worse. The fact that they didn't use chemical weapons provided by the US in doing so hardly makes this acceptable......... ************ The Observer, October 24, 1999 The top 10 human rights abusers remain only too familiar. This year we have departed from the formula of last year's index - which factored in the UN's Human Development Index to raise the profile of abusers in both the developed and the developing worlds. Instead we have produced a simple ranking of incidence of abuse by head of population, under 10 general headings. These comprise: the incidence of extra-judicial executions; disappearances; torture and inhumane treatment; deaths in custody; prisoners of conscience; unfair trials; detention without charge or trial; existence of the death penalty; sentences of death; and abuses by armed opposition groups. The top five abusers by this accounting - Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Algeria and Sierra Leone - represent countries with despicable records of abuse. But as Chris McGreal argues in this special report, we should also be sensitive to the question of a lack of resources that in some countries can result in a kind of 'human rights rationing'. For this reason we compiled an alternative list - available here online - which doubles the score for the first three so-called 'non-derogable' human rights and factors in each country's Human Development Index. This alternative accounting ranks Yugoslavia, North Korea, Indonesia, Algeria and Libya as the offenders. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Tables/4_col_tables/0,5737,94899,00.html (This link will take you to the table where the top countries are listed) To be sure, Iraq is on this list, but they aint at the top of it. *********** The Observer did a similar report during the previous year which listed Iraq higher on their scale: (The Observer) June 28,1998 The worst abusers, according to our research, are countries with huge natural resources - usually oil - and corrupt ?lites who deal with the West's businessmen. British oil and arms companies are well represented among the commercial operations still trading with abusers. 'The exploitation of natural resources in certain countries has very often paved the way towards gross injustices,' Sane said. 'It is time the international business community recognised its responsibility for protecting human rights around the world.' Algeria's place at the head of the abusers' list was earned through its record for torture and extrajudicial killings - numbering 80,000 since the military junta cancelled democratic elections in 1992. Behind Algeria, on a score of 110.55, come North Korea, Burma, Indonesia, Libya, Colombia, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia and China. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and Nigeria follow closely. The United Kingdom comes 141st; a good score on a global basis but not so admirable when compared with other rich, industrialised countries - we are seventh out of 23. ************************************************ The comments about Algeria are disturbing, and the complicity of western businesses (particularly oil companies) are interesting given the current Iraqi crisis and the billions of barrels of oil at stake. A couple of addtional comments, I examind Amnesty's website, and while they detail a lot of atrocities, it was difficult to deduce from their website that even THEY believe that Iraq is the worst in the world. In fact I could not draw this conclusion from examining anything on their site. North Korea is probably as bad as it gets, though no one really knows since all we can get are estimates that millions have died from famine (I remember those cards that talked about how people had to eat the bark off of trees to survive....). China also has a record that would rival Iraq. Start with the Tibetans, Tiananmen, ethnic minorities in Xinjiang, political detention, executions, etc Finally, an disturbing piece of anecdotal evidence. I had dinner with a person who works for the English Speaking Union (Marc Whitmore). He traveled to Sierra Leone a year ago to promote debating there. He said that in all of his travels he has never seen anything that remotely rivals the destitution of that country. He said that walking the streets of Sierra Leone you routinely see people who have a limb missing due to the fact that as the civil war was progressing one of the rival factions decided that if they couldn't rule the country then whoever did rule it, would rule a nation of people incapable of doing work. He said the things he saw there haunt him even now. Saddam IS an asshole, undoubtedly a bad person. However, the fixation on painting him as the worst in teh world, clearly blinds many people to the extreme abuse and tragedy that people who live under far crueller or, at a minimum, equally bad dictators suffer. It should also be remembered that the sanctions on Iraq contribute to the humanitarian crisis in this country.......a fact that seems to be ignored when discussing the human rights situation there. Our own policies drive the tragedy that the average Iraqi faces on a daily basis. 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 _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From SSbauschard2 Sun Mar 2 13:35:13 2003 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 14:35:13 EST Subject: [eDebate] Dist 8 results Message-ID: <125.1efd3548.2b93b6f1@aol.com> 1) NYU GG -- losing no ballots 2) Cornell KM -- losing three ballots 3) BC BS -- losing 5 ballots __________ Alternats 4) Rochester VW -- 6 ballots 5) BC SS -- 6 ballots Stefan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030302/4df2436e/attachment.html From neilsbutt Sun Mar 2 13:56:54 2003 From: neilsbutt (Neil Butt) Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 14:56:54 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] District 5 Qualifying teams Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030302/00ae3ae2/attachment.htm From lesicko Sun Mar 2 17:31:19 2003 From: lesicko (lesicko at macalester.edu) Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 17:31:19 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] District IV Results Message-ID: <2949226362.1046626279@AC89E35C.ipt.aol.com> Here are the results of the District IV tournament: First Place Concordia College Sarah Topp and Nicole Richter 5-1 Second Place University of Northern Iowa JL 5-1 Third Place University of Iowa 4-2 lst Alternate University of Iowa PR 4-2 From cpwiii Sun Mar 2 17:19:39 2003 From: cpwiii (charles woodbury) Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 17:19:39 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] phallus Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030302/1e86b9aa/attachment.html From parcherj Sun Mar 2 17:36:03 2003 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 18:36:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] AT: Jarvis References: Message-ID: <002b01c2e114$7d9ef480$2060fea9@Jeff> For the sake of consolidation, I've combined Jason's two emails. A note before the line for line. The Observer article quoted by Jason is an amazing article for my position. Indeed it turns out that the Observer (despite their virulent opposition to the U.S. on this issue) concluded that Iraq was in fact the WORST human rights violator in the world. They moved them down the list to account for their poverty. This practice is wrong for two reasons: First it is horribly relativist. It devalues a person's most basic human rights on the basis of their economic circumstances. What relevance does a country's per capita GNP have with the moral accpetability of torture? Second, Saddam himself is responsible for much of Iraq's poverty. It is Saddam who embarked that country on two disastrous wars. It is Saddam that diverts money to the military. It is Saddam who diverts resources to his own luxuries. It is Saddam's refusal to cooperate with the U.N. that has kept sanctions in place. Here is the part you didn't quote: "Iraq, for example, scores only two points out of 10 on denial of women's rights because of its secular attitude towards women. It scores 10 out of 10 on denial of majority rights because of gassing the Kurds. A country with a wretched record of human rights abuse could score a maximum total of 190. Saddam Hussein's Iraq proves the winner of the unmodified list - which measures human rights abuses outside of their economic context - with an unadjusted score of 155. International sanctions and the legacy of Saddam's two wars against Iran and the United Nations over Kuwait, which have crippled Iraq, give it a low rating on the UN's human development index. Iraq's new-found impoverishment catapults it down the list, leaving Algeria in poll position." > I think Pakistan is an EXCELLENT example to use. I don't have a long list > of cites like you, but we both know the following to be true: > even if they are not as bad at abusing human rights as Iraq, they still have > a PUTRID human rights record; Some cite would be nice don't you think. Neither Observer article that you post even mentions Pakistan. I would certainly not defend Pakistan's record as clean by any means but they are nothing close to Iraq. Compare Amnesty's 2002 report on the two countries ( I quote the complete summary): Iraq: Scores of people, including possible prisoners of conscience and armed forces officers suspected of planning to overthrow the government, were executed. Scores of suspected anti-government opponents, including people suspected of having contacts with opposition groups in exile, were arrested. The fate and whereabouts of most of those arrested, including those detained in previous years, remained unknown. Several people were given lengthy prison terms after grossly unfair trials before special courts. Torture and ill-treatment of political prisoners and detainees were systematic. http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/mde/iraq!Open Pakistan The military government completed phased elections to local bodies in August and continued the crack-down on corruption. The ban on public political activities enacted in 2000 remained in force and restricted the activities of political parties; hundreds of people were detained for contravening the ban. Political violence increased after the Pakistan government decided to support military action in Afghanistan by the USA and its allies. Islamist groups responded to this decision with violent demonstrations. Women and members of religious minorities continued to face high levels of violence throughout the year. The death penalty continued to be imposed and at least 13 people were executed. http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2002.nsf/asa/pakistan!Open > unlike Saddam, we can prove they have nuclear weapons, which they use to > routinely threaten their neighbor, India.......a country which is a > democracy Pakistan is an ally. We shouldn't treat allies the same as enemies with regard to proliferation. Obviously, your sworn enemy is much greater threat. I don't mean to be simplistic - but it is a basic difference. Iraq has used WMD - Pakistan has not. Nonetheless we have opposed Pakistani proliferation through strong means in the past - including sanctions. I would not suggest that mere acquisition of WMD is cause for US intervention. Iraq is a unique case. They have a horrible record on human rights (you have to admit this). This record constitutes the very definition of Genocide, war crimes and other crimes gainst humanity (see HRW report from previous post). They have a record of employing WMD. They've fought two unprovoked wars of aggression. They have repeatedly violated not just general interntional laws, but over 10 specific resolutions of the UN. They have supported interntional terrorism. The first war left in place a sworn enemy of the U.S. We have tried to deal with this through alternate means for over a DECADE (sanctions, negotiations, targetted strikes, support for opposition groups, etc) I propose to you that no other country fits this unique profile. You can throw all the consistency arguments at me that you like. Burma. North Korea. Algeria. Whatever. None of these countries represents the combined issue that iraq does. Do I think the human rights emergency in Iraq alone would justify US intervention? I probably agree with Amensty and Human Rights Watch that it does not (though I think it is quite close). It's when you combine the human rights violations with the rest of the story that a compelling case for humanitarian intervention can be made. > Musharraf openly supports terrorists in Kashmir and has done so for a long > time. 1. He's cracked down on them 2. They are not directed at us. 3. The support is part of a long standing dispute with India over territory. We've pressured both countries to resolve this. 4. I never said we should attack all countries that support terrorism. > These are all things that we accuse saddam of doing yet are generally unable > to produce proof that he has done. Your note about the Iraq/Iran war is > interesting, b/c while one million people did die, many of those were > Iraqi's and as you know we SUPPORTED Saddam in that war, largely because he > OPPOSED Islamic extremism. It is utterly irrelevant to me that previous administrations had a strategically and morally bankrupt policy of supporting Iraq in it's war against Iran. The issue is what that war proved about Saddam. It proved he would use WMD in an unprovoked attack on another country. It's not that morally relevant to me that many of the people who died were Iraqi. Many of the human rights violations are against Iraqi's as well. Some of the biggest beneficiaries of a rebuilt and democratic Iraq will be the Iraqi people themselves. What's the point of saying the pople who died were Iraqi? > Even if you win that SAddam is the worst human rights abuser in the world, > and quite frankly, I doubt that given countries like North Korea, China, > Burma, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc that don't justfiy a war. In fact the > arguments in favor of invading Iraq, at best, constitute a good justifcation > for invading North Korea, not Iraq. Part of the justification for war against Iraq hinges on whether you believe that military action can solve the problem without creating worse consequences. I happen to think we can do it. Our best intelligence indicates the Republican guard will quickly collapse. We've done a reasonable job helping out the people of the North. Under our protection a fledging (obviously not perfect) democracy flourishes there. We rebuilt Japan and Germany. Reconstruction is proceeding in Bosnia and Kosovo. It can be done. North Korea fails this test. First we can't do it alone there and South Korea won't support us. A war would devastate the South and create hundreds of thousands of casualties atleast. North Korea could concievably use nuclear weapons. The fact that we are at an impasse with North Korea because they might already have nukes only proves the necessity of dealing with Iraq before we reach the same conundrum. > There are two clear differences that i see: 1. we know north korea has > nukes, and that makes us totatlly scared, 2. there is zero oil in north > korea. I find it interesting that you rely on US intelligence when it suits your argument. Earlier you doubted US intelligence assesments of Iraq (and partly why I went out of the way to quote independent sources). Yet, South Korea claims the North has no nukes - as does Russia. Anyway, while I dislike Bush a great deal for many reasons, this accusation about oil doesn't stick with me. A US occupation of Iraq won't be permanent. We could lift sanctions tommorow and have access to Iraqi oil. Before 9/11 he showed little interest in Iraq's oil. Even if this were his motive - it shouldn't bother anyone as long as the other justifications for war can stand up to scrutiny. >Jeff Parcher details a litany of atrocities committed by Saddam. I do not > suggest that Saddam is a "nice guy" that should be praised. However, I have > suggested that there are many other equally despicable regimes, and that > attempts to paint him as a modern day Hitler amount to little more than > rhetoric. Those in the peace movement remind me of the isolationists in 1936-1939. The fact is that the case against Hitler before 1939 was far more MEAGER than the case against Saddam. And we have reason to believe that Saddam threatens far more people than Hitler. We know Iraq is working on small pox. (The New York Times December 17, 1998). If Saddam were to weaponize small pox and release it at some point in the future it could well be the greatest humanitarian disaster in the history of the planet. In the 20th century, half a BILLION people died of small pox. It was eradicated through vaccine in 1977. But now, almost no one has resistance created by either the vaccine or the disease itself. We are more vulnerable to this disease than at any other time in our history. Since 1 in 3 persons who get the disease are killed, the implications are frightening. I have literally seen estimates that a billion people could die before it was recontained. See: http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/litigationpox.html >I will admit that i do not have access to Lexis or other such research > tools, however, I did come across two surveys that attempted to compare the > human rights situations in countries around the world. Both were conducted > by the Guardian/Observer in London. While the reports are a couple of years > old, they support the notion that Iraq is one of MANY countries with abysmal > human rights records. See my response to these articles above. I'd add that a couple leftist newspapers hardly compares to the sources I've quoted. Recall: In the words of Max van der Stoel, the United Nations' former Special Rapporteur on Iraq, the Baghdad regime is "the most ruthless dictatorship and totalitarian regime ever seen by the world since the Second World War." In its backgrounder, Human Rights Watch argued that Iraq's commissions constitute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. This is important because it indicates that Iraq's violations are not merely like other countries - these are labels we reserve for the worst violators - violators that justify special international action. http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/01/iraq0117.htm . A few more quotes: "There's no question that the regime has an appalling human rights record," said a spokesman for Amnesty, Kamal Samari, who said the group had collected the names of as many as 170,000 Iraqis who had "disappeared" over the past two decades. The Washington Post, December 03, 2002 Check out this article: Comment: War is the only option: A former winner of the Nobel peace prize says we must stop Saddam's killing machine, Elie Wiesel The Observer, December 22, 2002 http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4572305,00.html Wiesel is of course probably the most repected human rights activist in the world. He is no friend of the administration and no friend of war. >There are many things contributing to human rights problems in Iraq: > sanctions and the enforcement of the no fly zones that kills civilians who > become forgotten pieces of "collateral damage" in a war that never really > ended (Amnesty explicitly refers to these problems). I think that it is > also interesting that people constantly point to the gassing of the Kurds as > proof that Saddam is oh-so-evil when Turkey's record regarding these same > people is much worse. The fact that they didn't use chemical weapons > provided by the US in doing so hardly makes this acceptable......... 1. No fly zones is an argument for war. It is the no fly zones which permit the Kurds to live in peace. It is allied miltary force that prevents Genocide from continuing. In the North there is nascent if imperfect democracy. Here's what one of the party members was quoted saying in Salon: "Thanks to the relative peaceful environment we have seen for some time now - and no doubt thanks to the protection accorded to us by the U.S. and British military facilitated by Turkish coordination - we have been able to embark on a process of self-government. Something tangible in terms of a civil society and the rule of law is emerging from the ashes of genocide. I am not going to tell you that everything is rosy. We do have our problems. Democratic institutions will take a long time to grow." 2. The terms of the ceasefire PROHIBIT Iraq from firing on planes patrolling the no-fly zones. These are protected areas created by the international community. In violation of these resolutions - Iraq has repeatedly fired on US and British aircraft. In accordance with those resolutions the US has engaged in limited strikes of retaliation and defense. 3. The fact that Turkey has a poor human rights record does not absolve Saddam of his responsibility for the massacres. The solution is not to appease Saddam - the solution is for the United States to support Kurdish human rights. In that regard, we have provided strong support for Turkey's entry into the EU. In anticiaption of joining the EU, Turkey has liberalized several laws regarding the Kurds, including allowing the teaching of the Kurdish langauge. Turkey also has recently abolished the death penalty as part of the process to join the EU. This single US policy will probably do more to support human rights in Turkey than anything we have ever done, including past military aid cutoffs. The comments about Algeria are disturbing, and the complicity of western > businesses (particularly oil companies) are interesting given the current > Iraqi crisis and the billions of barrels of oil at stake. The list of ways in which Iraq is different that Algeria would be pretty long - don't you agree? >A couple of addtional comments, I examind Amnesty's website, and while they > detail a lot of atrocities, it was difficult to deduce from their website > that even THEY believe that Iraq is the worst in the world. In fact I could > not draw this conclusion from examining anything on their site. The exact phrase I used was: According to Amnesty International, "Iraq has the worst record of unaccounted disappearances of any country in the world." After the Whitehouse quoted them, Amnesty felt compelled to issue a press release saying this was technically incorrect, that Amenesty steadfastly refuses to rank countries. Whether or not Amnesty does the ranking - people can add (see the 170,000 figure quoted from Amnesty above) and Amensty officials themselves were quoted saying this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1516877.stm Arabic News, September 14, 2002 Here are two other independent sources that conclude that Iraq has the highest per capita number of cases of political disappearanes. http://www.mafqud.org/ http://www.mafqud.org/en/enforce_dis.htm http://www.ibnkhaldun.org/newsletter/1998/dec/opinion2.html >North Korea is probably as bad as it gets, though no one really knows since > all we can get are estimates that millions have died from famine (I remember > those cards that talked about how people had to eat the bark off of trees to > survive....). China also has a record that would rival Iraq. Start with > the Tibetans, Tiananmen, ethnic minorities in Xinjiang, political detention, > executions, etc I don't think it's frutiful to engage in a technical argument about who is the very worst. My reading from independent sources, convinces me that it is Iraq. However, the case for war is not based on the fact that they are the worst - just that the international community could through war substantially improve the lives of A LOT of people in Iraq. Military force has no hope of improving the situations in either China or North Korea. >Finally, an disturbing piece of anecdotal evidence. I had dinner with a > person who works for the English Speaking Union (Marc Whitmore). He > traveled to Sierra Leone a year ago to promote debating there. He said that > in all of his travels he has never seen anything that remotely rivals the > destitution of that country. He said that walking the streets of Sierra > Leone you routinely see people who have a limb missing due to the fact that > as the civil war was progressing one of the rival factions decided that if > they couldn't rule the country then whoever did rule it, would rule a nation > of people incapable of doing work. He said the things he saw there haunt > him even now. > Saddam IS an asshole, undoubtedly a bad person. However, the fixation on > painting him as the worst in teh world, clearly blinds many people to the > extreme abuse and tragedy that people who live under far crueller or, at a > minimum, equally bad dictators suffer. It should also be remembered that > the sanctions on Iraq contribute to the humanitarian crisis in this > country.......a fact that seems to be ignored when discussing the human > rights situation there. Our own policies drive the tragedy that the average > Iraqi faces on a daily basis. 1.. Using human rights as a justification for an invasion of Iraq in no way distracts from other human rights violations. In fact, just the opposite. If Bush uses human rights as part of the justification - it will make it more difficult for the U.S. to ignore human rights in other situations. Witness international attention on the rights of Muslim women around the world as a result of Afghanastan. Already, we have seen many conservatives arguing for a new birth of human rights support in U.S. policy. This is not merely because it coincides with the current target - but because conservatives haven't had an answer to the problems of anti-americanism being generated by their unilateralism. Many see US support for common people in their struggles for human rights against authoritarian regimes as the best hope for undercutting the developing "clash of civilizations" and backlash against American ideals. A democratically created Iraq would force the U.S. to realign it's support for the monarchies in the middle east. Not only because it would establish a new important policy point - but because it would substantiall reduce threat assesments in the region. To the extent we can trap Bush and his ilk in the language of human rights - I think U.S. policy will benefit. Consider the alternative: A war justified purely on the basis of WMD - that's far less in keeping with the world I want to build. 2.. Sanctions are an argument for war. The only politically feasible means to avoid another decade of sanctions is to rid Iraq of Saddam and rebuild the country. The inevitable alternative to war is a reentrenched policy of inspections in conjunction with sanctions. Make no mistake, any American President will veto an attempt to lift sanctions for the foreseeable future. If you are really concerned about the Iraqi people - war is the only alternative. jp From SSbauschard2 Sun Mar 2 19:34:21 2003 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 20:34:21 EST Subject: [eDebate] Looking for judges for ADA tournament next weekend Message-ID: <67.b1a1180.2b940b1d@aol.com> The ADA tournament is at BC next weekend (7-9) and we are looking for some hired judges from the area. There are three rounds each Friday and Saturday. Pay is $25/round. College seniors who debated in college but have quit debate are eligible to judge. Stefan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030302/f336b851/attachment.htm From debatekorea Sun Mar 2 20:13:12 2003 From: debatekorea (Jason Jarvis) Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 21:13:12 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] AT: Jarvis Message-ID: ----Original Message Follows---- From: "Jeff Parcher" Reply-To: "Jeff Parcher" To: "Jason Jarvis" , Subject: [eDebate] AT: Jarvis Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 18:36:03 -0500 For the sake of consolidation, I've combined Jason's two emails. A note before the line for line. The Observer article quoted by Jason is an amazing article for my position. Indeed it turns out that the Observer (despite their virulent opposition to the U.S. on this issue) concluded that Iraq was in fact the WORST human rights violator in the world. They moved them down the list to account for their poverty. >>>>>This is humorous. To be clear i quoted TWO surveys done by the >>>>>Observer. The first was done in 1998, and included the paragraph you >>>>>note below, though they go on to explain why they did not rate Iraq the >>>>>highest. The second survey done a year later, using REVISED methods >>>>>placed them even FURTHER down the list. Additionally, since a lot of >>>>>their poverty is DIRECTLY related to the sanctions, it seems incredibly >>>>>difficult to suggest that there is not a UN/US role in creating that >>>>>problem. Jeff says: Pakistan is an ally. We shouldn't treat allies the same as enemies with regard to proliferation. Obviously, your sworn enemy is much greater threat. I don't mean to be simplistic - but it is a basic difference. Iraq has used WMD - Pakistan has not. Nonetheless we have opposed Pakistani proliferation through strong means in the past - including sanctions. >>>Pakistan is significant b/c they demonstrate a clear and undeniable >>>double standard in our policy: they have a military dictator that took >>>over in a coup, who after taking over in that coup OPENLY developed >>>nuclear weapons, and threatens India with them. Musharraf also OPENLY >>>supports terrorists in Kashmir against a democratic country (INDIA). >>>Last year, he had promised to have democratic elections. He unilaterally >>>altered the constitution and suspended it, giving himself a free hand as >>>"President" for who knows how long. He supported the Taliban until >>>forced not to do so, and there are reports that people in his government >>>still continue to do so. Basically he has done ALL of the things that we >>>ACCUSE Saddam of, only in Saddam's case the US government has had to work >>>to prove their claims, while with Pakistan its all out in the open. Jeff says: Part of the justification for war against Iraq hinges on whether you believe that military action can solve the problem without creating worse consequences. I happen to think we can do it. Our best intelligence indicates the Republican guard will quickly collapse. We've done a reasonable job helping out the people of the North. Under our protection a fledging (obviously not perfect) democracy flourishes there. We rebuilt Japan and Germany. Reconstruction is proceeding in Bosnia and Kosovo. It can be done. >>>>>This is the critical question because you admit that you don't think >>>>>human rights alone is the real issue.....Imposing democracy from above >>>>>seems to me to be an inherently risky business. Afghanistan >>>>>demonstrates that while you may create peace in one area (Kabul) it is >>>>>extremely difficult to maintain that peace elsewhere. As Afghanistan >>>>>descends back into civil war I wonder how we will prevent the same >>>>>quagmire in Iraq. Like Afghanistan there are a host of ethnic groups >>>>>that hate each other, all of whom will be scrambling for oil and power >>>>>in a post Saddam Iraq. The reactions of Iraq's neighbors to a US >>>>>controlled Iraq will be equally unpredictable. I think Afghanistan provides a better analogy b/c it is a Muslim country, in much closer proximity to Iraq. The experiences of both the Soviets and our own current situation suggest that democracy building in this region is not so easy. The examples of Japan, Germany and the former Yugoslavia seem spurious to me because those countries are in unique places. Japan was hated by its neighbors, and it had no geographic border with other countries. Democracy also has a history in Europe, where it has very little in Asia. Also at those times, the US was not hated like we are today. In the end I suppose we will see, b/c I concede that war is inevitable, and at this point its just a matter of time. Jeff: Anyway, while I dislike Bush a great deal for many reasons, this accusation about oil doesn't stick with me. A US occupation of Iraq won't be permanent. We could lift sanctions tommorow and have access to Iraqi oil. Before 9/11 he showed little interest in Iraq's oil. Even if this were his motive - it shouldn't bother anyone as long as the other justifications for war can stand up to scrutiny. >>>Actually we could not have access to Iraqi oil even if we lifted >>>sanctions unless Saddam allowed us to develop it. (Why would he do that?) >>>When Saddam came to power he nationalized Iraqi oil..........obviously >>>since the Gulf War he hasn't been doing a lot of developing with US >>>companies. While we import a lot of Iraqi oil, the fields were being >>>developed by European companies. This will undoubtedly change if we take >>>control. Its also impossible to predict how long an occupation of Iraq >>>will last.....and while I recognize it could be short, it could also take >>>an incredibly long time to institute a thriving democracy. The length of >>>the occupation may also depend on the reaction of the various governments >>>and publics in neighboring countries. For example, what will the effect >>>be on Khatami and his government when the first "axis" is taken out? Check out this article: Comment: War is the only option: A former winner of the Nobel peace prize says we must stop Saddam's killing machine, Elie Wiesel The Observer, December 22, 2002 http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4572305,00.html >>>>Interesting article, he suggests we only go to war with UN support and >>>>if Saddam has done nothing to comply with inspectors........not the >>>>current situation...since he destroyed missiles and there have been >>>>private interviews with scientists. Its also clear that there is not a >>>>snowballs chance in Iraq, that a second resolution will pass the >>>>security council. Tell me again why putting UN troops into Iraq, >>>>doubling the number of inspectors and extending the no fly zones >>>>throughout the country (German/French proposal) is an unacceptable >>>>alternative? What does Wiesel say to that? Jeff says: The fact that Turkey has a poor human rights record does not absolve Saddam of his responsibility for the massacres. >>>Nope but it does point out the double standard of pointing to the Kurds >>>regarding Iraq (especially b/c saddam gassed them) and ignoring their >>>consistent abuse at the hands of the Turks. We appease human rights >>>abusers when its convenient (Turkey, Pakistan, China, North Korea, etc) >>>and then villify them when we dont want to. But maybe consistency really >>>is too much to hope for. Jeff says: I don't think it's frutiful to engage in a technical argument about who is the very worst. My reading from independent sources, convinces me that it is Iraq. However, the case for war is not based on the fact that they are the worst - just that the international community could through war substantially improve the lives of A LOT of people in Iraq. Military force has no hope of improving the situations in either China or North Korea. Many see US support for common people in their struggles for human rights against authoritarian regimes as the best hope for undercutting the developing "clash of civilizations" and backlash against American ideals. A democratically created Iraq would force the U.S. to realign it's support for the monarchies in the middle east. Not only because it would establish a new important policy point - but because it would substantiall reduce threat assesments in the region. >>>I SINCERELY hope that you are right about this, but I fear that this is >>>little more than looking at things through rose colored glasses. The >>>list of double standards that I have pointed to gives me VERY LITTLE >>>reason to believe that such inconsistencies will not continue. For >>>example, the notion that Saudi Arabia and Syria will become paragons of >>>democracy after the fact seems to dreaming to me. I also fear for all the people in Iraq that will have to die as we liberate them and who have already died. In the end I hope and pray that I am totally out of it, and that war will save millions of Iraqis and promote peace throughout the middle east. That a war will not destabilize moderate regimes in the region, and that it will not further inflame the anger of moderate muslims pushing them toward more extremist versions of their faith and sparking more terrorism. However, it is safe to say that I am extremely skeptical, and the situation in Afghanistan does not give me much hope for our efforts at "peace building". _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From stu30916 Sun Mar 2 22:25:11 2003 From: stu30916 (stu30916) Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 23:25:11 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] looking for les phillips . . . Message-ID: <3E2D51F5@cliff.westga.edu> . . . i know you're out there, but your LHS email keeps bouncing back. email me asap. (or if anyone else knows his other email address let me know) james From GatorDebate Mon Mar 3 00:24:09 2003 From: GatorDebate (GatorDebate at aol.com) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 01:24:09 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Second Round At Large Bid for The University of Florida Blackmon & Weinstein Message-ID: <2B27E6D8.35C13719.37F60172@aol.com> Members of the NDT Committee, The University of Florida respectfully submits a Second Round At Large Bid for the 2003 National Debate Tournament. I am also forwarding a copy to EDEBATE per the recommendation of Cate Palczewski. This is in case there is a problem, there will be an electronic archive of this message. Our bid will be sent here as an attachment. I will also be faxing copies to Cate Palczewski and Donn Parson shortly. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Frank P. Irizarry University of Florida Debate -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Florida 2nd Round Bid Sheet - 2003.6737DEFANGED-doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 32256 bytes Desc: Florida 2nd Round Bid Sheet - 2003.doc Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030303/c18190ed/attachment.obj From stannardmatt Mon Mar 3 03:33:31 2003 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 02:33:31 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] District 9 results Message-ID: 1. Idaho State HD 5-1 337.8 2. Weber SR 5-1 331.8 3. ENMU WS 5-1 330 4. Regis RS 4-2, 1-0 334.2 ------------------- Alt: Wyoming CD 4-2, 0-1 333 Speaker Awards just for fun: 1. Odekirk, Weber OM 172 2. Dunn, Idaho State HD 169.2 3. McAffee, Weber OM 169 4. Howell, Idaho State HD 168.6 5. Crowe, Wyoming CD 168 _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From katsulas Mon Mar 3 08:02:11 2003 From: katsulas (katsulas) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:02:11 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ADA nationals updated team list Message-ID: <3E63FC4E@netfin6.bc.edu> Below is the latest entry information that I have received for the ADA Nationals tournament. please check to make sure that I have the names spelled correctly. I need first names from Capital. Marist will be added when I receive their entry later today. I also expect some minor adds and drops. 79 teams Teams Participating, 2003 Varsity (18) Army Elliot Press & Adam Scher Army Will Felder & Ian Fleischman Army Adam Karr & Ricky Waters Army James Leidenberg & Ryan Sullivan Boston College Ben Bireley & Kevin Shatzkin Catholic Matt Dunn & Mike Pomorski Catholic Paul Strait & Patrick Waldinger Catholic Kerry Coleman & Melissa Ku Clarion Andrew Barnes & Nicki Williams George Mason Allison Harper & Matthias Bostick Georgetown Andy Nolan & Sofia Vickery Liberty Jeremy Samek & Steve Trask John Carroll Mike Grossman & Erika Thomas Navy Sale Lilly & Doug Robb Trinity Jamie Downing & Shannon Lynch U of Rochester John Vermitsky & Christy Webster Wayne State Mike Weitz & Matt Farmer Wayne State Jay Johnson & DM Boykin Junior Varsity (35) Boston College Matthew Hays & Jim Smith Boston College Jeffrey Sullivan & Joe Bowden Capital Koch & Swords Capital Piazza &Raymer Capital Naugle & Jones Case Western Reserve Nick Dorsey & Mark Tolles Catholic Steve Sawyer & Suzie Catania Catholic Lauren Baillie & Jeff Pope Catholic Nicole Rementer & Zach Johnson Catholic Hunter Beaton & Steve Martano Catholic Vince Cannizzaro & Oksana Makarova Cornell Jeff Granillo & Kerry McBroom George Mason Ben Fink & Amanda Kimble Ithaca Ben Garvey & Al Sahlstrom John Carroll Matt Gayetsky & Tasha Forchione John Carroll Amber Thomas & Nelson Wainwright King?s College Mike Brady & Joe McCulloch Liberty Josh Autry & Justin Dewberry Liberty Brian Aurelio & Jess Surratt Liberty Alyse Kraus & Stephen Lind Liberty Jonathan Day & Elisha Nix Liberty Andrew Burnham & David Klinedist Mary Washington John Nagy & Carly Woods Mary Washington Ali Samantar & Adrianne Barnett Mary Washington Joseph Packer & Jennifer Golladay Navy Jessica Barrientos & Jon Smith Navy Jon Kindel & John Burger U of Richmond Fiona McCarthy & Andrew Ryan U of Rochester Cedric Logan & Elizabeth Gaskell U of Rochester Nafees Nuruddin & Karim Oussayef U of Rochester Tom Marples & Steve D'Amico U of Rochester Ilana Kaplan-Shain & Anna Czapla Wake Patrick Jackson & Danielle Brudi Wayne State Melvenna Fant & Andrea Mousseau Wayne State Amanda Brazel & Kat Kinnuenen Novice (26) Army Allison Pan & Boon Park Army Jared Wayne :& Matt Hicks Army Carlos Alverez & Matt Bazemore Binghamton Ravi Gupta & Jeff Klein Capital Taylor & Barnhill Catholic Dori Leonard & Kerri Allen Catholic Meghan O'Brien & Carly Shoupe Clarion Erin Witner & Nancy Nelson Clarion Kim Kelly & Jeremy Murphy Clarion Ann Godfrey & Rob Noerr Cornell Timothy D'Auria & Justin Schoenberg Cornell Tripty Arya & Neelu Toor Cornell Aaron Franklin & David Early Cornell Vincent Lee & Wee Lee Loh George Mason Jeannine Mohler & Sharon Lee John Carroll Megan DeLeon & Pete Arconti Liberty Kelly Azevedo & Grace Burns Liberty Lindsey Hoban & Melissa Hurter Liberty Jared Isham & Andrew Lindblom Liberty Matt Case & Dana Foglesong Mary Washington Rebecca Sklepovich and Jennifer Rollman Mary Washington Raya Drew & Leslie Wyatt Navy Tom Sauer & Gavin Whittle U of Rochester Theresa Spaulding & Emily Desmond Wake David Coons & Josh Traeger Wake Betsy Margarit & Derek Shore From privethedge Mon Mar 3 08:10:01 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 06:10:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] duane's call 2 conscience In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030303141001.92256.qmail@web10001.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, I NEVER said that every single person in the military is pro-war, or that every veteran is pro-war. What I DID say is that those who have been to war, in my view, when they oppose war know what it is that they are talking about. I have nothing but respect for those who have been there, and decided to oppose it. And, I have heard, in the last few months, plenty of interviews of with former military personell who oppose the war in Iraq, CNN and Fox play those interviews quite often. 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/20030303/4962c210/attachment.htm From ehrlenmeyerflask Mon Mar 3 09:30:16 2003 From: ehrlenmeyerflask (Aaron Klemz) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 09:30:16 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] The "good dissenter": soldarity, impeachment Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030303/8b235efe/attachment.html From montestevens Mon Mar 3 08:11:57 2003 From: montestevens (montestevens at earthlink.net) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 08:11:57 -0600 (CST) Subject: [eDebate] Cornell and SDSU Message-ID: <2672320.1046708052777.JavaMail.nobody@gonzo.psp.pas.earthlink.net> I need to get a copy of the results from those 2 tournaments. Jethro?? Val?? Thanks, MS From sethtellsworth Mon Mar 3 10:58:33 2003 From: sethtellsworth (Seth Ellsworth) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 16:58:33 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Arizona State GJ Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030303/b15c075b/attachment.htm From phallusjerkins Mon Mar 3 11:03:25 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 12:03:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] duane's call 2 conscience Message-ID: so duane are you refusing your call 2 conscience from your military brothers and sisters because the civilians that they stand with against the war don't know how terrible it is to drop the H bomb on hiroshima and nagazaki because they weren't the ones who dropped the bomb from the plane? in order to oppose the war w credibility, you have to first be a brainwashed, robot soldier who doesn't how terrible of mess she is getting into or how corrupt the US command is, and then once you realize how fucked up of a decision you have made signing to kill innocent civilians pointblank in coldblood on the highway of death using illegal weapons like napalm and getting sick from the DU that your own boys radiated across the whole battlefield, then you are a credible advocate against the war. otherwise you are just a pussy civilian talking lip, right chief? we are sure and positive that this is what the vets really have to say. duane is off the hook. he doesn't have to respond to his call 2 conscience. come on, duane even civilians w a conscience know that the hyper-modern warfare of bullying crippled nations that the US military embodies is for children like you. answer the call 2 conscience. you're evading the question by pointing to irrelevant material. stop pretending that the US military is somehow protecting us in this war. the veterans explicitly tell the soldiers that they are not protecting anybody just pawns for oil. stop repeating what has been answered by the vets. listen to the veterans duane. they are appealing to your human conscience not to get a hard on for civilian casualties ordered by some fuck-up who abandoned his national guard unit snorting cocaine (yes, duane the veterans even point out the george DWI bush AWOL records from 'bama) and let's not mention the 4 convicted arrests including burglarly, vandalism, cocaine possession, and of course since he's a republican DWI. >From: Duane Hyland >To: Phallus Jerkins , edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: Re: [eDebate] duane's call 2 conscience >Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 06:10:01 -0800 (PST) > > >Hi, I NEVER said that every single person in the military is pro-war, or >that every veteran is pro-war. What I DID say is that those who have been >to war, in my view, when they oppose war know what it is that they are >talking about. I have nothing but respect for those who have been there, >and decided to oppose it. And, I have heard, in the last few months, plenty >of interviews of with former military personell who oppose the war in Iraq, >CNN and Fox play those interviews quite often. > >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 messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From privethedge Mon Mar 3 11:05:23 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:05:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] The "good dissenter": soldarity, impeachment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030303170523.92718.qmail@web10007.mail.yahoo.com> << "What's shamas, Walter?" As an avid fan of "TBL," I want to note that this is the only question that Donny asks Walter in the whole movie that he actually addresses and has an explanation for. I wonder what that means ... I've found TBL to be a trenchant political critique of our current situation with that "camel ****er in Iraq," as Walter so eloquently puts it. But that's, as Sam Shepard says, another story. >> Don't know what you are talking about here, and if that makes me ill informed, or culturally insensitive, I'm sorry. Okay, so I do roll on Shabbas, but I was away for the weekend. I have a couple of comments regarding Duane's response to my post and Phallus Jerkins' post regarding impeachment. << First, Ramsey Clark may have politics you disagree with, but the contention that he is a "first class whack job" is uncalled for. In terms of anti-war, pro-peace folks he's pretty damn qualified - he argues cases in front of the World Court quite regularly and while I don't know the man personally, I've found a lot of what he's written to be interesting and thoughtful. But I guess Duane will take his unnamed, "left leaning" colleagues word as bond. >> I know nothing of his politics, save that he wrote some amazing stuff on why we should lift the blockade on Cuba (something I whole heartedly support, lifting the blockade that is, but for different reasons than most). All I know is that I was told that he was a "whack job" by someone who is far left of center. I also find his calls for impeachment to be a bit sickening, especially when he calls what we did in Afghanistan an 'unprovoked, pre-emptive' strike - that's stretching things a bit. << Second, I don't think that I want your accolades Duane. >> Well, Mom always told me to be nice, and although I don't always take that advice.... Take 'em or leave 'em, but they were offered honestly, and in the spirit of goodness. << Not the way you use them anyway. If your point is to separate me from others in the anti-war movement with different tactics and opinions, then your praise falls on deaf ears. >> Mom also told me that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar - so it seems that if you can protest and be nice, you might draw more support than those who protest and and jerks about it. But if you disagree, that's fine. << The arguments that I make have much more in common with PJ than you care to admit. Sure, I might me a little more polite >> And to me, that goes a long way. << , but I understand confrontation and impoliteness. I'm a big fan of the Dadaist's (though you couldn't tell from my recent posts) approach to the audience - provoke, anger, disgust. >> Even at the risk of alienating those you hope to draw support from? If you were recruiting for a cause, wouldn't politeness and a sane, and rational demeanor make you more likely to be heard? Aristotle, Ethos, Pathos - surely you remember the cannons of rhetoric? Why would you attempt to disgust and shock the very people you are trying to draw to your side? Eric Morris offered an example in another post where his aunt, an activist, abandoned the protest movement against the Vietnam war after her brother was spat on. Why would you engage in behavior which drives people away? << In fact, on the particular issue of respect for folks in the military, it is exactly your (and others) appropriation of the symbol of "support for the troops" for the militarist and imperialist project that makes PJ's reposnse necessary, or it forces folks like me to redeploy that symbol. Let me explain. If the "support" symbol is only used appropriately by those who support a war, opponents have but two choices - abandon that symbol (PJ) or reappropriate it (me). I'd even go further and argue that you and others intentionally blur criticisms of military practice and leadership, with the actions of individual military soldiers, in order to blunt the force of those criticisms. If anything, My Lai and Panama City and ...., are reflections of practice and leadership, and in the insanity of war the actions of individuals are distorted by the situation. This is why the "my superiors ordered me to" defense is so popular in all war crimes trials, regardless of nationality or war. The instituitional culture of war breeds these crimes, especially as morale and "discipline" break down in the face of an enemy that refuses to fight on the terms that you expect (ex. the VC). >> I disagree. I think we can support Frank Smith, a 19 year old boy who enlisted in the Marines (let's say) to gain discipline and focus, and to get money to further his education, and to learn a skill or trade, who behaved honorably, engaged in no war crimes, and who acted out of a love of country, while condeming Bill Richards and his platoon, who committed heinous war crimes. I think when we start painting everyone with the same brush we are guilty of predjudice - something I think that you and I both hate. Not every soldier in Vietnam was guilty of the things those at My Lai were, and those who committed the attrocities at My Lai were punished. And, I'm curious what you mean about Panama City? What are referring to? moves that I fully reject. First, you attempt to drive a wedge between me and my sisters and brothers who also oppose this war (in my case, all wars). >> \ No, my intention was to pay you a compliment. Are you now imbued with such God like powers that you know my mind? << My disagreement with folks over tactics will not cause me to turn on them, regardless of the seduction of appearing more "rational," or a "person we can work with." Second, you attempt to reinforce the very same symbolic political economy that makes these schisms possible, indeed necessary. >> I never asked you turn on them, I just complimented your for your eloquent defense of your beliefs. Believe it or not, more people will listen to you when you're more like you, and less like Phallus. If you'll indulge me, let's try an experiment. I don't know where you live - but go down to a bar frequented by working people, blue collar types -talk to them using PJ's rhetoric against the war, and then talk to them using yours. See which style gets a better, and, perhaps, less violent response. One thing the left forgets is that the bulk of Americans love the miltary - maybe not the war, but they think that the men and women in the Service deserve our full respect, so when they hear what you say, they might react more positively than when they hear PJ talk. When people like PJ talk, and claim membership in your movement, your movement is perceived as a bunch of vindictive, hateful people. When people like your talk, the movement is perceived to be full of good people, who simply object to the war - which side would you rather be associated with? << Oh yeah, and impeachment. First of all, you should know that I voted for a US Senate candidate who top issue was the impeachment of GW Bush. Now, I voted for Brother Ray Tricomo mostly in spite of this - I feel that fascination with the removal of folks from political office based on violations of law (domestic or international) has repeatedly been shown to be a massive resource vacuum - just ask the GOP in their ill-fated attempt to impeach Clinton (although it did have the "salutary" effect of distracting from a whole raft of other issues). Especially in the case of the left, focusing on the removal of GW Bush by legal means is even more of a waste of scarce resources and political energy. Do I agree with Clark's case? Probably, almost definitely. Do I think that pursuing an impeachment strategy is a good idea? Nope - it's a red herring. Just like an centralized, national electoral strategy is for the left as well, I think. But that's another story ..... >> Well, at least you voted..that's more than a lot of people your generation do. Not sure what I think about impeachment. I'll admit I was gung-ho to impeach Clinton, but looking back now, I see that was rather foolish of me - it wouldn't have achieved anything, and, afterall there are worse things than having sex in the Oval Office, so, looking back, I feel a bit foolish about all that. I guess I agree more with you - it's a distraction. So, Aaron. I meant my compliments in good faith, and wasn't trying to insult you. You speak well, and seem thoughtful. I'm sorry that I have offended you. I know that we'll disagree on this, and several other issues - but I'm willing to bet we agree on a few issues as well - but I believe that if people disagree they can still be civil and polite and get their points across, just as effectively as being violent and bitter. Aaron Klemz "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/20030303/f3992f95/attachment.html From phallusjerkins Mon Mar 3 11:10:07 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 12:10:07 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] gag me--NSA spooks bug UN Message-ID: http://www.vegsource.com/talk/flame/messages/76205.html go duane and your wetdream 1984.... _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From ccooper Mon Mar 3 11:16:35 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 11:16:35 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Powell's Credibility Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370710C9C71@exm01w.apac.planning.org> As someone who initially was enamored by Powell's presentation before the U.N., I found this summary (from today's Salon) about the breakdown of his case and his credibility interesting. For those of you who may not already know this stuff: Nor was Powell able to rebut critics who found troubling holes in the intelligence he presented to the U.N. For instance, Powell spent significant time detailing an al-Qaida-run poison-making terrorist camp near the village of Khurmal in northern Iraq. But neither Powell nor the White House could answer the obvious follow-up questions: What was the United States doing about the camp, and why hadn't it already been bombed by U.S. military jets that have been flying daily recognizance missions over Iraq for years? As part of his U.N. brief, Powell cited an "exquisite" British "intelligence" dossier that detailed Iraq's deceptive practices. Within days though, it became clear the report, which contained information that turned out to be 12 years old, had been put together by Blair's press office and had plagiarized key sections from a graduate student paper available on the Internet. Powell's gaffe received minor play at home, but it was a major story overseas, particularly among the British public, and it seemed to fortify suspicions about the United States' rationale for war. And then, breaking the news about a new audiotape from Osama bin Laden, Powell told members of Congress it would prove a connection between al-Qaida and Iraq and warned: "This nexus between terrorists and states that are developing weapons of mass destruction can no longer be looked away from and ignored." Some Americans -- many of whom confuse bin Laden and Saddam Hussein -- may have believed this claim, but it was alarmingly crude. On the tape bin Laden dismissed Saddam as an "infidel" and "socialist" and told the Iraqi people it didn't matter whether their illegitimate leader lived or died -- words that made Powell's fear-mongering less than convincing. "People are sophisticated about this and they understand Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida have different priorities," says Preble. "I think Powell overreached trying to make the linkage and he's taken a hit because of it. His credibility has been damaged." Some longtime admirers suggest Powell's credibility has also been damaged by his apparent change of heart about war. They wonder what happened to the skeptic who just weeks after the al-Qaida terrorist attacks on America, told the New York Times: "Iraq isn't going anywhere. It's in a fairly weakened state. It's doing some things we don't like. We'll continue to contain it. But there really was no need at this point, unless there was really quite a smoking gun, to put Iraq at the top of the list." The fact is, prior to Sept. 11, it was Powell and his staff who were working the hallways at the U.N. trying to garner support for so-called smart sanctions against Iraq. Instead of tightening the loose around Saddam, these would have dramatically eased the restrictions on goods flowing into the country. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030303/d4fe8988/attachment.htm From rtirfg421 Mon Mar 3 11:28:42 2003 From: rtirfg421 (Alex Orfanos) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:28:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Doug Dennis's E-mail Message-ID: <20030303172842.26877.qmail@web9602.mail.yahoo.com> I was wondering if Doug Dennis could backchannel me at this address. If anyone knows his e-mail information, please backchannel me. Thanks. Alex Orfanos GBN Debate 2003 --------------------------------- 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/20030303/fe883a3b/attachment.html From dig Mon Mar 3 11:36:15 2003 From: dig (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:36:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Cornell MG and USMA's Ryan sullivan Message-ID: <200303031736.h23HaFh12184@fiat.cross-x.com> please backchannel or aim me AIM: Nihlpenguin Andy Ellis Marist -- Debate Information Group http://dig.ndtceda.com/ From privethedge Mon Mar 3 11:48:25 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:48:25 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] duane's call 2 conscience In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030303174825.41470.qmail@web10005.mail.yahoo.com> so duane are you refusing your call 2 conscience from your military brothers and sisters because the civilians that they stand with against the war don't know how terrible it is to drop the H bomb on hiroshima and nagazaki because they weren't the ones who dropped the bomb from the plane? Are you dense? Or do you have some sort of learning disability? I grant that anyone can oppose the war, I grant that everyone can say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wrong - However, I give more creedence to these claims when made by the people who were there. So, if anything, I'm saying that the people from the military, who oppose the war, are more credible than those who weren't. << in order to oppose the war w credibility, you have to first be a brainwashed, robot soldier who doesn't how terrible of mess she is getting into or how corrupt the US command is, and then once you realize how fucked up of a decision you have made signing to kill innocent civilians pointblank in coldblood on the highway of death using illegal weapons like napalm and getting sick from the DU that your own boys radiated across the whole battlefield, then you are a credible advocate against the war. otherwise you are just a pussy civilian talking lip, right chief? >> Now, you are confusing my respect for military war dissenters with some notion that non-military dissenters can't be credible. I'm going to put this in caps for you A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN SHOT AT, AND WHO HAS SHOT AT PEOPLE, IN MY VIEW, IS MORE CREDIBLE A PROTESTOR THAN SOMEONE WHO HAS NOT. For instance, Phallus, and this is just an example, as Idon't know your academic background, let's say you went to a lecture on Particle Physics given by a professor of Spanish - you might find that to be a less credible lecture than a lecture on Particle Physics by Stephen Hawkings. Now, do you get my point? << we are sure and positive that this is what the vets really have to say. duane is off the hook. he doesn't have to respond to his call 2 conscience. >> << come on, duane even civilians w a conscience know that the hyper-modern warfare of bullying crippled nations that the US military embodies is for children like you. >> Please explain how we are "bullying" Iraq? Are you maintaining that by saying that Sadaam is evil, and poses a threat to the region, we are bullying Iraq? << answer the call 2 conscience. you're evading the question by pointing to irrelevant material. stop pretending that the US military is somehow protecting us in this war. the veterans explicitly tell the soldiers that they are not protecting anybody just pawns for oil. stop repeating what has been answered by the vets. listen to the veterans duane. >> OK, Phallus, but admit this - not every veteran feels as your group does, and your group (the group you cite) is not a large sampling of veterans. I also don't beleive that those troops in the field would think they were pawns for oil, and the "war for oil" thing is pretty much been discredited. << they are appealing to your human conscience not to get a hard on for civilian casualties ordered by some fuck-up who abandoned his national guard unit snorting cocaine (yes, duane the veterans even point out the george DWI bush AWOL records from 'bama) and let's not mention the 4 convicted arrests including burglarly, vandalism, cocaine possession, and of course since he's a republican DWI. >> Hmmm..so, Phallus, where you in the 90's, when our former Pot Smoking, Rapist, who inhabitrf the Oval Office lobbed more Cruise Missiles into Iraq, than the some total fired in the entire Gulf War? Didn't see your fervent posts to the list then. So, I wonder...and I've been meaning to ask this of you and others for a while now, if this was Billy's war, as opposed to Georgie's war - would your howls of protest be as loud? So, Phallus..nice talking to you..but keep this in mind, I agree with Shaeffer, when he writes in Keeping the Faith - both right and left are 90% full of shit..guess that makes you and I either part of the 90, or part of the 10... 'til next time. 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/20030303/8fd2d039/attachment.htm From scottelliott Mon Mar 3 12:00:29 2003 From: scottelliott (Scott M. Elliott) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:00:29 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Powell's Credibility Message-ID: <000601c2e1ae$c7369f40$e6995a42@grandecom.net> His embarrassing performance at the uN and now the Turkey debacle, I think Powell should resign. Scott Elliott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030303/ed11b128/attachment.html From phallusjerkins Mon Mar 3 12:09:44 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 13:09:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] serious about impeachment Message-ID: http://www.iacenter.org/impeach1.htm we are going all the way to baghdad on the IHoD. klemz remarks well taken. but let's roll the tape back to watergate. nixon was forced to leave office and public confidence in the US government reached an all-time low w variations of anarchy and socialism receiving due consideration from the people like @ no time before. the republicans wasted their time going after clinton suffering from their "chronic evidence problem" of course but slick willie was slowed way down w his political capital sapped to the max. see ws burroughs' "electronic revolution" -- there is a basic recipe for the appropriation of CIA and COINTELPRO techniques by the underground press flipping them back on the government. the method is simple "playback" mechanism on the recorder. record the most awful audio statements and image slices you can find, arrange them randomly, and play them back to audiences who don't want to hear these monstrous messages. this is an extension of dada and surrealism to be sure --- the weaponization of the word virus as a tool of resistance. its effectiveness can be seen in the work of COINTELPRO. we are glad that klemz recognizes the importance of tactical diversity and doesn't just go w the kneejerk to PC-ize the whole movement into friendly dabait statements whether or not he agrees w risque moves to "lambast" military personnel in a public cyber-forum. we believe that you are analyzing the effectiveness of the tactics from the wrong angle. we push military buttons and military dabaiters respond like they are under our control. they are so tied to their public image that the virus just eats them alive. we bait them into a ridiculous dabait calling them names. and they are so shocked and offended, whining about "respect" they stumble right into a dabait about the highway of death and the shoddy army report . we push the buttons and they respond like clockwork into a spiralling cycle of reactivity. they call for de-escalation. we escalate. they are stuck responding to what we escalate with. not much of a "dabait" in the traditional sense of the word. yes, you got us there. from the perspective of persuasion, we have lost. we don't really care. actually persuasion as a brand of purist pacifism is a pathology of the establishment that leads to a monopoly of violence whether physical or in this case psychological in the wrong hands. wsb was ahead of his and our time. the future of resistance is w the word virus from watergate to eden. http://www.wps.com/about-WPS/personal/texts/the-electronic-revolution we believe that our experiments demonstrate the tactical efficacity of applied "cut-ups" and the "playback function". we believe that US military personnel among other inculcated children are vulnerable to psychological warfare and that all means in the playbook should be mobilized in the present time. PC tit for tat concern about how "the movement" is perceived by the public at large can go to hell. regardless, the experiments will continue. _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From Catherine.Palczewski Mon Mar 3 12:10:13 2003 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 12:10:13 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] NDT administrivia Message-ID: <3E639A82.AB5516F9@uni.edu> Greetings all, Now that all the districts are completed, a few reminders. 1. Remember to officially enter the tournament. The application form is in the NDT newsletter I sent out a few weeks ago and can also be found in web form at: http://www.uni.edu/palczews/ndtnewsletter2003.htm Please complete this form as soon as possible, and please remember to send it to: 1) Parson, 2) Newnam, and 3) Palczewski (emails/faxes for all are in the newsletter as well) 2. Second rounds: For those who want to apply for a second round, those applications Must be received by Committee Members March 6, 2003 (5 PM CST) The announcement of who received second rounds will be made March 10, 2003 The format for second rounds, as well as the list of committee members to whom they should be sent, is also located in the newsletter (see above address). According to the NDT Standing Rules, teams are eligible for Second Round invitations to the NDT under the following conditions: c. Second Round At-Large process. (1) Any teams not selected for participation in the NDT through the First Round At-Large or district processes may apply for a Second Round At-Large bid. (2) All teams selected through the Second Round At-Large process must have a 50% or greater preliminary round win-loss record in rounds on the fall CEDA topic or its NDT topic parallel immediately prior to the District tournament or at the time of submission for second round bids. The team's record for every tournament attended prior to submission must be reported on the application form. (3) Teams submitting Second Round At-Large applications may include a paragraph of explanation concerning extenuating circumstances. (4) Unless a school has received two bids in the First Round At-Large process, participation in the district process shall be a prerequisite for receipt of a Second Round At-Large selection. (5) If a school has not qualified two teams through a First Round At-Large or district process, it shall not be eligible to qualify a third team through the Second Round At-Large process unless the team(s) that participated in the district process shall also have qualified through the Second Round At-Large process. (6) The next two lower teams that do not qualify for Second Round At-Large bids will be designated as first and second alternate. (7) Should there be an odd number of teams selected through the three qualification processes, the first alternate (or the second, should the first be unable to attend), will be allowed to participate at the National Debate Tournament. Should there be no additional alternate teams, the tournament director will make arrangements to assure an even number of teams. From beth Mon Mar 3 12:13:14 2003 From: beth (Beth Skinner) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:13:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Towson Novice/JV Nationals Entries, Judging Message-ID: <1046715193.3e639b3a027f6@dalchemy.com> Below and attached are the early entries. Deadline is 5:00 pm next Tuesday, March 11. DC area judges who would like to be hired by the tournament, please contact me. We look forward to seeing you next week. Beth Skinner Towson Debate eskinner at towson.edu 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) Case Western N Wilson Freeman & Shu-han Zhu Judge Ian Kimbrell Catholic Fordham JV Asha Cherian and Reggie Martin N Sean Jacques and Megan Tweed N Craig Konnoth and Marianne Pichuzhkina R Zebe Richards and Taneka Johnson Judge David Jacobus George Mason James Madison Los Angeles City College Richmond JV Casey Seidel and Andrew Ryan N Corinne Huntington and Francis Grice N Kristen Chovanec and ____________ Judges Kevin Kuswa, Barry Hausrath Rochester Santa Clara JV Arah Rasp and Wes _______ Judge Steve Clemmons Southwest Texas JV Matt Tiffee and Kimberly Keen Judge Jason Myres USMA JV Elliot Press and Adam Scher JV Ricky Waters and Adam Karr N Allison Pan and Boon Park Judges Mike Meese, Reid Sawyer Vermont West Virginia JV Cassandra Angus and Nicolette Wilhide JV Rebecca Evans and Douglas Squire JV Joseph Hayes and Philip Sword N Kelly Burd and Joel DeShong N Sara Lechner and Daniel Waite Judges Kimberly Bandy (7), Joshua K. Boggs (7), Neil Burch (4) Hired Judges Stephen Heidt Tiyonna Jenkins -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: EntriesMarch3.19622DEFANGED-doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 21504 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030303/4da8006d/attachment.obj From privethedge Mon Mar 3 12:25:51 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:25:51 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] serious about impeachment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030303182551.47755.qmail@web10005.mail.yahoo.com> Uhmmm..Phallus, just so I know, when we dialouge again..who is the "we" you keep referring to? Is this an indication of an affliction? Or is the royal we? Or do you speak for a group? 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/20030303/949e1e2a/attachment.html From katsulas Mon Mar 3 12:26:03 2003 From: katsulas (katsulas) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 13:26:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ADA nationals entry deadline Message-ID: <3E655FD9@netfin6.bc.edu> Today at 5:00 pm is the deadline to enter the ADA Nationals tournament. If you are coming, enter ASAP. If you are dropping any teams, please do so and tell me. I will not accept ANY entries after that time, as I have serious space issues to accomodate the banquet. The room seats 240. I'm about at the limit. I need to figure out an alternative. But, I can't make any plans if I don't know how many people are coming. John Katsulas From classsucks Mon Mar 3 13:07:23 2003 From: classsucks (David Vanette) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 19:07:23 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Does anyone know anything about Lacan? Message-ID: My apologies for this small waste fo bandwidth. I was just wondering, I mean, with all the k debaters we have in this community and philosophy majors/PHd grads, if anyone can send me some cites to works of Jacques Lacan and maybe give me a hand with understanding his thoughts in relation to utopian policies. With all the good reasons not to go to class(attendance requirements, high prices, pointless lectures straight from the 125 dollar text book, that decides they want to sit next to you despite the 35 other empty seats in a class fit for 50 and the 45 minute commute) one wonders, is there really a point to actually attending, maintaining academic dependent debate scholarships aside? David Vanette Pace Debate 02-03 _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From dig Mon Mar 3 13:15:49 2003 From: dig (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:15:49 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for ride to the ndt Message-ID: <200303031915.h23JFnM29028@fiat.cross-x.com> Hello, If anybody between boston and richmond has an extra seat in a vehicle going to the ndt and would be willing to give me a ride i would greatly appreciate it if you could backchannel me. Andy Ellis Marist Debate -- Debate Information Group http://dig.ndtceda.com/ From aogletree Mon Mar 3 13:44:03 2003 From: aogletree (Aaron Ogletree) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 19:44:03 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] The Power of Protests Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030303/db80dfb3/attachment.htm From dig Mon Mar 3 14:06:34 2003 From: dig (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:06:34 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Jen Knopps Please Message-ID: <200303032006.h23K6YE02839@fiat.cross-x.com> please contact me -- Debate Information Group http://dig.ndtceda.com/ From jhutchin Mon Mar 3 14:50:23 2003 From: jhutchin (Jeremy Hutchins) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:50:23 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] JCCC / NJDDT Entries Message-ID: Keep the entries coming. Hotel reservations suggest it is going to be a good turnout. The tournament hotel has exceeded the number of rooms for the block, but you can still get the tournament rate by calling David Hayden in sales directly. His number is 913-385-8505. Mention JCCC Debate when you call. Currently we have tentative numbers of 19 in Junior Varsity and 5 in Novice. Please check your entries and let me know if there are corrections. Johnson County Community College Junior Varsity April Jones and Candice Moore Derek Crocker and Andy Myers Mandy Trood and Aaron Williams Chris Baize and Robert Smyth Kansas State University Junior Varsity Dan Stout and Adam Flagg Judges Casey Arbenz 4 Pace University Junior Varsity 2 Teams Novice 1 Team Judges Southeastern Louisiana University Junior Varsity Amy Hadid and Emily Ritchey Novice Zack Wagner and Erdin Guma Caine Ritchey and Holly Bissonette Sabah Ahmed and player tba Judges Ashley Smith 6 Terri Miller 6 (novice) Eric Marlow 6 Southern Utah University Junior Varsity Amanda Cornelius and Kayce Rose Judges Kara Dillard 4 University of Central Oklahoma Junior Varsity Adam Adkisson and James Davis Drew Lawson and Justin Schuffert Geneva Murray and Lindsey Shook Novice Ish Kissinger and Stevie Lorrance Judges Jason Stone 4 (No 4 or 8) Bryan Gaston 4 (No 4 or 8) Brain Campbell 8 University of Northern Iowa Junior Varsity ? or 1 ? Teams Novice 1 Team Judges University of Wisconsin Oshkosh Junior Varsity Rachel Raskin and Scott Coulson Judges Doug Roubidoux 4 Wichita State University Junior Varsity Erica Johnson and Zach Wiggins Kathleen Doris and Martha Moon Phil Bouska and Amanda Wasson Judges: Chris Kenyon 6 (No Macalester) Jessica Perkins 6 From ccooper Mon Mar 3 15:15:12 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:15:12 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] AT: Jarvis Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370710C9C7F@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Isn't it just a bit silly to get into a tit-for-tat over who is the WORSE human rights abuser? I mean...at some point you cross a line into the morally unconscionable. Arguing over who is worse between Stalin and Hitler, for example, is bickering over a distinction without a difference. (and it's sort of insulting to those abused by both). Let's stay focused, eh... COOP -----Original Message----- From: Jason Jarvis [mailto:debatekorea at hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 9:13 PM To: parcherj at mindspring.com Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] AT: Jarvis ----Original Message Follows---- From: "Jeff Parcher" Reply-To: "Jeff Parcher" To: "Jason Jarvis" , Subject: [eDebate] AT: Jarvis Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 18:36:03 -0500 For the sake of consolidation, I've combined Jason's two emails. A note before the line for line. The Observer article quoted by Jason is an amazing article for my position. Indeed it turns out that the Observer (despite their virulent opposition to the U.S. on this issue) concluded that Iraq was in fact the WORST human rights violator in the world. They moved them down the list to account for their poverty. >>>>>This is humorous. To be clear i quoted TWO surveys done by the >>>>>Observer. The first was done in 1998, and included the paragraph you >>>>>note below, though they go on to explain why they did not rate Iraq the >>>>>highest. The second survey done a year later, using REVISED methods >>>>>placed them even FURTHER down the list. Additionally, since a lot of >>>>>their poverty is DIRECTLY related to the sanctions, it seems incredibly >>>>>difficult to suggest that there is not a UN/US role in creating that >>>>>problem. Jeff says: Pakistan is an ally. We shouldn't treat allies the same as enemies with regard to proliferation. Obviously, your sworn enemy is much greater threat. I don't mean to be simplistic - but it is a basic difference. Iraq has used WMD - Pakistan has not. Nonetheless we have opposed Pakistani proliferation through strong means in the past - including sanctions. >>>Pakistan is significant b/c they demonstrate a clear and undeniable >>>double standard in our policy: they have a military dictator that took >>>over in a coup, who after taking over in that coup OPENLY developed >>>nuclear weapons, and threatens India with them. Musharraf also OPENLY >>>supports terrorists in Kashmir against a democratic country (INDIA). >>>Last year, he had promised to have democratic elections. He unilaterally >>>altered the constitution and suspended it, giving himself a free hand as >>>"President" for who knows how long. He supported the Taliban until >>>forced not to do so, and there are reports that people in his government >>>still continue to do so. Basically he has done ALL of the things that we >>>ACCUSE Saddam of, only in Saddam's case the US government has had to work >>>to prove their claims, while with Pakistan its all out in the open. Jeff says: Part of the justification for war against Iraq hinges on whether you believe that military action can solve the problem without creating worse consequences. I happen to think we can do it. Our best intelligence indicates the Republican guard will quickly collapse. We've done a reasonable job helping out the people of the North. Under our protection a fledging (obviously not perfect) democracy flourishes there. We rebuilt Japan and Germany. Reconstruction is proceeding in Bosnia and Kosovo. It can be done. >>>>>This is the critical question because you admit that you don't think >>>>>human rights alone is the real issue.....Imposing democracy from above >>>>>seems to me to be an inherently risky business. Afghanistan >>>>>demonstrates that while you may create peace in one area (Kabul) it is >>>>>extremely difficult to maintain that peace elsewhere. As Afghanistan >>>>>descends back into civil war I wonder how we will prevent the same >>>>>quagmire in Iraq. Like Afghanistan there are a host of ethnic groups >>>>>that hate each other, all of whom will be scrambling for oil and power >>>>>in a post Saddam Iraq. The reactions of Iraq's neighbors to a US >>>>>controlled Iraq will be equally unpredictable. I think Afghanistan provides a better analogy b/c it is a Muslim country, in much closer proximity to Iraq. The experiences of both the Soviets and our own current situation suggest that democracy building in this region is not so easy. The examples of Japan, Germany and the former Yugoslavia seem spurious to me because those countries are in unique places. Japan was hated by its neighbors, and it had no geographic border with other countries. Democracy also has a history in Europe, where it has very little in Asia. Also at those times, the US was not hated like we are today. In the end I suppose we will see, b/c I concede that war is inevitable, and at this point its just a matter of time. Jeff: Anyway, while I dislike Bush a great deal for many reasons, this accusation about oil doesn't stick with me. A US occupation of Iraq won't be permanent. We could lift sanctions tommorow and have access to Iraqi oil. Before 9/11 he showed little interest in Iraq's oil. Even if this were his motive - it shouldn't bother anyone as long as the other justifications for war can stand up to scrutiny. >>>Actually we could not have access to Iraqi oil even if we lifted >>>sanctions unless Saddam allowed us to develop it. (Why would he do that?) >>>When Saddam came to power he nationalized Iraqi oil..........obviously >>>since the Gulf War he hasn't been doing a lot of developing with US >>>companies. While we import a lot of Iraqi oil, the fields were being >>>developed by European companies. This will undoubtedly change if we take >>>control. Its also impossible to predict how long an occupation of Iraq >>>will last.....and while I recognize it could be short, it could also take >>>an incredibly long time to institute a thriving democracy. The length of >>>the occupation may also depend on the reaction of the various governments >>>and publics in neighboring countries. For example, what will the effect >>>be on Khatami and his government when the first "axis" is taken out? Check out this article: Comment: War is the only option: A former winner of the Nobel peace prize says we must stop Saddam's killing machine, Elie Wiesel The Observer, December 22, 2002 http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4572305,00.html >>>>Interesting article, he suggests we only go to war with UN support and >>>>if Saddam has done nothing to comply with inspectors........not the >>>>current situation...since he destroyed missiles and there have been >>>>private interviews with scientists. Its also clear that there is not a >>>>snowballs chance in Iraq, that a second resolution will pass the >>>>security council. Tell me again why putting UN troops into Iraq, >>>>doubling the number of inspectors and extending the no fly zones >>>>throughout the country (German/French proposal) is an unacceptable >>>>alternative? What does Wiesel say to that? Jeff says: The fact that Turkey has a poor human rights record does not absolve Saddam of his responsibility for the massacres. >>>Nope but it does point out the double standard of pointing to the Kurds >>>regarding Iraq (especially b/c saddam gassed them) and ignoring their >>>consistent abuse at the hands of the Turks. We appease human rights >>>abusers when its convenient (Turkey, Pakistan, China, North Korea, etc) >>>and then villify them when we dont want to. But maybe consistency really >>>is too much to hope for. Jeff says: I don't think it's frutiful to engage in a technical argument about who is the very worst. My reading from independent sources, convinces me that it is Iraq. However, the case for war is not based on the fact that they are the worst - just that the international community could through war substantially improve the lives of A LOT of people in Iraq. Military force has no hope of improving the situations in either China or North Korea. Many see US support for common people in their struggles for human rights against authoritarian regimes as the best hope for undercutting the developing "clash of civilizations" and backlash against American ideals. A democratically created Iraq would force the U.S. to realign it's support for the monarchies in the middle east. Not only because it would establish a new important policy point - but because it would substantiall reduce threat assesments in the region. >>>I SINCERELY hope that you are right about this, but I fear that this is >>>little more than looking at things through rose colored glasses. The >>>list of double standards that I have pointed to gives me VERY LITTLE >>>reason to believe that such inconsistencies will not continue. For >>>example, the notion that Saudi Arabia and Syria will become paragons of >>>democracy after the fact seems to dreaming to me. I also fear for all the people in Iraq that will have to die as we liberate them and who have already died. In the end I hope and pray that I am totally out of it, and that war will save millions of Iraqis and promote peace throughout the middle east. That a war will not destabilize moderate regimes in the region, and that it will not further inflame the anger of moderate muslims pushing them toward more extremist versions of their faith and sparking more terrorism. However, it is safe to say that I am extremely skeptical, and the situation in Afghanistan does not give me much hope for our efforts at "peace building". _________________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030303/bcb3d25c/attachment.html From SSbauschard2 Mon Mar 3 15:27:48 2003 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:27:48 EST Subject: [eDebate] Dist 3 results -- anyone? Message-ID: <120.1e9d59e7.2b9522d4@aol.com> From matt_gerber27 Mon Mar 3 16:32:19 2003 From: matt_gerber27 (Matt Gerber) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 16:32:19 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Dist 3 results -- anyone? Message-ID: This is unofficial of course, I suspect Joel will be posting results at some point, but here are the 7 teams that qualified from D3, in no particular order: Texas MB Emporia CR UNT PP KSU NS Kansas JT Kansas CS Texas LJ (I think) Thanks to Joel Rollins, Sue Stanfield and the rest of the K-State folks for running a smooth tournament. >From: SSbauschard2 at aol.com >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: [eDebate] Dist 3 results -- anyone? >Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:27:48 EST > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 sharris Mon Mar 3 16:41:43 2003 From: sharris (Harris, Scott L) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:41:43 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Dist 3 results -- anyone? Message-ID: <06EB4CB0225B3F498418311D9D6A28AA01FF1DB9@bluebird.mail.ku.edu> I think the order of the qualifiers was: 1. UNT PP 2. Texas BM 3. KSU NS 4. Texas LJ 5. Kansas CS 6. Kansas JT 7. Emporia CR -----Original Message----- From: Matt Gerber [mailto:matt_gerber27 at hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 4:32 PM To: SSbauschard2 at aol.com; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Dist 3 results -- anyone? This is unofficial of course, I suspect Joel will be posting results at some point, but here are the 7 teams that qualified from D3, in no particular order: Texas MB Emporia CR UNT PP KSU NS Kansas JT Kansas CS Texas LJ (I think) Thanks to Joel Rollins, Sue Stanfield and the rest of the K-State folks for running a smooth tournament. >From: SSbauschard2 at aol.com >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: [eDebate] Dist 3 results -- anyone? >Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 16:27:48 EST > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From parcherj Mon Mar 3 17:34:14 2003 From: parcherj (Jeff Parcher) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 18:34:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] AT: Jarvis References: Message-ID: <002501c2e1dd$672d4fc0$2060fea9@Jeff> >>>>>This is humorous. To be clear i quoted TWO surveys done by the > >>>>>Observer. The first was done in 1998, and included the paragraph you > >>>>>note below, though they go on to explain why they did not rate Iraq the > >>>>>highest. The second survey done a year later, using REVISED methods > >>>>>placed them even FURTHER down the list. Additionally, since a lot of > >>>>>their poverty is DIRECTLY related to the sanctions, it seems incredibly > >>>>>difficult to suggest that there is not a UN/US role in creating that > >>>>>problem. 1.. Are you claiming that Iraq's human rights made a sudden and dramatic improvement between 1998 and 1999? The documents footnoted by The Observer report no such improvements. 2.. The poverty argument has already been devastated. Here are the arguments you didn't engage:: A) relatavism on the basis of poverty in morally unacceptable. An arbitrary politcal killing is no worse in a rich country than it is in a poor country. B) Sanctions would be removed if there is a war and we poor billions into rebuilding Iraq. Absent war Sanctions will continue. C) Saddam doesn't deserve CREDIT for sanctions - he's responsible for them. He STARTED the war that lead to them. He continues to defy multiple UN resolutions. D) Saddams divertion and refusal to cooperate with Oil for Food makes him responsible for the worst of the conditions that flourish in Iraq. 3.. The Observer index is not credible - I can't believe you are defending it in the face of multiple independent objective sources. The observer index you're quoting is literally about 500 words long. It's apparently so well respected they have given it up. It contains absolutely no original documentation. It's use of sources is highly highly questionable. They report in 1999 no significant numbers of unfair trials in Iraq or deaths in custody in Iraq. This despite the fact that two of the sources upon which they relied, Amensty and the Department of State report, both documented massive numbers of unfair and arbitrary trials (when they even bothered with a trial) as well as well known and extensive numbers of deaths in custody. See http://www.amnestyusa.org/countries/iraq/ and http://www.state.gov/www/global/human_rights/1999_hrp_report/iraq.html > >>>Pakistan is significant b/c they demonstrate a clear and undeniable > >>>double standard in our policy: they have a military dictator that took > >>>over in a coup, who after taking over in that coup OPENLY developed > >>>nuclear weapons, and threatens India with them. Musharraf also OPENLY > >>>supports terrorists in Kashmir against a democratic country (INDIA). > >>>Last year, he had promised to have democratic elections. He unilaterally > >>>altered the constitution and suspended it, giving himself a free hand as > >>>"President" for who knows how long. He supported the Taliban until > >>>forced not to do so, and there are reports that people in his government > >>>still continue to do so. Basically he has done ALL of the things that we > >>>ACCUSE Saddam of, only in Saddam's case the US government has had to work > >>>to prove their claims, while with Pakistan its all out in the open. 1. Some basic I think you get wrong: (a) Iraq tested 5 nuclear weapons in may of 1998. The coup did not occur until October of 1999. (b) Musharaff does not openly support the Kashmiri freedom fighters. In fact he denies all such support. Pakistan's long standing position has been that it provides no physical support to Kashmiri rebels. Most recently restated in: Agence France Presse March 2, 2003. So what is the point of you capitalizing the word o-p-e-n? (c) Musharraf's only nuclear threats against India have been that the use of nuclear weapons would be possible if India invaded Pakistan. Given Pakistan's lack of strategic depth and India's overwhelming conventional superiority - this seems a reasonable policy of deterence. Not unlike the successful US policy which kept the Soviets from invading Western Europe. 2. The statement that Musharraf has done everything that we have accused Iraq of doing is so devoid of any connection to reality. Seriously, Jason, what is the point of such disconnected hyperbole? And what is the point of capitalizing the word "accuse?" Things Iraq has done that Musharraf has not: a) Invaded two sovereign neighbors without provocation or pretext. b) Used chemical weapons against minority populations and Iranians c) Ordered the greatest manmade environmental catastrophe of all time in setting Kuwaiti oil wells on fire and opening the pipeline spiggots directly into the open sea. d) Conducted a campaign against not 1 - but 3 different minorities in his country that have been labeled by independent human rights observers such as Human Rights Watch and Elie Wiesel as Genocide. e) Sponsored the complete destruction of a conquered people in Kuwait, including massive lootings, killings, rapes, and torture. Activities which no doubt constitute Crimes Against Humanity and War crimes under any reading of international law. f) Suspended cooperation with the United Nations Oil for Food Program directly resulting in the starvation of his own people. g) Repeatedly fired on American and Britich aircraft in violation of the rules of engagement reagrding the no-fly zones. Zones established under UN rules and agreed to under the terms of a valid ceasefire agreement. h) Sent an assisination team to Kuwait to kill the former President of the United States. i) Violated every disarmament resolution passed by the UN. j) Used human shields to protect his own military facilities and Weapons of Mass Destruction. k) Widespread and systemic murder and torture of hundreds of thousands of political opponents. >>>>>This is the critical question because you admit that you don't think > >>>>>human rights alone is the real issue.....Imposing democracy from above > >>>>>seems to me to be an inherently risky business. Afghanistan > >>>>>demonstrates that while you may create peace in one area (Kabul) it is > >>>>>extremely difficult to maintain that peace elsewhere. As Afghanistan > >>>>>descends back into civil war I wonder how we will prevent the same > >>>>>quagmire in Iraq. Like Afghanistan there are a host of ethnic groups > >>>>>that hate each other, all of whom will be scrambling for oil and power > >>>>>in a post Saddam Iraq. The reactions of Iraq's neighbors to a US > >>>>>controlled Iraq will be equally unpredictable. 1.. It is a gross mischaracterization of my position that "human rights aren't the real issue." I merely said that if Iraq's record were clean of every accusation except for human rights violations, we would probably not be justified in going to war. I said, I thought that was a close case, however. If you cannot rescue the Iraqi people - who can you rescue? When you combine the human rights record with his other threats to international security - there becomes no doubt that war is justified. That is not say human rights matter less than weapons of mass destruction - it's the combination that should make us very concerned. One has to look at Iraq in total - not at each individual piece. 2.. No doubt democracy building is a tough business. The jury is out on Afghanastan. Certainly things are much better in Afghanastan now then they were before the war. One would be hard pressed to come up with a measure by which things have not improved. Surely we need to do more. But let it be noted that Afghanastan was rather clearly about self-defense - not about rebuilding a country. We have defined our mission with regard to Iraq far differently than with regard to Afghanastan. While difficult, democracy in Iraq is no more of challnge than say democracy in India, Indonesia or Turkey. All countries that maintain atleast foundational democratic credentials. 3.. I think the backlash arguments are overstated. No country in the region fears the U.S. more than they fear Saddam. That's why almost every leader in the region provides us either open or back door support for our military containment of Iraq. All the most significant countries have a great deal to be gained from a democratic and peaceful Iraq - Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Turkey. The US has significant leverage over 3 of those countries. Iraq has a couple things Afghanastan does not - it has a basically literate people and substantial oil revenues. Even in the times when Iraq was prosperous, 75% of the oil revenues were diverted into military uses. God only knows what percentage were diverted into Saddams corruption. If we succeeded in getting even half of those revenues directed toward the rebuilding of the country it would be a substantial windfall for the Iraqi people. > >>>Actually we could not have access to Iraqi oil even if we lifted > >>>sanctions unless Saddam allowed us to develop it. (Why would he do that?) > >>>When Saddam came to power he nationalized Iraqi oil..........obviously > >>>since the Gulf War he hasn't been doing a lot of developing with US > >>>companies. While we import a lot of Iraqi oil, the fields were being > >>>developed by European companies. This will undoubtedly change if we take > >>>control. Its also impossible to predict how long an occupation of Iraq > >>>will last.....and while I recognize it could be short, it could also take > >>>an incredibly long time to institute a thriving democracy. The length of > >>>the occupation may also depend on the reaction of the various governments > >>>and publics in neighboring countries. For example, what will the effect > >>>be on Khatami and his government when the first "axis" is taken out? 1. This oil thing is tangential as far as I'm concerend. Obviously, a U.S. occupation of Iraq would help U.S. oil companies. If you think that's Bush's motive for war - so be it. Conspiracy theories are by definition irrefutable. 2. The effect on the reformers over time will be a reduced threat perception. Recall the Iran-Iraq war? Who do you think was a prime candidate for all those weapons of mass destruction. Of course, it will take time and diplomatic maneuvering to convince regional countries that we just want to rebuild and leave - but we've never been an imperial power in that sense and it shouldn't be a hard sell. The bigger concern will probably be that we'll leave too soon - before things are stable. > Check out this article: Comment: War is the only option: A former winner of > the Nobel peace prize says we must stop Saddam's killing machine, Elie > Wiesel The Observer, December 22, 2002 > http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4572305,00.html > > >>>>Interesting article, he suggests we only go to war with UN support and > >>>>if Saddam has done nothing to comply with inspectors........not the > >>>>current situation...since he destroyed missiles and there have been > >>>>private interviews with scientists. Its also clear that there is not a > >>>>snowballs chance in Iraq, that a second resolution will pass the > >>>>security council. Tell me again why putting UN troops into Iraq, > >>>>doubling the number of inspectors and extending the no fly zones > >>>>throughout the country (German/French proposal) is an unacceptable > >>>>alternative? What does Wiesel say to that? 1.. Obviously the support of the Security Council is preferrable. But if France and Russia put their oil investments ahead of international law and stability, I see no reason to sacrifice all that there is to gain. 2.. His article basically suggest that inspections are hopeless. And yes inspections have failed. Iraq has not cooperated. See below. A few missiles are an obvious token to maintain poltical cover for the French and Russians. 3.. Why the French-German proposal sucks: a) Nothing new. Massive inspections for 8 years fails to get Saddam to comply. Even Blix, an apparent apologist for Saddam, has admitted that Iraq violated the deadline to make a full disclosure and as well has never accounted for the tons and tons of biological and chemical weapons he had after the gulf war. Listen to an Iraqi defector talk about the hopelessness of inspections: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003053 b) More inspectors won't help. At the height of the inspection process when we had years to train inspectors and coordinate their activities - inspections failed to achieve disarmament. It was Blix who intially opposed increasing the number of inspectors. Why? Inspectors are appointed not hired. Many of them are political cronies. Increasing the inspectors increases leaks which helps Iraq to cheat. c) Troops? The U.N. doesn't have troops. The only way to put troops in Iraq is for Britain and the U.S. to send them. d) Delay is bad. Saddam is preparing for the eventual war. The more time we give him the more casualties on both sides there will be. He is surely busy moving military equipment into civilian neighborhoods. Fortifying bunkers. Accelerating deployment of his conventional and unconventional munitions. Every month we delay risks Saddam will deploy either nuclear weapons are some other weapon of mass destruction that will change the entire calculus. Consider this report: Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service September 10, 2002 "An independent research group known for its authoritative reports on military capabilities warned Monday that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein could develop a nuclear bomb within months if he is able to buy or steal weapons-grade nuclear material. The report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies concluded that Hussein's existing weapons of mass destruction pose a substantial threat and supported President Bush's assertion that Iraq is stockpiling weapons for possible use against neighbors such as Israel and Kuwait. Director John Chipman said that Iraq already has substantial chemical and biological weapons and may be able to obtain enough enriched nuclear material from friendly countries or through the black market to enable Iraq to quickly build a devastating bomb. "There is a nuclear wildcard," Chipman said. "If, somehow, Iraq were able to acquire sufficient nuclear material from foreign sources, it could probably produce nuclear weapons on short order, probably in a matter of months." Chipman, whose group Monday published a 100-page investigation into Hussein's arsenal, warned that the balance of power in the volatile Middle East would be changed overnight if Hussein obtains nuclear capability." 4.. Has it not been made obvious to you that Saddam will never, ever, ever cooperate. How much more proof do you need? Delaying this is no one's best interest. For the sake of everyone - including the Iraqi people - it's time for Saddam to go. > >>>Nope but it does point out the double standard of pointing to the Kurds > >>>regarding Iraq (especially b/c saddam gassed them) and ignoring their > >>>consistent abuse at the hands of the Turks. We appease human rights > >>>abusers when its convenient (Turkey, Pakistan, China, North Korea, etc) > >>>and then villify them when we dont want to. But maybe consistency really > >>>is too much to hope for. Ignoring the plight of Iraqi's might make us more consistent in selling people out. That's hardly an argument for the policy. Iraq is a great place to start because it fits other national interests. I support a tougher US line on every country you mentioned. I also believe is was colossal error that we failed to intervene in Rwanda. I assure you that Iraqi people who are liberated will not mind that the U.S. is a hypocrite. > Jeff says: > I don't think it's frutiful to engage in a technical argument about who is > the very worst. My reading from independent sources, convinces me that it > is Iraq. However, the case for war is not based on the fact that they are > the worst - just that the international community could through war > substantially improve the lives of A LOT of people in Iraq. Military force > has no hope of improving the situations in either China or North Korea. > Many see US support for common people in their struggles for human rights > against > authoritarian regimes as the best hope for undercutting the developing > "clash of civilizations" and backlash against American ideals. A > democratically created Iraq would force the U.S. to realign it's support for > the monarchies in the middle east. Not only because it would establish a > new important policy point - but because it would substantiall reduce threat > assesments in the region. > > >>>I SINCERELY hope that you are right about this, but I fear that this is > >>>little more than looking at things through rose colored glasses. The > >>>list of double standards that I have pointed to gives me VERY LITTLE > >>>reason to believe that such inconsistencies will not continue. For > >>>example, the notion that Saudi Arabia and Syria will become paragons of > >>>democracy after the fact seems to dreaming to me. I didn't say the Saudi's would become paragons of democracy. But I do believe a democratic Iraq will help regional rulers see the writing on the wall. And I also believe it could become an important part of U.S. support for human rights elsewhere. It won't be a radical shift and even if it was - US policy is only one small element in equation of human rights violations in many of these places. I am sure about this though: turning a blind eye toward iraqi violations or justifying a war purely on the basis of WMD won't help peoples anywhere. Hey, I guess I'm saying I control uniqueness - hypocrisy in sq... >I also fear for all the people in Iraq that will have to die as we liberate > them and who have already died. And so should anyone. Hopefully the lessons we learned in the first gulf war, Bosnia and Kosovo will help us minimize civilian casualties. Hopefully, we can get to Saddam quickly enough to prevent him from doing further damage to his own people and infrastructure. In that regard - I think war soon is better than war later. > In the end I hope and pray that I am totally out of it, and that war will > save millions of Iraqis and promote peace throughout the middle east. That > a war will not destabilize moderate regimes in the region, and that it will > not further inflame the anger of moderate muslims pushing them toward more > extremist versions of their faith and sparking more terrorism. However, it > is safe to say that I am extremely skeptical, and the situation in > Afghanistan does not give me much hope for our efforts at "peace building". I would be more comfortable if a democratic hawk were running the war. Someone like Leiberman or Biden. I could then be more confident of the follow through. My greatest fear as well is that Bush cannot be trusted with the end-game. Lately, he's talking a better talk and it seems that Rice and Powell have a grasp on the enormity of the requirements. I realize that having faith in this crowd is alot to ask. I guess the only point I want to emphasize to my friends in the peace movement is that the SQ contains some pretty serious risks as well. It's hard to imagine things being much worse for the Iraqi people. later, jp From jreubenclark Mon Mar 3 18:16:16 2003 From: jreubenclark (Josh clark) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 17:16:16 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] paging matt stannard Message-ID: Matt- can you back channel me please... Thanks Josh Fullerton _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From hansonjb Mon Mar 3 20:07:11 2003 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 18:07:11 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] nw ceda champs teams entered Message-ID: <008001c2e1f2$c5668240$1304070a@whitman.edu> here's the list. if you wanna come and aren't listed, please email me asap. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu Emporia State U. MS Moore, SJ Samuels, Phil 1 Gonzaga U. DH Dingel, Jonathan Hutchison, Charlie 1 Gonzaga U. HW Hahn, Colin White, Sally 1 Gonzaga U. LS Losnegard, Chris Sullivan, Eric 1 Gonzaga U. MW Meuer, Drew Wedeking, Ryan 1 Gonzaga U. OS Otten, Steve Sanders, Michael 1 Lewis and Clark College BEBerg, Brandon Ehrman, Matt 1 Lewis and Clark College SWStill, Amelia Whittaker, Nate 1 Sacramento State U. GA Gordley, Jessica Angulo, Adrienne 1 Southern Illinois U. BG Bellinger, Paul Grant, Cameron 1 U. of Puget Sound GC Gates, Jessica Campbell, Peter 1 U. of Puget Sound HH Howland, JJ Housh, Judy 1 U. of Puget Sound SR Sayre, Mark Ringuette, Ron 1 Western Washington U. ES Evenson, Josh Sweberg, Dean 1 Western Washington U. RC Rydberg, James Cizek, Nick 1 Whitman College BB Bergh, Kathryn Bollinger, Alex 1 Whitman College BO Blank, Thad Olney, Charles 1 Whitman College CB Campbell, Gareth Buntin, Jeff 1 Whitman College GS Guidry, David Schueler, Beth 1 Whitman College MK Marr, Emily Krohn, Kyle 1 Whitman College SN Suni, Eric Rekhi, Nav 1 jim hanson :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From hansonjb Mon Mar 3 21:07:28 2003 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 19:07:28 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] whitman assistant policy position Message-ID: <008c01c2e1fb$41b72e00$1304070a@whitman.edu> Whitman College has a proud tradition of excellence in forensics. The CEDA-NDT portion of our program is strong. We have a strong group of returning students and an excellent recruiting class coming in. Want to work with this highly motivated and talented group of students? Then, consider working as an assistant at our school. We are looking for a dedicated, hard working person who has significant experience in policy debate especially on the national circuit. The position involves the following: 1. Coaching CEDA-NDT teams including managing and engaging in extensive research and doing practice debates and drills with students. 2. Assisting with team administration including expense reports, communication with the director, picking up vans, etc. The position will pay over $17,500 (that is a minimum; the exact amount not set at this time) plus full health insurance plus an opportunity to take a course each semester at Whitman, a top tier undergraduate national liberal arts school. You also receive a computer laptop for your personal and team use for the time you work with the team. We have excellent facilities with 2/3 of a building floor devoted to forensics including four office rooms (plus two storage rooms), 12 desktop computers each with a scanner, 2 high speed laser printers, a folder on our server for all of our debate files, and a portable digital camera for taping debates. If you wish, you can also work for West Coast Publishing. This position pays an additional $7200 and includes managing and editing policy handbooks, presenting lectures at a debate seminar for high school students, and researching and preparing definitions and evidence for a book that teaches novices how to debate. So, with the two positions, you would earn over $24,700-a solid amount given the low cost of living in Walla Walla (example: a one bedroom apartment for $400 per month is very easy to find), a town nestled in a valley near the Blue Mountains in southeast Washington. E-mail me if you are interested in the position and I will send you an application. If you have questions, you can also ask our current assistant, Brian Simmonds at simmonbm at whitman.edu Jim Hanson Director of Forensics Whitman College hansonjb at whitman.edu jim hanson :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From hansonjb Mon Mar 3 22:25:36 2003 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 20:25:36 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] need 1/2 judge for the ndt Message-ID: <00e701c2e206$1d874280$1304070a@whitman.edu> we are looking to hire someone for 4 rounds at the ndt. please email me. jim hanson :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From bgaston76 Mon Mar 3 22:44:58 2003 From: bgaston76 (Bryan Gaston) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 20:44:58 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Need a judge for the NDT! Message-ID: I'm reposting since districts are over and secound rounds should be soon. I'm looking to be hired for the NDT, I can drive somewhere in Kansas or as far south as Dallas to meet, teams driving. I'm located in Oklahoma City, and can fly out from here. Email me if your interested... Bryan Gaston Universtiy of Central Oklahoma Assistant Coach (GA) 405-210-3888 _____________________________________________________________ Get 25MB, POP3, Spam Filtering with LYCOS MAIL PLUS for $19.95/year. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus&ref=lmtplus From scottaherndon Mon Mar 3 23:07:40 2003 From: scottaherndon (Scott Herndon) Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2003 23:07:40 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] D3 thanks and congrats Message-ID: Hello all, Just wanted to say thanks to Susan Stanfield and all the KSU folks (way to go NS!) for a great weekend in Manhattan and for being excellent hosts for the D3 shindig. Another thank you goes to Joel Rollins for running the tab room, keeping us on schedule and, general jolliness. Also, big congrats to all of the qaulifying teams. Special congrats to UNT who showed up for a big 8-o run and, to KU for keeping the streak alive. Rock Chalk! Had a good time, saw some great debates, we will be well represented at the NDT. Thanks again, Scott Herndon UTD _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From BelHomme Mon Mar 3 23:07:31 2003 From: BelHomme (Andy Myers) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 21:07:31 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] POLITIX CITES Message-ID: <0c9f01c2e20b$f5f384d0$0a0d010a@mail2world.com> With the season progressing i was wondering what the best sources for politix info is. I rarely do it so I am wondering if there are any sources that are particularly good to look at. Chief could you email me? Andy _______________________________________________________________ Get the FREE email that has everyone talking at http://www.mail2world.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030303/39c89dee/attachment.htm From phallusjerkins Tue Mar 4 00:44:33 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 01:44:33 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] serious about impeachment Message-ID: none of the above. the "schizo" we is not up your alley tight ass. try the book, anti-oedipus, by deleuze and guattari. the case is there as well for reverse psychological warfare pre-ward churchill and the pathology of pacifism, fyi. we used to quote the text left and right for edabait but those days gone by. the archives got detailed theoretical expositions of the theory in practice. now we just proceed running out time. george dwi bush is trying to blow up the world w www. he's so fuckin wacked. warped worlds produce warped resistance, duane. now we know that you are normal and so is your world but noone really believes you. your wetdream hero is case and point. wacked skull and bones freak who used to dance naked on table-tops @ nazi frat parties for the ruling elite. he was a real jerkoff who abandoned his national guard unit in 'bama goin awol according to the documented and so far undisputed records til he took the helm of the a baseball team to show of his "leader" stuff. oh yeah, he was with another big corp b4 that and cashed in on his employees retirement like a real american, freemason leader who won't flinch @ the infliction of suffering on his own people. afterwards he sent a 70+ year old lady to the electric chair along w a record number of state-sponsored murders authorized by a bloodthirsty fuckstain governor who has a criminal record w 4 arrests including BURGLARLY, VANDALISM, DWI, and of course POSSESSION OF COCAINE. we're gonna lynch "king lynch" in a grassroots impeachment. wacked hitlerian imitators and their wacked worlds create manifold wackness of strata and explosive fault lines of which you are nothing but afraid. duane is wacked too. he just thinks because his asshole is tight that he is normal. a big-time illusion that on societal level manifests as the insane slaughter of innocent civilians b/c duane and his kind gotta blow their cum-shooting military cockguns bombarded by the doldrums of their straight-laced safety and homeland security. if the weak iraqi pussies who have a third the size army they had last time and have been 99% of their WMDs already, if these pussies are not shredded into dog meat by overwhelming military superiority, then duane would have nothing to fake normal about w his sinister rhetoric which is all the more sinister the more it pretends to sanitize US sponsored mass murder w amicable dabait in the search 4 the truth. good night duane you are fucking stain of normality in the matrix of social hygeine. kinds like duane crumble under the military drum roll for a police state b/c their lives are so lame that they just don't know how to mind their own business. go kill more MILLIONS of iraqis duane w mr dwi, duane, that'll solve for your emotional depravity.... >From: Duane Hyland >To: Phallus Jerkins , edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: Re: [eDebate] serious about impeachment >Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:25:51 -0800 (PST) > >Uhmmm..Phallus, just so I know, when we dialouge again..who is the "we" you >keep referring to? Is this an indication of an affliction? Or is the royal >we? Or do you speak for a group? 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 _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From phallusjerkins Tue Mar 4 01:25:29 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 02:25:29 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] trainstoppers arrested Message-ID: Some 50 belgian, dutch and french activists are being arrested in Mersele, near Anterwepen (Belgium). They were preparing themself to block trains transporting american weapons to Anterwep port, for war in Irak. Twenty minutes ago, they were barricading themselves, because cops came with dogs and an helicopter. Among them, a group of mediactivist from Indymedia (Belgium, West-Vlaanderen, Lille), filming the arrestation from the inside. At this time, I got no more news, signs that they have being arrested and can't use cell phone. One of our comrades is among them. I try to find more news : http://lille.indymedia.org/ Nico +++++++++++++++ Une cinquantaine d'activistes belges, fran?ais et n?erlandais sont en train de se faire arr?ter ? Mersele, ? proximit? d'Antwerpen / Anvers (Belgique). R?unis au Centre paroissial, ils s'appretaient ? bloquer des trains d'armement am?ricain qui doivent transiter par le port d'Anvers pour la guerre en Irak. Parmi eux, des mediactivistes d'Indymedia (Belgique, West-Vlanderen, Lille, Nice), qui sont en train de filmer l'arrestatioin de l'int?rieur. Les policiers les entourent et les activistes sont en train d'essayer de barricader. Les chiens policiers n'ont plus leurs museli?res, mais pour l'instant ne se montrent pas aggressifs. Un h?licopt?re vole ? basse altitude et filme. J'essaie d'avoir plus de nouvelles le plus vite possible. Nico, Indymedia-Lille lille.indymedia.org _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From debatekorea Tue Mar 4 02:45:46 2003 From: debatekorea (Jason Jarvis) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 03:45:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ISO: Helen Morgan Message-ID: I need an email address for Helen, anyone at UVM or elsewhere able to provide me with info? thanks, 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 _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From privethedge Tue Mar 4 07:17:36 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 05:17:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] serious about impeachment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030304131736.31899.qmail@web10010.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, I see......Thanks for....uhm...enlightening me. I guess me and my lame ass life will just go set down and have a beer now. 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/20030304/aac8dea6/attachment.html From jhutchin Tue Mar 4 08:36:01 2003 From: jhutchin (Jeremy Hutchins) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 08:36:01 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] JCCC / NJDDT Entries Update Message-ID: More entries coming in. Norhtern Iowa is looking for a hybrid partner in Junior Varsity and Western Illinois is looking for a hybrid partner in novice. If anyone is interested, let me know and I can put you in contact with each of the coaches. Tentative numbers -- 25 teams in Junior Varsity; 8 teams in novice. Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Junior Varsity Susan Piekarski and Libby Simas Judges Alan Razee 4 Augustana Junior Varsity 1-2 Teams Novice 1 Team Emporia State University Junior Varsity Austin Case and Tiara Naputi Dustin Rimmey and Chad Woolard Judges Sam Maurer 4 James Taylor 4 Johnson County Community College Junior Varsity April Jones and Candice Moore Derek Crocker and Andy Myers Mandy Trood and Aaron Williams Chris Baize and Robert Smyth Kansas State University Junior Varsity Dan Stout and Adam Flagg Judges Casey Arbenz 4 Pace University Junior Varsity 2 Teams Novice 1 Team Judges Southeastern Louisiana University Junior Varsity Amy Hadid and Emily Ritchey Novice Zack Wagner and Erdin Guma Caine Ritchey and Holly Bissonette Sabah Ahmed and player tba Judges Ashley Smith 6 Terri Miller 6 (novice) Eric Marlow 6 Southern Utah University Junior Varsity Amanda Cornelius and Kayce Rose Judges Kara Dillard 4 University of Central Oklahoma Junior Varsity Adam Adkisson and James Davis Drew Lawson and Justin Schuffert Geneva Murray and Lindsey Shook Novice Ish Kissinger and Stevie Lorrance Judges Jason Stone 4 (No 4 or 8) Bryan Gaston 4 (No 4 or 8) Brain Campbell 8 University of Denver Junior Varsity Jared Adams and Lee Morehead Judges Stephani Gerali 4 University of Kansas University of Northern Iowa Junior Varsity Melanie Johnson and Michelle Kelsey Nate Fredericks -- Looking for a hybrid partner Novice Kelsey Harr and Kim Adams Judges Cate Palczewski Melissa Peterson Cori Kuhn (maybe) University of Wisconsin Oshkosh Junior Varsity Rachel Raskin and Scott Coulson Judges Doug Roubidoux 4 Western Illinois University Junior Varsity Mark Hlavacik and Chris Wood Novice ? -- Looking for a hybrid partner Judges Ilon Lauer 4-6 Wichita State University Junior Varsity Erica Johnson and Zach Wiggins Kathleen Doris and Martha Moon Phil Bouska and Amanda Wasson Judges: Chris Kenyon 6 (No Macalester) Jessica Perkins 6 From jwpatt00 Tue Mar 4 09:19:21 2003 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:19:21 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] TOC: Updates Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 1090 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030304/a2ec0b43/attachment.bin From miaminicki Tue Mar 4 09:20:58 2003 From: miaminicki (Nicole Colston) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 15:20:58 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Thanks! Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030304/23b7ca79/attachment.html From jrollins Tue Mar 4 09:44:19 2003 From: jrollins (Joel D. Rollins) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 09:44:19 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] D-3 results Message-ID: 1 UNT PP (Nirav Patel & Johnny Prieur) 8-0, 23 ballots 2 UT MB (Kuldeep Brar & Alex More) 7-1, 20 ballots 3 KSU NS (Melissa Newton & Michael Shultz) 6-2. 16 ballots 4 UT LJ (John Long & Spencer Johnson) 5-3, 15 ballots 5 KU CS (Matt Cormack & Lindsey Simonsen) 5-3, 15 ballots 6 KU JT (Todd Jordan & Jordan Tinsley) 5-3, 14 ballots 7 Emporia State CS (Austin Case and David Register) 5-3, 12 ballots ------------- 1st alt Emporia State MS (SJ Moore & Phil Samuels) 4-4, 14 ballots 2nd alt Fort Hays MR (Paul Mabrey & Michael Richardson) 4-4, 14 ballots Thanks to Susan Stanfield and the entire KSU crew for hosting! Joel From jwpatt00 Tue Mar 4 09:59:54 2003 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:59:54 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] TOC: HOPKINS, VESTAVIA HILLS, AND MAINE EAST Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 4808 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030304/367dc20e/attachment.bin From Bill_Southworth Tue Mar 4 09:54:11 2003 From: Bill_Southworth (Southworth, Bill) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 07:54:11 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Fall Tournament Schedule! Message-ID: I realize this may seem rather early to request likely dates for 2003 Fall Tournaments. However, given the NEW airline policy of requiring rescheduling the day of flight cancellation it becomes increasingly important to have options. If those of you who are confident of dates would so post it would be most helpful! From SSbauschard2 Tue Mar 4 10:46:03 2003 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:46:03 EST Subject: [eDebate] Final ADA Team List Message-ID: <1c7.61e8bb9.2b96324b@aol.com> Varsity Army Elliot Press & Adam Scher Army Will Felder & Ian Fleischman Army Adam Karr & Ricky Waters Army James Leidenberg & Ryan Sullivan Boston College Ben Bireley & Kevin Shatzkin Catholic Matt Dunn & Mike Pomorski Catholic Paul Strait & Patrick Waldinger Catholic Kerry Coleman & Melissa Ku Clarion Andrew Barnes & Nicki Williams George Mason Allison Harper & Matthias Bostick Georgetown Andy Nolan & Sofia Vickery Liberty Jeremy Samek & Steve Trask John Carroll Mike Grossman & Erika Thomas Navy Sale Lilly & Doug Robb Trinity Jamie Downing & Shannon Lynch U of Rochester John Vermitsky & Christy Webster Wayne State Mike Weitz & Matt Farmer Wayne State Jay Johnson & DM Boykin Junior Varsity Boston College Matthew Hays & Jim Smith Boston College Jeffrey Sullivan & Joe Bowden Capital John Koch & John Swords Capital Chris Piazza & Angie Naugle Capital Laren Raymer & Mike Jones Case Western Reserve Nick Dorsey & Mark Tolles Catholic Steve Sawyer & Suzie Catania Catholic Lauren Baillie & Jeff Pope Catholic Nicole Rementer & Zach Johnson Catholic Hunter Beaton & Steve Martano Catholic Vince Cannizzaro & Oksana Makarova Cornell Jeff Granillo & Kerry McBroom Fordham Asha Cherian & Reggie Martin George Mason Ben Fink & Amanda Kimble Ithaca Ben Garvey & Al Sahlstrom John Carroll Matt Gayetsky & Tasha Forchione John Carroll Amber Thomas & Nelson Wainwright King's College Mike Brady & Joe McCulloch Liberty Josh Autry & Justin Dewberry Liberty Brian Aurelio & Jess Surratt Liberty Alyse Kraus & Stephen Lind Liberty Jonathan Day & Elisha Nix Liberty Andrew Burnham & David Klinedist Marist Scott Perrell & Brian Mangan JV Marist Matt Gardner & Kaitlin Rogan JV Mary Washington John Nagy & Carly Woods Mary Washington Ali Samantar & Adrianne Barnett Mary Washington Joseph Packer & Jennifer Golladay Michigan Dearborn Amit Sachdev & Laura Farmsp Navy Jessica Barrientos & Jon Smith Navy Jon Kindel & John Burger U of Richmond Fiona McCarthy & Andrew Ryan U of Rochester Cedric Logan & Elizabeth Gaskell U of Rochester Nafees Nuruddin & Karim Oussayef U of Rochester Tom Marples & Steve D'Amico U of Rochester Ilana Kaplan-Shain & Anna Czapla Wake Patrick Jackson & Danielle Brudi Novice Army Allison Pan & Boon Park Army Jared Wayne :& Matt Hicks Army Carlos Alverez & Matt Bazemore Binghamton Ravi Gupta & Jeff Klein Capital Elycia Taylor & Julie Barnhill Catholic Dori Leonard & Kerri Allen Catholic Meghan O'Brien & Carly Shoupe Clarion Erin Witner & Nancy Nelson Clarion Kim Kelly & Jeremy Murphy Clarion Ann Godfrey & Rob Noerr Cornell Timothy D'Auria & Justin Schoenberg Cornell Tripty Arya & Neelu Toor Cornell Aaron Franklin & David Early Cornell Vincent Lee & Wee Lee Loh Fordham Sean Jaques and Megan Tweed George Mason Jeannine Mohler & Sharon Lee John Carroll Megan DeLeon & Pete Arconti Liberty Kelly Azevedo & Grace Burns Liberty Lindsey Hoban & Melissa Hurter Liberty Jared Isham & Andrew Lindblom Liberty Matt Case & Dana Foglesong Marist Robin Westlund & Matt Hannon N Mary Washington Rebecca Sklepovich & Jennifer Rollman Mary Washington Raya Drew & Leslie Wyatt Navy Tom Sauer & Gavin Whittle U of Rochester Theresa Spaulding & Emily Desmond Wake David Coons & Josh Traeger Wake Betsy Margarit & Derek Shore -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030304/16c90854/attachment.html From tshuman Tue Mar 4 10:55:34 2003 From: tshuman (Terrance Shuman) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 10:55:34 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Job Openings Update Message-ID: <003101c2e26e$dfb42400$3401a8c0@bishopleblond.com> It has been several weeks since I posted the original invitation to advertise HS coaching vacancies for 2003-2004 in the Coaching Forum on cross-x.com: HYPERLINK "http://cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25790"http://cross-x.c om/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, Florida, Georgia, Nebraska, Arkansas, Minnesota, Louisiana, Washington (state), and Oregon have been posted, and the thread has been viewed more than 2,800 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 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 242 - Release Date: 12/17/2002 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030304/cb15b44a/attachment.htm From alfred.snider Tue Mar 4 10:51:33 2003 From: alfred.snider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 11:51:33 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA East Champs results Message-ID: CEDA EAST REGION AWARDS Best Program: Binghamton Coach of the Year: Trond Jacobson, Cornell Director of the Year: Joe Schatz, Binghamton Michael K. Davis CEDA East Debater of the Year: Christy Webster, Rochester MOST PREFERRED JUDGE AT THE TOURNAMENT: Joe Schatz, Binghamton Underlined judges are chairs, not dissenting votes. VARSITY SEMIFINALS LAFAYETTE 108 TEAMS: 1 NYU SF 3-0 vs. 4 NYU/Columbia LM JUDGES: No panel LAFAYETTE 200 TEAMS: 2 USMA FF vs. 3 Rochester ON 3-0 JUDGES: Prabhu, Merrill, Keenan JUNIOR VARSITY SEMIFINALS LAFAYETTE 311 TEAMS: 1 Rochester KC vs. 4 Cornell MG 2-1 JUDGES: Hoag, Ellis, Ramsey LAFAYETTE 308 TEAMS: 2 Marist PG 3-0 vs. 3 Marist/Bard NH JUDGES: No panel NOVICE QUARTERFINALS LAFAYETTE 210 TEAMS: 1 Vermont KV 2-1 vs. 8 Cornell DK JUDGES: Schatz, Llano, Ketsdever LAFAYETTE 411 TEAMS: 4 Binghamton GF vs. 5 USMA WH 2-1 JUDGES: Egizi, Schnurer, Myers LAFAYETTE 408 TEAMS: 3 Rochester SD vs. 6 Vermont MM 2-1 JUDGES: Gardner, Sawyer L, Moore LAFAYETTE 400 TEAMS: 2 Rochester VM 2-1 vs. 7 USMA PP JUDGES: O'Brien, Jewers, Sweeney VARSITY FINALS LAF 108 TEAMS: NYU SF 3-0 vs. Rochester ON JUDGES: Sweeney, Hoag, Sawyer L JV FINALS LAF 311 TEAMS: Marist PG vs. Cornell MG 3-0 JUDGES: Ketsdever, Llano, Myers NOVICE SEMIS LAF 210 TEAMS: Vermont KV 3-0 vs. USMA WH JUDGES: Prabhu, Patrice, Ellis LAF 400 TEAMS: Vermont MM 3-0 vs. Rochester VM JUDGES: Rubino, Moore, Schnurer NOVICE FINALS LAF 210 TEAMS: Vermont MM Vermont KV close out JUDGES: Top ten varsity speakers 1. Hill, Vermont 2. Langsweirdt, Vermont 3. Feeley, NYU 4. Nuruddin, Rochester 5. Felder, USMA 6. Moin, NYU/Columbia 7. Schramm, NYU 8. Lie, NYU/Columbia 9. Fleischman, USMA 10. Sullivan, USMA Top ten junior varsity speakers 1. Subramanian, Rochester 2. Wang, Cornell 3. Murray, Cornell 4. Kaplan-Shain, Rochester 5. Gamrat, Marist 6. Czapla, Rochester 7. Granillo, Columbia 8. Garvey, Ithaca 9. Owusu, Vermont 10. Angus, West Virginia Top ten novice speakers 1. Kern, Vermont 2. Varela, Vermont 3. Vanykov, Rochester 4. Reimer, Vermont 5. Hicks, USMA 6. Wayne, USMA 7. Ryan, USMA 8. Pan, USMA 9. Spaulding, Rochester 10. Melander, Vermont Thanks to all! 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/20030304/b386a785/attachment.html From dbteam Tue Mar 4 11:06:14 2003 From: dbteam (dbteam) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:06:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] $100 for 3 rounds at the NDT Message-ID: <3E2E07D1@cliff.westga.edu> UWG needs to hire a judge for 3 rounds at the NDT. We'll pay $100 cash and provide housing if necessary. let me know asap if you're interested. hester From grindy22 Tue Mar 4 11:27:39 2003 From: grindy22 (matt grindy) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 17:27:39 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Bama Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030304/396ae410/attachment.htm From kkuswa Tue Mar 4 11:40:03 2003 From: kkuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:40:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Fall Tournament Schedule! Message-ID: <3E4CF12D@webmail.richmond.edu> Hi Bill, Richmond will be the Sat-Mon of Oct 12,13,14. We'd love to see some California teams--it will be 8 rounds. kevin >===== Original Message From "Southworth, Bill" ===== >I realize this may seem rather early to request likely dates for 2003 Fall >Tournaments. However, given the NEW airline policy of requiring >rescheduling the day of flight cancellation it becomes increasingly >important to have options. If those of you who are confident of dates would >so post it would be most helpful! > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From jwpatt00 Tue Mar 4 11:56:09 2003 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:56:09 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] KY: Tourney Dates 03-04 Message-ID: In response to several inquiries, I am posting the 2003-2004 dates for both the Kentucky collegiate and high school tournaments. COLLEGIATE DATES Henry Clay Debates - October 4-6 KY Round Robin - October 1-2 HIGH SCHOOL DATES Ohio Valley - December 6-8 TOC - May 1-3, 2004 Sincerely, J.W. Patterson From omri Tue Mar 4 11:59:03 2003 From: omri (Omri Ceren) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:59:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] In defense of Ted Turner- K debaters get the shaft In-Reply-To: <200303011754.MAA24967@webmail8.cac.psu.edu> Message-ID: <3E64A317.30812.4FC21E9@localhost> On 1 Mar 2003 at 12:54, ANDREW CHARLES BANDUCCI wrote: > discussion a foucauldian criticism is a waste of time. It seems > he's also against the idea of evidence sharing. This guy is the > secretary of the nfl. No wonder there's a backlash. If you really > want to make a difference in college debate, take time away from > your intellectual masturbation about iraq and innundate mr. james > copeland with angry comments. oh, and encourage K's and Good thinking. Take some time away from arguing about whether or not the United States should engage in a major war which will either redraw the face of the most turbulent area of the globe or trigger all out world war in order to advocate Foucauldian criticism in high school debate. You rebel you. > performance the high school level. better high school debate makes > for better and more open college debate. This is difficult for me to say, but I can't even begin to mobolize the sarcasm to describe what I think about the idea of increasing performance debate in high school. So I'll let people smarter than me do it for me by analogy: "It's a Jump to Conclusions Mat! You see, you have this mat, with different CONCLUSIONS written on it that you could JUMP TO!" "That is the worst idea I've ever heard!" "Yes, this is horrible, this idea!" 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 swhalen Tue Mar 4 12:08:02 2003 From: swhalen (Shawn Whalen) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 10:08:02 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Need contact regarding CEDA Nationals Message-ID: <3E64EB82.9090308@sfsu.edu> If your institution is listed below, you have entered the CEDA National Tournament through the online system, but I have not received a mailed entry yet nor have I heard from anyone saying that the entry would be a few days late. It is entirely possible that the entry may still be intransit, but I'd like to get your certified mail numbers so I can track your entries. If you are listed below, it is imperative that the director of your program contact me immediately. Loyola University Chicago University of Wyoming University of Alabama Georgia State University West Point Marist College Shawn Whalen From dbteam Tue Mar 4 12:52:05 2003 From: dbteam (dbteam) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:52:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] $100 for 3 rounds at the NDT Message-ID: <3E2E197E@cliff.westga.edu> UWG has found a judge. thanks for the inquiries From gsudebate Tue Mar 4 13:08:36 2003 From: gsudebate (Joe Bellon) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:08:36 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Fall Tournament Schedule! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Georgia State University's fall opener will be Sept. 20-22. We will have 8 rounds, 2 divisions (open & varsity), and plenty of hospitality. More details much, much later. -Joe Bellon Director of Debate Georgia State University -- From acb221 Tue Mar 4 13:35:24 2003 From: acb221 (Andy Ride the ATrain Banducci) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 14:35:24 -0500 (EST) Subject: [eDebate] In defense of Ted Turner- K debaters get the shaft Message-ID: <200303041935.OAA11360@webmail4.cac.psu.edu> Omri seems to take the path of least resistence, and responds to me through sarcasm. Thats cool, and I certainly respect his opinion, but I'll respond: > > Good thinking. Take some time away from arguing about whether or not the > United States should engage in a major war which will either redraw the face > of the most turbulent area of the globe or trigger all out world war in order to > advocate Foucauldian criticism in high school debate. You rebel you. WOW. I didn't realize that we were the actual policy makers!! I didn't know that our debate was incredibly crucial to the policy of the Bush Administration (which i support, by the way). Silly me, I thought it might be more important to engage in debate and activism about what is good for the activity- something that we actually do have the agency to change in a very literal sense. Yes, debating about Iraq policy is important and I'm not attempting to restrict speech or anything remotely like that, but when policy debate is coming under direct fire from the secretary of the National Forensics League, I would think that the college debate community might have something to say about it. I don't see how it benefits collegiate debate to reject entire lines of argumentation. It's not a matter of being a rebel (I certainly am not one), its a matter of being concerned for the future of the activity. > This is difficult for me to say, but I can't even begin to mobolize the sarcasm > to describe what I think about the idea of increasing performance debate in > high school. So I'll let people smarter than me do it for me by analogy: Yes, I've seen bad performance/kritik debating in high school. I've also seen absolutely atrocious politics debating in high school "When the president threatens to move the white house and the congress out of Washington DC, he's losing his political capital" - that's just as ridiculous as your Mat analogy. So all that you've said is that high school argumentation is inferior to college argumentation. Agreed for the most part. If you really want to make better debaters: 1. GET INVOLVED- work with high school kids, show them good techniques, good arguments, and teach them skills. and 2. Even if you don't like kritiks or performance, its undeniable that at some point in their high school or college career, a debater will face this type of argument. Why not teach them at least some techniques to engage the criticism, instead of just saying "we shouldn't debate Foucaut because his arguements are counterintuitive/stupid/its the wrong forum" etc. If you don't like these types of arguments, then teach high school kids how to engage the criticism and show how its wrong- don't dumb down debate by imposing standardized argumentation. Andy Banducci PSU Debate From wnewnam Tue Mar 4 13:46:05 2003 From: wnewnam (Bill Newnam) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 14:46:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NDT "registrations" Message-ID: <3E65027D.1ADC19F@emory.edu> Hello folks, Well, you have sent in your bid applications, your district chairs have sent at least the initial of the teams that are qualifying, and now you have sent in the second round applications. But, wait, THERE's MORE!!!! We need to receive what are labeled NDT "application forms", which are actually REGISTATION forms that are necessary for two purposes, a wonderful booklet featuring the full and complete names of all students, directors, and judges participating in the tournament. And, we need to do an estimated meal count. And, I know that some of you have personal dietary restrictions which we would love to take into consideration. SO, I need the forms that have you list the debaters, the directors, and those judging for your school. I hope to bring the booklet to the printer immediately after second round bids are announced. SO, If you are part of the enormous silent majority not included below, leave the silent masses. MAKE YOURSELVES KNOWN! Send in your Registration forms, aka, ndt application forms, to myself, Cate Palcewski, and Donn Parson. If you have questions, please let me know. Forms received so far: Dartmouth (LT/ST) Georgetown University (VN) James Madison University (LM) Michigan (OF) Pepperdine (OH) Samford University (PR) University of Pittsburgh (JT) University of Redlands (AS) University of Richmond (MS) Look forward to seeing your smiling faces in Atlanta, bill n emory From harrissr Tue Mar 4 14:05:41 2003 From: harrissr (Sean Harris) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:05:41 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Does anyone know anything about Lacan? Message-ID: <001901c2e289$7012c370$612579a5@DJ28FN11> Yeah, why bother to attend class when you might learn something about Lacan? Pace Course Catalog, page 270: LIT 329 Post Structuralist Theory. 3 credits. PREREQUISITE: LIT 212 (formerly ENG 112). (NYC: Se) An introduction to the discourses that have shaped contemporary theories of the text: deconstruction, feminism, Marxism, psychoanalysis, reception theory, Semiotics. ----------------------------------------------------------- David Vanette says: My apologies for this small waste fo bandwidth. I was just wondering, I mean, with all the k debaters we have in this community and philosophy majors/PHd grads, if anyone can send me some cites to works of Jacques Lacan and maybe give me a hand with understanding his thoughts in relation to utopian policies. With all the good reasons not to go to class(attendance requirements, high prices, pointless lectures straight from the 125 dollar text book, that decides they want to sit next to you despite the 35 other empty seats in a class fit for 50 and the 45 minute commute) one wonders, is there really a point to actually attending, maintaining academic dependent debate scholarships aside? David Vanette Pace Debate 02-03 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030304/195825fd/attachment.html From dperkins Tue Mar 4 14:08:50 2003 From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:08:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: [eDebate] Fall Tournament Schedule! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The Harvard Tournament will be held on October 25-27, 2003. dp From blackdebateguy Tue Mar 4 14:12:52 2003 From: blackdebateguy (doug dennis) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:12:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] ndt judge Message-ID: <20030304201252.83982.qmail@web40410.mail.yahoo.com> if you need one, backchannel me. doug dennis --------------------------------- 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/20030304/f1341d1f/attachment.htm From frappier Tue Mar 4 14:19:53 2003 From: frappier (Frappier, Glen) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 12:19:53 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Gonzaga Tournament-- Message-ID: Gonzaga will be hosting a west coast season opener Sept. 20-22, 2003. In addition to all the D2 schools, we've already heard from a large number of out of district teams who plan on attending. We will offer 8 preliminary rounds and 2 or 3 divisions of debate (still undecided). I will also personally guarantee some of the most outstanding hospitality you'll ever experience (those of you who remember Slusher and I back in our days as hospitality committee for The Jesuit Round Robin and The Saluki know I take my hospitality very seriously). Flights to Spokane are fairly inexpensive. Regardless of where you're flying from you will never pay over $300 from ANY major airport in the nation. We usually don't pay over $250. Final perk...the tournament hotel is a leisurely 10-15 minute stroll along the river from the buildings rounds will be held in. The hotel is also adjacent to our downtown area. Basically, you won't have to rent a vehicle if you fly in. I'll send out a complete invite sometime after the ndt. I really hope many of you consider joining us in September. Glen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030304/1b389ed3/attachment.html From kkuswa Tue Mar 4 14:26:16 2003 From: kkuswa (Kevin Kuswa) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:26:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Room Share for ADA/Novice Hybrid for Towson? Message-ID: <042b01c2e28c$4ee62680$2774a68d@richmond.edu> Hi all. 1. We have space for one female at the ADA tournament hotel in Boston. If interested, contact me. 2. We are looking for a novice debater to go hybrid with a UR debater at the TOWSON tournament. 3. is there a rough team list for novice nationals at NWU? thanks, kevin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030304/b36bf64b/attachment.htm From rgallo Tue Mar 4 14:46:01 2003 From: rgallo (rgallo at arches.uga.edu) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:46:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Georgia CK 2nd round application Message-ID: <1046810761.smmsdV1.1.2@mail.arches.uga.edu> Wanted to post Georgia CK's application to edebate because several committee members have had trouble reading the application. Sorry to waste bandwidth for everyone else, just wanted to make sure the committee members had a clean copy. If anyone has any problems reading this, please backchannel me. Thanks! RYAN -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 53251 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030304/f03c46e1/attachment.obj From let_the_american_empire_burn Tue Mar 4 15:44:19 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 15:44:19 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] to those who are pro-war and oh-so-concerned for the Iraqi people Message-ID: there's so many pro-war phallacies floating around that i don't know where to begin, but i'd first like to give a shout-out to Turkey for proving that sometimes when a majority of people are against something no amount of money can buy their votes. the parliamentary system may still have a few populist surprises in it yet - let's see what happens with the UK. _ as for this Amir guy, more than Iraqi exiles who support war, what got silenced in the States is the Left's pleas to lift the sanctions on the Iraqis so that hundreds of thousands of innocent people didn't needlessly die of malnutrition and disease throughout the 90s, after the imperial military dropped 88,000 tons of explosives on Iraq because that country's fuckwit of a leader annexed an adjacent oil-rich territory without asking the USA's permission first. mr. Shuman would have us believe that each and every one of those bombs was filled with compassionate conservativism, that the cancer-causing uraninum bullets were fired in love, but i choose to think differently. how many times are war-mongerers gonna sell us the 'this is a war of liberation' lie, and how many times are ordinary people gonna buy what these idiots are selling? even Iraqis wouldn't eat propaganda this tasteless. (what was T-bone saying about Americans and their gift of 'long-term memory'?) didn't LBJ say he was going to liberate Vietnam only to precipitate an invasion that killed over 2 million Southest Asians? wasn't WWII given the post-mordem plastic surgery of being 'a war to save the Jews', even when boatloads of Jewish emigrantes were returned to Germany and gassed in death camps, even as FDR refused to make bringing the Holocaust-machine to a halt a war priority? can decades of post-war, Allied occupation ever make up for Dresden or Hiroshima? and didn't the war to liberate the Philipines from brutal colonial rule turn into a blood-bath where 20,000 freedom-fighters were tortured and butchered? welcome to Amnesaic America. every previous empire has talked of 'peace' and 'freedom' in order to convince their people to go along with unnecessary wars fought for economic conquest and geo-political dominance, but for some unknown reason this empire is considered an exception to three thousand years of humyn history? (the prophet Ezekiel speaking of Israel the First, long about 6th century BCE: "You have been more unruly than the nations around you and have not followed my decrees or kept my laws. You have not even conformed to the standards of the nations around you. ... You lead my people astray, saying 'Peace,' when there is no peace, and when a flimsy wall is built, you cover it with whitewash; but tell those who cover it with whitewash that it is going to fall." (5:7, 13:10.) Ezekiel then went on to predict the collapse of Israel and Rome.) so where the fuck was Bush the First when opposition forces were set to overthrow Saddam Hussien? he was promising support and then watching folks get massacred because Saddam was viewed as a force of 'regional stability'. so if this is really about WMDs, why didn't Bush the First accept Saddam's offer to disarm himself of bio-chemical weapons (as long as Israel followed suit) when he was still a trusted ally (12 April 1990)? if this is about torture, why doesn't the USA put similar pressures on Egypt and Saudi Arabia to ban torture? if this is about toppling a military dictatorship, why is the USA cozying up to Pakistan even as their leaders have direct ties to al-Aqeda and are selling their nuclear technologies to the highest bidder (which is probably how North Korea got nukes, by the way)? if this is about violated UN resolutions, why is the USA still giving tens of billions of dollars in military aid to Israel, a country which also has a clandestine nuclear program (in violation of Resolution 687) and refuses to withdrawal from annexed territories (in violation of Resolution 242)? no, not one of these moronic explanations makes a bit of sense, and anyone whose patriotism hasn't cut off the blood going to their frontal lobes should be capable of a little skepticism here. but most Americans can't seem to see through the lies because the corpses of their fellow Americans who died on 9/11 have not been allowed to rest in peace; they're trotted out for whatever new adventure the administration cooks up: "Fair citizens, we reserve the right to invade any country which we tell you is sponsoring terrorism, not for any financial gain, but in the interests of world peace. Trust us, the Capsian oil pipeline had nothing to do with why we overthrew the Taliban. We did it to get al-Qaeda (and nevermind that we relied on an air campaign that allowed al-Qaeda to escape and that we permitted Pakistani intelligence to evacuate thousands of al-Qaeda into Pakistan). We did it to liberate womyn (and nevermind that we kiss Saudi Arabias misoygnistic ass-cheeks and that the Revolutionary Organization of Womyn in Afghanistan publicly condemned the bombing raids a week after they began). We're liberators, and the lives of thousands of innocent civilians are only a small price to pay, right?" Americans gobble this shit up - brings a tear to every patriotic eye: oh the Land of Liberty that selflessly demonizes and conquers all threats to Western interests. so, Shumyn, if there's an 'exiled Iraqis in support of war' protest going on somewhere, please let me know. but until this country accepts responsibility for its past atrocities, until it refrains from indiscriminately slaughtering civilians (and is willing to put massive ground forces where its mouth is), and until it acts in an ethiclly consisent manner, i refuse to acknowledge it as a credible world leader. looking at history juxtaposed with the present, i offer what should be common-sense, that you can't trust this empire to do what's right by the Iraqis. but whatever your position on the inevitable war to come, you can't insult the integrity of those who are willing to die (not kill!) for their beliefs, and the people who are willingly participating in humyn shields are heroic, not stupid. they're not supporting Saddam Hussien; they're protesting the ariel bombardment of civilian populations, a truly evil practice which will most likely continue long after Hussien is dead. and the 'we're gonna do what we gotta do'-response from the military is what's relaly repugnant. Operation Humyn Shield is a global statement against WMDs no matter who uses them or for what reason, and their hoping to prick the consciences of those who are disconnected from the horrorific realities of the war to follow. and if this Amir fella is so willing to watch his former compatriots die in mass, then he can go back to Iraq and blow himself to smitherines. otherwise, here's hoping his book sells. (you know, they call it an anti-war rally for a reason; because the folks who show up there are kinda suppose to be anti-fucking-war.) _ T the In(s)humyn: "Another underappreciated irony is that we wouldn't even be HAVING this conversation if we had just thrown the dumb bastard out the FIRST time we went over there. We didn't, of course, because H.W. didn't want to appear too 'warlike.'" seeing as Bush the First courted the image of being a strong military leader (after a public perception of being weak due to his 'kinder, gentler nation' remark), i don't find your foreign policy analysis here up to par. Bush Sr.'s administration knew that a war to overthrow Saddam Hussien's regime would make the USA 'an occupying army in a foreign land' (that exact phrase was used by Bush in a post-war interview). the established foreign policy for the past decade had been to quietly (though significantly) throw support to Saddam Hussien, which basically meant that the USA officials were as scared shitless as Saddam that the Shitte Muslim majority would come to power in Iraq. (and this anti-Muslim fear explains why the USA is deploying American troops before first trying to fund (democratic!) opposition groups - they're still worried that Iraq will become another Iran, not out of concern for the people or anything, but because, no matter how representative the Shittes would be of the total Iraqi population, they'd most likely make decisions that'd counter Western oil/security interests.) Saddam was always a secular, business-first kinda-guy, and that was his ultimate undoing - he got a little too good, and started thinking like the USA when it annexed Hawaii: 'Hey, that territory over there looks pretty sweet; i think i'll call the Kuwaitis who want to be a part of Iraq 'freedom-fighters' (and those who disagrees with them 'traitors'), and throw some Iraqi flags around'. nothing about gassing the Kurds or pre-emptively striking Iran or torturing his own people would have counted much against Saddam if he hadn't tried to annex Kuwait and thereby become a threat to USA dominance of the region. (when Turkey dispossessed and massacred the Kurds, next to nothing was said about it in the mainstream media here, or at least nothing compared to what they're blaming Saddam for today, even though most Kurds will tell you that Turkey treated them much worse than Iraq. i still think they deserve their own nation-state, and many Kurdish rebels might be considered traitors for their opposition to the 'one-Iraq' policy.) people say this is a 'rush to war', but really this was a well-time set up here; you've gotta appreciate this decade of deception - you eliminate the educated middle classes by sanctioning the country into starvation, you encourage opposition groups to revolt and then watch them die in the desert while you back out of promises made to assist them, you selectively quote international humyn rights groups' reports about the country you're isolating while ignoring what's written in those reports about your own allies and while forgetting that you didn't do dick about these crimes when you had the chance to stop them, you kick up a fuss about disarmament so that any weapons this country destroys can't be used to repel an invading army, and so what you've effectively done is destabilize and make defenseless a country to the point where you can sell an occupation anytime you want. this was done to Iraq, but this imperialistic tactic could work for almost any country designated by any administration in the immediate future - Duane and Terrance and Jeff are talking about Iraq, but they could just as easily be talking about Syria or Sudan or Pakistan or North Korea or a whole host of other countries: the Right will back whatever administration proposes this type shit because war is generally good for business (once its over, that is) and the Left will back em because whomever is in charge is probably a humyn-rights-violating tyrant. to counter those who argue that 'terrorists strike America because they're jealous of our freedoms', i think the Dubya administration might be a little jealous of Saddam Hussien here - instead of simply detaining and interrogating people without trial, i'm sure this administration would love to torture and murder opposition forces, and without the threat of a media backlash. luckily for the controllers, however, in America, the dissent is nowhere near as powerful, and they can be patronized into irrelevance (Ari Fleisher says, 'Protest is a time-honored tradition, and be thankful that you live in a country where you're allowed to protest (because here it won't make a bit of differance anyway - ha! ha! ha!).') mr. Parcher sums up all the contradictions succintly: "Pakistan is an ally. We shouldn't treat allies the same as enemies with regard to proliferation. Obviously, your sworn enemy is much greater threat." but i thought this was a new era of terror where proliferation anywhere means that we're fucked everywhere: Pakistan sold nuclear technology to North Korea and will probably sell more such technology to Iran, and Pakistan most likely got their nuke-knowledge from China - meanwhile, who knows where Russian nukes or radiological materials will end up? - and remember, you can make bio-chemical weapons in bath-tub-sized labs located in the back of Winnebagos. most days, the USA has a lot of trouble separting the allies from the sworn enemies: Iraq in 1990, an ally; Iraq in 1991, a sworn enemy - Pakistan in 1999, a sworn enemy; Pakistan in 2001, an ally. needless to say, however, that humyn rights has never been a determinative foreign policy priority unless and until it serves the other, real interests, i.e. guns and gasoline. *** the question cannot be reduced to whether Saddam is an evil fuckwad - he was as evil a fuckwad in 1988 when the USA supported him as he is today when the USA is threatening him.*** anyway, i'd like to hear Jeff&Duane&Terrance's reasoning as to why the inspectors should not be militarized - this option has been on the table, many respected military officials both here and abroad say this is a much better alternative than full-scale invasion&occupation: if USA intelligence has pictures of trucks leaving certain sites with prohibited weapons in them, then why not stop these trucks? if there's someplace in Northern Iraq which is training people in how to use bio-chemical weapons, then why not surround it, arrest those present, and shut it down? why not send in UN troops to assist the inspectors? ... ah, but what am i saying? this has never been about disarmament, has it? nor a fascist regime that violates humyn rights and torture its citizens. this is about making the Middle East safe for Western business interests. more than a few USA allies do a lot of evil shit with little to no criticism from this administration, but its just like in the Mafia, those allies first make damn sure they're needed. the real reason that Saddam is a target now isn't because he's evil, but because he's cowardly and stupid: if he'd have invaded the Irans, the USA would publicly slap him on the wrist for using chemical weapons while continuing to send sychophant-ambassadors and satellite-battlefield-maps his way. (after all, Saddam is still the USA's key ally in rejecting the International Criminal Court.) but this coming war is not about doing what SHOULD be done, its about doing what CAN be done: you can't just twiddle your thumbs with a trillion-dollar military, you've got to do something with it, show some results, make some enemies and knock em down. and the tens of thousands of innocent civilians, not to mention the thousands of coalition forces, who face certain death in the inevitable war to follow ... who cares? .k _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From Greg.Achten Tue Mar 4 15:45:17 2003 From: Greg.Achten (Achten, Greg) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 13:45:17 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Pepperdine Dates for Fall 03 Message-ID: The Pepperdine tournament will be on our traditional weekend of October 17-19 (Fri-Sat). Greg -----Original Message----- From: Southworth, Bill [mailto:Bill_Southworth at redlands.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 7:54 AM To: 'edebate at ndtceda.com' Subject: [eDebate] Fall Tournament Schedule! I realize this may seem rather early to request likely dates for 2003 Fall Tournaments. However, given the NEW airline policy of requiring rescheduling the day of flight cancellation it becomes increasingly important to have options. If those of you who are confident of dates would so post it would be most helpful! _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From jtandlich Tue Mar 4 16:10:15 2003 From: jtandlich (Josh Tandlich) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 17:10:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Sara Holbrooke Please Message-ID: Sara, Could you please email me? josh tandlich _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From bratt Tue Mar 4 16:29:52 2003 From: bratt (Bratt, Ronald L.) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:29:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Fall Tournament Schedule! Message-ID: <6FE0B5A51164D411934400508BDFDDB107EF0F99@exchsrvb.cua.edu> Cap Cities will be October 18-20, 2003, RB -----Original Message----- From: Dallas Perkins [mailto:dperkins at fas.harvard.edu] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 3:09 PM To: Sawyer, R. CPT SOCSCI; Southworth, Bill Cc: 'edebate at ndtceda.com' Subject: Re: [eDebate] Fall Tournament Schedule! The Harvard Tournament will be held on October 25-27, 2003. 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 Pacedebate Tue Mar 4 16:39:49 2003 From: Pacedebate (Pacedebate at aol.com) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:39:49 EST Subject: [eDebate] Las Vegas Round Robin Message-ID: <41.2bede78d.2b968535@aol.com> The Las Vegas Round Robin will take place Sept. 11-14. Registration on Thursday evening Sept. 11. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030304/d278334a/attachment.htm From bgaston76 Tue Mar 4 16:49:28 2003 From: bgaston76 (Bryan Gaston) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 14:49:28 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Kenyon from Witchita State please... Message-ID: Kenyon (or someone from Witchita let him know), Could you please contact Lindsey Shook at: drlinz423 at aol.com Thanks, B.Gaston _____________________________________________________________ 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 Catherine.Palczewski Tue Mar 4 16:55:53 2003 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 16:55:53 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UNI dates Message-ID: <3E652EF8.424AF12D@uni.edu> Greetings all, The Dates for the 2003 University of Northern Iowa Tournament Ulrich Tournament are: September 20-22, 2003. This is a Sa-Mo tournament, with Friday registration. This means we are back on the normal week for UNI (not a week later as we were last year). Cate From Catherine.Palczewski Tue Mar 4 17:01:58 2003 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 17:01:58 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] NDT judge rule Message-ID: <3E653065.41041DFD@uni.edu> As folks fill out their applications for the NDT, I wanted to remind everyone of rules concerning judging. Pertinent parts of Rule IIIB of the Standing Rules of the NDT are as follows: 3. As a normative standard, the faculty or staff member(s) principally responsible to his or her institution for directing or coaching a debate team qualifying for the National Tournament should be a judge at the Tournament for both the preliminary and elimination rounds. All preliminary round judges at the National Tournament are expected to be available for assignment to a minimum of four preliminary rounds. 5. Beginning with the 2002 National Tournament, any participant, observer, or guest attending the NDT and who meets the NDT judging requirement shall be committed to judging a minimum of four preliminary debates. The NDT judging requirement is as follows: 1. must hold a baccalaureate degree, or be willing to waive eligibility for participation in the NDT in the future, or have no remaining eligibility, and 2. must have judged at least 12 rounds on the fall CEDA topic or its NDT topic parallel. So, when listing folks on the NDT application, remember to list as a judge all those who have judged 12 rounds and have a BA or have waived eligbility. If you have any question on what these rules mean, please feel free to email me. Cate NDT Committee Chair From jgorczy Tue Mar 4 17:29:42 2003 From: jgorczy (Jason R. Gorczynski) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 18:29:42 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] msu ss Message-ID: MSU SS could you please backchannel me From alfred.snider Tue Mar 4 17:28:46 2003 From: alfred.snider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 18:28:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Play the Iraq War Game Message-ID: Go here: http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2002/11/iraq2.shtml -- --------------------------- 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 cheodekirk Tue Mar 4 18:12:38 2003 From: cheodekirk (Scott Odekirk) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 00:12:38 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Kris Willis Message-ID: Hey man, email me back... Scott Odekirk Weber State Debate _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From stannardmatt Tue Mar 4 18:53:21 2003 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 17:53:21 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] urgent: HS debaters disqualified by CHSAA Message-ID: As a friend of the coach and debaters mentioned below (they have all been to our high school or college camps), I find this story urgently deserving of our attention. I will be pursuing formal (and VERY diplomatic) channels, and I urge everyone who wants to write a letter to be diplomatic and remember the delicacy of the situation. Whether you want to get involved or not, you should definitely read the letter. stannard Below is a letter from Matt Plush of Colorado State University: _________________________________________________________________ Hello, My name is matthew plush (a few of you might know me ?though very view). I am a student at Colorado State University, debate in the National Parliamentary Debate Association, debated cross-examination (cx) debate in high school in PA, and also happen to be the head coach at Poudre High School in Ft. Collins, Co. Colorado is a unique place to debate. Even the speech times differ from those in other parts of the country (four minute rebuttles) ?to say nothing of the argumentation. I coach a team that has on it two debaters by the names of: Jonathon Gingerich and Brian Van Valkenburg. They were recently competing at the Colorado High School Activities Association (CHSAA) regional qualifying tournament for the state. They were disqualified for performing. One of their 1ac?s is performative and nihilist in nature. Whether or not you agree with this style of debate, certainly you agree that debate is a space where people have free speech and can advocate what they will. Ultimately questions concerning in what forum performance type debate should be in are left up to the critic in the back of the room and the community at large in forums like this. Never should this decision be made in a tab room. However, because of this tab room decision my team will not compete at the state tournament and also may not be allowed to go to quals for NFL nats by my principal. We ask that you write letters and send emails of support for Brian and Jonathon to the principal of Poudre High School, Sandra Lundt. We also ask that you write and email people at CHSAA. All the information will be included at the end of this cover page-like thing. After that is a description of what happened from my perspective at the tournament and also an outline of the 1ac with sources and links to scans of the documentation I received disqualifying my team. Thanks for your support and I trust that any correspondence you send will be supportive, courteous, and professional. -matthew plush mattplush at hotmail.com Sandra Lundt Principal Poudre High School 201 Impala Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80521 slundt at psd.k12.co.us Judy Barnett Assistant Commissioner Colorado High School Activities Association 14855 E. 2nd Avenue Aurora, CO 80011 jbarnett at chsaa.org ==================== jonathan and brian walked into their second round to see seth Levine (a former parli debater at csu and someone I have recently come to know prior to the round) sitting there with a ballot, a judge that they had seen previously and who had mentioned he'd like to see their nihilism performance. jonathan and brian, being affirmative, decided to run their performative aff which includes the myth of sisyphus and a performance involving a small ball, manila folders, and some light pushing. (the sites and tags are included with this at the end) they both shed their ties and take off their shoes to dance during speeches and claim nihilism as their advocacy. they also sing. seth votes for them and the process starts. i ask to be party to the process and am denied. adam sirimarco (my debate partner in college and asst. debate coach at ft. collins hs) sees the tournament director (paul demaret ?a.k.a. ?d?) talking with seth followed by a long meeting behind closed doors. this meeting consisted of a committee and seth and is where seth was told that the students were "on trial" not him, and also he was asked if the students "ran a plan." seth informs the comm. that jonathon and brian did run a plan and then is asked if they removed their shoes. he says they did. another meeting in the hall between the tournament director and me. i asked if jonathon and brian were disqualified (dq'ed) for not being topical (a colorado high school activities association ?chsaa-- rule) i threaten that if jonathon and brian were grieved due to being non-topical that i'd grieve every affirmative case at the tournament, and there?d be topicality debates in the tab room which would essentially filibuster the tournament --bringing it to a halt. i am told the dq wasn't for being non-topical but for ethics/sportsmanship rules adam says that he sees me visibly upset. D hands me a grievance form, so that i could protest the fact that my kids were just dq?ed on a vote by an ad hoc committee ?the one referenced earlier. i notice i am now shaking due to nerves and massive coffee intake (both habits at debate tournaments and other times of stress). i see adam and mouth across a hallway, "they are going to dq my kids." i have tears in my eyes when i speak to my debate partner and fellow coach. i ask for sirimarco to sit with me and help me with the grievance form and am denied. i get just 15 minutes to counter grieve?despite originally asking for 30 minutes. the tournament is about an hour behind now. halfway into the filling out of the form i have a clerical question and walk out into a cafeteria and loudly say, "where is paul demaret? i need to speak to paul demaret.? i do this b/c i know he is running all over; b/c, he is now having problems with running the tournament due to this grievance situation. i also only have 7 minutes left to fill out this grievance paul politely answers my question and i finish up with probably about a minute or so left. i am brought into the tab room and introduced to the comm: carl wangsvick (head coach ft. collins HS), vickie howard (head coach monarch hs), jim dornan (head coach longmont hs), glen cook (form coach greeley central hs), carolynn bauschard (head coach thompson calley hs). i ask again for sirimarco to sit with me while I am interviewed by this ad hoc committee. and again i am denied. i am notified that my team was disqualified for unsportsman-like conduct. i clarify and ask if it was for being "unethical." and I am told no. i ask to see criteria for unsportsman-like conduct and unethical actions and am told there are none, and that is ad hoc. i ask to see all the rules and laws of CHSAA, and I am denied and only given pages with portions that are relevant marked in pencil. They are out of context of the rest of the chapter as well. Now I?ve seen this rulebook before ?but never did I read closely enough to prepare for this. i am never really shown the actual reason jonathon and brian were dq'ed, but i note that the rules say they only have an obligation to be ethical. it is me, the coach, who has an obligation to stress sportsman-like conduct. i say they don't have a right to dq the students, but they have a right to disqualify me. i am then told that they were dq'd for being unethical. i mention schrodinger's cat and get blank looks. i talk about how stable advocacies are needed for argumentation. i get blank looks. i realize i am losing this debate and start to make a deal. i make this offer: if jonathon and brian agree to the following terms skyline (the team they were debating and subsequently the team whose coach filed the grievance in question) will pull their grievance. jonathon and brian will: forfeit the round and apologize. wangsvick recommends that they need assurance that jonathon and brian won't do this again at chsaa tournaments (rest of quals and states) that is added to the deal. i am told to leave the room and still not talk to anyone. i talk to jonathon and brian. i inform them of what is going on and notice a police officer is there and does, in fact, have a gun. the comm. has written up a formal agreement and these are the final terms: jonathon and brian must -- apologize to the skyline team, the skyline coach, the skyline principal. they must promise not to do their performance again in the remaining qualifying-tournaments? rounds and at states if they qualify. they also must forfeit. i talk it over with jonathon and brian and recommend they sign it; b/c, they will probably qualify and have a good shot at winning states as well. they refuse to apologize for their actions and advocacy in that round. i talk to D, and he begins to cry. he informs jonathon and brian and me that they should sign the deal; because, they ?most likely-- will still qualify to states even with the loss due to forfeit. D also tells them that they are the best team in the state, and will probably win the state tournament if they go. He coached last year?s state champion in cx and also coached a girl that got 6th at nationals in ld last year (the national forensics league?s nationals). i now see sandra lundt (my principal). i also see a man who i find out to be the principal of rocky mtn. hs (rmhs) --where the tournament is being held and also where d teaches and coaches. d tells me the police were called b/c some coaches were worried i'd freak out. i begin to cry and tell him that the police weren't needed. d also tells me that b/c the police were called the rmhs principal was called and subsequently called my principal sandra lundt speaks to me and jonathon and brian separately and together. i am informed (when separated from my students) that sandra is not happy with me as her employee. i do my best to explain to her what happened and am holding back tears. i tell her that i want this to end. i'm done and i want this to be done. i also inform her that i won't be coaching again next year b/c of petty things like this. i am asked to stand aside while she talks to jonathon and brian. vickie howard (who always introduces herself as a coach and a mom) apologizes to me and says this is about rules. i look at her and inform her that she is a being with free will, and that ?the rules? don't make this a moral decision. i tell her that she doesn't need to be complicit in this decision, and that she didn't need to dq my kids. i don't know if she didn't respond or i was just called back to jonathon and brian. but i was back with sandra and jonathon and brian. d comes over and asks one last time if they will apologize. jonathon and brian refuse. i sign the written version of the deal saying i wish they'd apologize. my principal is there and I kind of have to. i also wish they?d go to state where i firmly believe they would have won (like any coach of a good team with a shot at winning a tournament). D reads the deal one last time and realizes that jonathon and brian do not actually (as per the deal as it is written) have to apologize for their actions... just apologize. jonathon and brian think for a second or two, nod at each other, and then say they can agree to apologize for offending the other team and the delay in the tournament. d seems to believe that will be okay and goes to ask the comm. if it is. the ad hoc committee says it isn't. sandra refuses my letter of resignation despite earlier agreeing that my presence wasn't necessary for the kids to compete. she says if i do just walk out and quit, the team will be cancelled for the rest of the year. (we all have yet to hear if Sandra Lundt will let them compete at national qual?s.) she also says that jonathon and brian might not get to compete at national quals even if i stay on and other kids compete there. jonathon and brian one last time refuse to apologize and are dq'd. my principal, rmhs's principal, and the policeman leave after I apologize to all of them for the inconvenience. the tournament is now a little over 3 hours late. jonathon and brian start to get their tubs and materials and such. i go outside and cry. i come back in and see jonathon and brian, and i tell them that i am proud of what they did and that i would have done anything for them. I also tell them that they are fine debaters. they leave. i find d in the tab room and apologize. the postings have been up for round three for a bit now and poudre high school?s best debaters in history ?jonathon gingerich and brian van valkenburg are?t on it. d cries and leaves to gain composure. throughout the remaining day various students come up to me asking what they can do. a few even cry. all jonathon and brian did was read nietzsche cards. at the end of the day i get all of the paperwork concerning jonathon and brian's dq. i finally see all of the grievances. though the ad hoc comm. kept no minutes and what they said when no one was present is lost. all my students did was perform. the official dq cites removing shoes as the ultimate reason for dq. all Jonathon and brian did was read nietzsche cards. Jonathon and Brian: am still proud of you, and I?d still do anything for you. -matthew plush p.s. here are links to scanned images of the documentation I got: Grievance Form filed by Poudre http://home.attbi.com/~sonic-jihad/scan.jpg Grievance From filed by Skyline http://home.attbi.com/~sonic-jihad/scan0001.jpg Disqualification http://home.attbi.com/~sonic-jihad/scan0002.jpg Ballot http://home.attbi.com/~sonic-jihad/scan0003.jpg Each one is fairly large, and I have cable and it takes 20 seconds...so...be warned. Thanks to rob mills for posting the images. You can also read more at: http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30265&perpage=25&pagenumber=1 (Jonathon typed this up) Here is an outline of the 1AC: Sisyphus is the nihilistic alternative; he pushes the rock up the hill because he has nothing else to do and he is happy when it rolls back down the hill. Hackman in 1997. We do not need fairness or equality. We must learn to be great; we must climb mountains to be exalted. Nietzsche in 77. (A Nietzsche Reader, trans. Hollingdale, pp. 16-17) The oppositional thought of traditional metaphysics creates opposition; in fact, there are no opposites mistake in reasoning lies at the base of oppositional thought. Nietzsche in 77. (A Nietzsche Reader, trans. Hollingdale, pp. 53-54) Humanity must be overcome by superman. The superman is the meaning of earth. Superman is a lightning and madness. Humanity is but a bridge to this lightning. Nietzsche in 77. (A Nietzsche Reader, trans. Hollingdale, pp. 237-239) We are art, and that is what the kritik advocates as one possible alternative. Schutte in 84. (Ofelia, Beyond Nihilism: Nietzsche Without Masks, p. 26) Creativity is necessary our character must be a rare and great art. Nietzsche in 77. (A Nietzsche Reader, trans. Hollingdale, pp. 237) Vote for your own dignity: you must choose between a cowardly and empty passive nihilism and a courageous and life affirming active nihilism. Novak in 78. (Michael, The Experience of Nothingness, p. 59) The Night Song Nietzsche in 1883.. (Friedrich, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, trans. Walter Kaufman, Penguin, 1963) Humanity must be overcome; the petty people have become lord and master; they preach acquiescence and prudence. We must overcome these masters of the present. Evil is humans? best strength and is necessary for supermans? best. You must learn to dance beyond yourself and laugh beyond yourself. Nietzsche in 77. (A Nietzsche Reader, trans. Hollingdale, pp. 243-245) _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From jgingeri Tue Mar 4 18:53:56 2003 From: jgingeri (J Gingerich) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 17:53:56 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Injustice in Colorado Message-ID: Attention All Debaters! The state of Colorado has long been known for the backward nature of its high school debate. Last Saturday, Poudre GV was disqualified from a regional state-qualifying tournament for performing in a debate round. While there are many instances of judges dismissing progressive forms of debate, we know of no instances of a judge?s decision being overturned or of a team being disqualified for engaging in a certain form of debate. In the second round of the state-qualifying tournament, Brian Van Valkenburg and I were debating as the affirmative against Skyline High School; Seth LeVine, a former parliamentary debater from CSU, was judging. Prior to the 1AC, Brian and I removed our suit coats and ties. During the 1AC, we kicked off our shoes. The 1AC began with a reenactment of the myth of Sisyphus, with Brian pushing a ball up an incline and letting it role back down. The advocacy of the 1AC consisted of cards from Nietzsche. The first negative speaker ran topicality and Szasz, which I answered in the 2AC. The 2NC ran new arguments and extended T, and the 1AR mostly extended T and read some Zizek cards. The 1AR covered the flow; the 2NR went for T and Zizek. In my 2AR, I extended the performance by dancing and signing Nietzsche?s Night Song, after which I extended answers to T and to Zizek. At the end of the debate, the judge voted for the affirmative. After the debate, a grievance was filed against Brian and me under Colorado state rules for not having a plan text. The tournament director interviewed Seth, who informed him that we had read Schutte in 84 as plan. At that time, the coach of the opposing team filed a grievance because we ?took off clothing, skipped around the room, sang/screamed in final speech and refused to provide either case/plan etc.? An ad hoc committee of coaches was appointed to consider the grievance. By a four to one vote, the committee ruled that our performance was ?unethical? and decided to disqualify us. Our coach inquired if the grievance would be withdrawn if Brian and I apologized but did not forfeit the round and was told that it would not be withdrawn. Brian and I were given the alternative of apologizing for our actions, forfeiting the round, and pledging not to repeat the actions at the state qualifying tournament or the state tournament. We offered to apologize for offending the other team, but the ad hoc committee declined this offer. Brian and I refused to apologize for our actions and were disqualified. We feel that this decision was outrageous. We know of no other instances of a team being disqualified by and administrative panel for performing. Many members of the Colorado debate community are outraged by this decision. Brian and I were disqualified for making certain arguments. We feel that (regardless of one?s perspective on the use of performance in debate) debate is an activity designed to allow intellectual inquiry. We feel that the disqualification of a team because that team ran a certain argument (Nietzsche cards) is an affront to debate and is a denial of intellectual freedom. I am addressing two requests to the college debate community: First, I seek any suggestions for formulating a response to the Colorado High School Activities Association (the body governing speech and debate in Colorado) Second, we are asking members of the debate community to protest this decision by writing to the Colorado High School Activities Association. Judy Barnett Assistant Commissioner Colorado High School Activities Association 14855 E. 2nd Avenue Aurora, CO 80011 OR jbarnett at chsaa.org Courtesy copies can be sent to the principal of Poudre High School: Sandra Lundt Poudre High School 201 Impala Dr. Fort Collins, CO 80521 Further information about the incident can be obtained by e-mailing me or by viewing the thread on ?A Great Injustice? in the Mountain Forum at Cross-x.com. Sincerely, Jonathan Gingerich Poudre High School Debate jgingerich at hotmail.com Here is an outline of the 1AC: Sisyphus is the nihilistic alternative?he pushes the rock up the hill because he has nothing else to do and he is happy when it rolls back down the hill. Hackman in 1997. We do not need fairness or equality. We must learn to be great?we must climb mountains to be exalted. Nietzsche in 77. (A Nietzsche Reader, trans. Hollingdale, pp. 16-17) The oppositional thought of traditional metaphysics creates opposition?in fact, there are no opposites?a mistake in reasoning lies at the base of oppositional thought. Nietzsche in 77. (A Nietzsche Reader, trans. Hollingdale, pp. 53-54) Humanity must be overcome by superman. The superman is the meaning of earth. Superman is a lightning and madness. Humanity is but a bridge to this lightning. Nietzsche in 77. (A Nietzsche Reader, trans. Hollingdale, pp. 237-239) Plan: we are art, and that is what the kritik advocates as one possible alternative. Schutte in 84. (Ofelia, Beyond Nihilism: Nietzsche Without Masks, p. 26) Creativity is necessary?our character must be a rare and great art. Nietzsche in 77. (A Nietzsche Reader, trans. Hollingdale, pp. 237) Vote for your own dignity: you must choose between a cowardly and empty passive nihilism and a courageous and life affirming active nihilism. Novak in 78. (Michael, The Experience of Nothingness, p. 59) The Night Song Nietzsche in 1883. (Friedrich, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, trans. Walter Kaufman, Penguin, 1963) Humanity must be overcome?the petty people have become lord and master?they preach acquiescence and prudence. We must overcome these masters of the present. Evil is humans? best strength and is necessary for superman?s best. You must learn to dance beyond yourself and laugh beyond yourself. Nietzsche in 77. (A Nietzsche Reader, trans. Hollingdale, pp. 243-245) _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From let_the_american_empire_burn Tue Mar 4 18:54:30 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 18:54:30 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] to those who are pro-war and oh-so-concerned for the Iraqi people Message-ID: a little bird wrote me: "Oh yeah!!! Big thumbs up to a country that denies narrowly denies support for a war because they're actually afraid that it'll become a war of liberation [speaking of Turkey]. Nothing like a little home-spun populism to whip up enough support for continuing to deny ethnic Kurds the most basic rights, let alone self-determination. As much as I admire your 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' mentality, naivety doesn't become you. Go back to open anti-Americanism and back off the faux populism. That would at the very least be less painful to read..." oh, my previous comments were well within the context of my anti-American(militar-)ism - because of Turkey's decision, more Americans will die, and maybe this will have a Vietnam-effect for the next twenty years, so that you all will think twice before invading/occupying another country. i'm just as critical of Turkey's mistreatment of the Kurds, but since the USA (i heard Donald Rumsfeld say in a press briefing) reserves the right to kill Kurdish freedom-fighters for not toeing the 'one-Iraq' line, there's no 'war of liberation' for the Kurds. (that was the point of all the arguments you failed to respond to in my post.) now, i'd like nothing more if the Kurdish struggles for self-determination would be rewarded with an independent nation-state of their own (and fuck Turkey for their anti-Kurdish racism). but that the Turkish parliament would look at all the billions of dollars in aid they could have gotten if they went along with the USA, only to say, 'Fuck off', is both surprising and admirable. remember, i'm placing my bets on the terrorists, and this war on Iraq is already doing wonders for shattering the so-called 'anti-terror' coalition. as much as i laughed at that 'Iraqi war game' (the link for which Tuna recently sent to the list), some of the scenarios depicted therein are not entirely unrealistic. and so i stand in agreement with the pro-war camp on one issue: just because tens of thousands of people are about to die is not reason for losing one's optimism. ;) .k _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From privethedge Tue Mar 4 19:02:57 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 17:02:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Play the Iraq War Game In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030305010257.61520.qmail@web10007.mail.yahoo.com> Better than a Clancy novel, and just about as funny. 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/20030304/1b79002e/attachment.html From partsara Tue Mar 4 19:29:02 2003 From: partsara (partsara at isu.edu) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 18:29:02 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Need to hire NDT judging Message-ID: <563fceb3.ceb3563f@isu.edu> Please contact me. We will do our best to accomodate your needs. Sarah From hbkzero Tue Mar 4 19:32:43 2003 From: hbkzero (HBK ZERO) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 01:32:43 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Kate Richie or Jeremy Stevens Message-ID: Please backchannel me at serena_turley at yahoo.com Thanks! Serena _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From niravsp Tue Mar 4 20:13:13 2003 From: niravsp (Nirav Patel) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 02:13:13 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Georgia PR por favor Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/5dbaf4a9/attachment.htm From collegejtm Tue Mar 4 20:52:24 2003 From: collegejtm (Justin Schuffert) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 20:52:24 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Two American congress members walk out on a Muslim prayer.... Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030304/fc03d539/attachment.html From privethedge Tue Mar 4 21:13:24 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:13:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Two American congress members walk out on a Muslim prayer.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030305031324.87306.qmail@web10005.mail.yahoo.com> Hmmmm...boorish to be sure, and they should apologize for lacking good home training and manners, but wrong? Shouldn't Government and Prayer be dvided? Why was a religious figure of any faith speaking at a Government function (notice - this is my trying to be funny, I understand the Supreme Court has ruled that this type of thing is legal) especially in a state where the Pledge of Allegience can' t be uttered if it includes "under God." Any less wrong than actively disrupting a speech by a right wing conservative on your campus? OR destroying a publication that carries an Ad, for instance, with which you disagree? 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/20030304/1bc1ca47/attachment.htm From jeeze_louise Tue Mar 4 21:14:41 2003 From: jeeze_louise (Dave Collins) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 19:14:41 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Izak Dunn please Message-ID: Sorry to waste bandwith, but if Izak Dunn could backchannel me, that'd be great. Cheers, Dave Collins Bakersfield College Debate 2002-3 _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From privethedge Tue Mar 4 21:16:58 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:16:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] urgent: HS debaters disqualified by CHSAA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030305031658.16974.qmail@web10006.mail.yahoo.com> I remember Mr. Plush, and his railroad disad, when he was a debater at Dallastown High School in PA. I think the Colorado State Association owes him and his debaters a huge apology for their actions - as debate coaches, we should be in the business of encouraging argumentation in any form (even those we might not understand or personally agree with), and not be in the business of censoring those who are presenting their views. The action taken against the debaters seems overly harsh, and punative. I question the merits of such action, and sincerely hope that things can be done to rectify the situation. 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/20030304/47849e6a/attachment.html From SSbauschard2 Tue Mar 4 21:30:45 2003 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:30:45 EST Subject: [eDebate] IMPORTANT: PlanetDebate.com Judge Philosphy Upgrade Message-ID: <115.1fca7322.2b96c965@aol.com> The judge philosphies on Planet Debate have been upgraded. Important upgrades: 1. When you add or edit your judge philosphy, click on the "My Account" area. Then CLICK THE BUTTON "Edit My Judge Philosophy." 2. When you get to this page, there is a new section where you can enter the number of rounds you've judged for the year, the number of tournaments you have judged at during the year, and the number of years you have been judging. This will now appear on downloaded judge philosophy. 3. Please check which national tournaments you plan on judgging at (HS and College). 4. Once people have done #3, you can download the philosophies by tournament at http://www.planetdebate.com/scripts/user_listing.asp Click on the "Judge Philosophies" links. 5. The pholosophies can now be downloaded in one of two formats: html or text. If you download them as html and open them with a web browser (save it to your hard drive and then open Iexplore with file, open, browse -- and find the file. A table of contents will display and you can click on the name and go right to the philosophy. If you want, you can open the .html file in MICROSOFT WORD and print and indexed and paginated document. PLEASE SIGN ON AND INDICATE WHAT NATIONAL TOURNAMENTS YOU ARE JUDGING IN SO PEOPLE CAN DOWNLOAD BY TOURNAMENT! Stefan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030304/913eff95/attachment.htm From SSbauschard2 Tue Mar 4 21:39:37 2003 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:39:37 EST Subject: [eDebate] IMPORTANT: ADA JUDGES Message-ID: Below is a list of judges for the ADA tournament. 1. If you are on this list and not judging, let me know. 2. If you think you are judging and are not on this list, let me know. 3. If someone has a "0" next to his or her name that means they are emergency use only. 4. Please read my post to edebate about Planet Debate judge philosophies. If you have a judge philosophy there, or are willing to put one there, please indicate that you are judging at the ADA tournament. That way, people can download all the philosophies for the tournament. 5. I will provide ONE PRINTED COPY PER SCHOOL at registration. You should download the other ones to your computer on Thursday as per the instructions on the other email. ___________________ ADA National Tournament Boston College March 7-9, 2003 Judges Entered (68) 22 Angat, Jomel 64 Antonucci, Micha 42 Atchison, Jared 30 Ausland, Travis 4 Bauschard, Stefa -0 27 Berry, Mike 28 Brossman, Brent 29 Butt, Neill 10 Carson, Austin 39 Choi, EYC 24 Decker, Warren -0 38 Devault, Chris 46 Dutcher, Mike 62 Ellis, Andy 5 Fields, Jared 14 Fishbone, Aaron 66 Fordaham CM 33 Gautier, Zach 1 Guilmarzin, Ging 37 Hall, Heather 35 Hall, Michael 41 Hamilton, Alisha 17 Hausrath, Barry 15 Hayman, Jethro 19 Ibeike-Jonah, Ma 16 Jacobus, David 8 Johnson, Glenn 60 Katsulas, John -0 52 Kemper, Cory 13 Kerr, Paul 57 Ketsdever, Natha 21 Kimble, Jim 6 Koch, Steve 36 Lawrence, Bill 55 Lee, Adam 7 Lohr, Jeff 43 Louden, Allan 40 Low, Casey 67 Lyden, Todd 20 Lyle, Jim 9 Mancuso, Steve 50 Marmol, Josh 44 Mccauliff, Krist 63 Miller, Gordie 56 Myers, Jessica 59 O'Donnell, Tim -0 54 O'Gorman, Tom 32 Overby, Dan 25 Parcher, Jeff 3 Perez, Tino 51 Powell, Mario 58 Rao, Anand -0 2 Rayburn, Joel 31 Ross, John 12 Sampson, Richard 61 Schnurer, Max 53 Schrage, Dan 11 Snider, Sarah 48 Sovacool, Ben 45 Stevenson, Ron 26 Thomson, Scott 34 Verney, Daisy 23 Weiner, Jake 49 Young, Kelly 47 Zeigemueller -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030304/d3066cb2/attachment.html From SSbauschard2 Tue Mar 4 21:47:15 2003 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 22:47:15 EST Subject: [eDebate] IMPORTANT: THREE ADA NOTES Message-ID: <2f.35f0e9ad.2b96cd43@aol.com> 1. Internet Connections. There should be a working internet connection in every classroom. You do not need to do anything special to connect. Turn your computer on and use the ethernet cord. BC does have wireless access, but I don't know how well that works. 2. Web resources. When your computer is plugged in, you should be able to use any of the online BC resources. Our library is pretty good. LIBRARY CARD CATALOG: http://library.bc.edu:4545/ALEPH/L11L28TKTTH6FY7DP3UR2VD2QRNUBTBRHLQETJGE74CBD ERCYK-09659/file/start-0 IF YOU WANT TO SEARCH FOR A JOURNAL, SELECT "JOURNALS CATALOG" ON THE RIGHT. BC ALSO HAS MANY JOURNALS ONLINE THAT YOU CAN ACCESS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER AT http://www.bc.edu/libraries/resources/ejournals/ 3. THERE WILL BE A MEETING TO SOLICIT INPUT ON NEXT YEAR'S DEBATE TOPIC DURING LUNCH ON FRIDAY IN MCGUINN 121. ISSUES TO CONSIDER: -- SHOULD FOREIGN POLICY TOPICS BE ON THE BALLOT OR IS IT TIME FOR DOMESTIC-ONLY OPTIONS? -- TIRED OF COURTS/POLITICS/STATES? HOW CAN WE MAKE DOMESTIC TOPICS MORE INTERESTING? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030304/69eff9a6/attachment.htm From Pacedebate Tue Mar 4 22:04:05 2003 From: Pacedebate (Pacedebate at aol.com) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 23:04:05 EST Subject: [eDebate] 4 rounds of NDT judging available Message-ID: <63.19593310.2b96d135@aol.com> I'm available to judge Sunday and Monday. I have a plane ticket and a hotel room. I seek cash and a tournament badge. Thanks, Tim Mahoney -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030304/3c2bdec8/attachment.html From collegejtm Tue Mar 4 22:34:23 2003 From: collegejtm (Justin Schuffert) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 22:34:23 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Two American congress members walk out on a Muslim prayer.... Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030304/748d75a3/attachment.htm From partsara Tue Mar 4 23:35:13 2003 From: partsara (partsara at isu.edu) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 22:35:13 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Need a debater for CEDA hybrid. Message-ID: <14e0911473.1147314e09@isu.edu> One of our debaters will be unable to attend CEDA because of health concerns. I am looking for a debater to replace her in the tournament. I have cleared this with Shawn Whalen and I.S.U. has already paid the entry fee for the team. If you are interested, please contact me. Thanks, Sarah Partlow Idaho State Debate From cl001k Wed Mar 5 00:50:23 2003 From: cl001k (Cedric Logan) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 01:50:23 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Matt Plush rules Message-ID: In case anyone was wondering what the official rules of Colorado policy debate were, I pulled some from www.chssa.org Being a former Colorado debater (LD) myself, I had the opportunity to experience these rules first-hand. Most students react the same most of you do. As far as the "backward" nature of Colo. debate, the problems go deeper than what CHSAA explicitly prohibits. Kritiks are almost unheard of, and CP's are rare. The negative doesn't split up the block, so you have two speeches in a row saying the same thing. Speed is all but forbidden. The 2nr almost always goes for every sheet of paper. Solvency mitigators are voters. CHSAA is pretty messed up, but the boring nature of debate there can be mostly attributed to the funding of the programs and the judges. Especially in western Colorado, most forensic programs have never travel out of state except for Nationals. No one has ever heard of a "TOC;" and at least from my district, no one, in any event, has broken at Nationals. Critics are parents of team members and bus drivers who come along for the trip. Despite that, Colorado debaters are a spirited bunch and they love the activity. Hopefully if enough DOF's from major universities (paging Deatherage and Perkins) write CHSAA, they might look at debate a little differently. While you're at it, send a letter to every high school in Colorado and let them know this whole "debate" thing doesn't look too shabby on a college application. Cedric Rochester G. Debaters shall orally deliver during each round citations for each piece of evidence introduced to include the name of the author, complete source title, complete date and page number. Should two or more quotations be used from the same source, the complete citation need be given only for the first piece of evidence used from that source. H. New evidence may be introduced in rebuttals. New arguments may not be introduced in rebuttals. An affirmative response in first rebuttal of a negative argument presented in the last negative constructive is not considered a ?new argument? and is, therefore, permissible. I. A judge may not ask to see evidence unless that evidence is challenged by the opposing team and the original source is present in the room. J. Both sides have burden of clash and must directly refute arguments made by their opponents. K. The negative has the presumption (meaning the current system, or status quo, is ?innocent unless proven guilty? by the affirmative). L. The affirmative has the burden of proof (meaning the affirmative must prove that the status quo must be changed according to the resolution). M. The affirmative must propose a plan, as well as present a rationale for adopting the resolution. N. There is no prescription for organization of the affirmative or negative cases. Arguments may be presented in any reasonable order. O. The plan need not be presented in the first affirmative constructive speech, but if presented in the second affirmative constructive speech it should be in the first part of that speech. P. The affirmative team must present a prima facie case which contains all of the following elements: (The following ?stock issues? must all be won by the affirmative for the decision to be affirmative.) Topicality: Present a case which is a reasonable interpretation of the resolution. Harms/Advantages: Define a problem Significance: Show significance of the harm or advantage Events E-5 Inherency/Uniqueness: Show an inherent factor in the present system which prevents the problem from being solved or the advantage from being gained. Rational plan: Propose a rational policy which will work to solve the problem or gain the advantage without creating any greater problems in the process. The plan is workable, or able to function as a federal program. It meets needs or gains advantages and its gains are not outweighed by its disadvantages. Q. If the negative offers a counterplan, they lose presumption (the status quo is no longer presumed innocent) and the affirmative team no longer has the burden of proof (they no longer have to prove the status quo is guilty of causing significant problems). The negative counterplan must be non-topical, outside the bounds of the resolution, and must solve affirmative harms. From swhalen Wed Mar 5 01:04:13 2003 From: swhalen (Shawn Whalen) Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 23:04:13 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Important CEDA Nationals Stuff Message-ID: <3E65A16D.7030308@sfsu.edu> If you have sent an entry and are not on the list below, I have at least a portion of a completed entry from your school. In that case, you should receive a confirmation email from me in the next day or two. Schools with incomplete entries will be notified of additional items needed at that time. If you are on the following list, I have some reason to believe that you may be planning to attend CEDA Nationals, but I have not received anything from your institution in the mail as of 11pm PST on Tuesday March 4th. (I have already been in contact with some of you - if we've connected in the last 24 hours there is no need to contact me again, but if we haven't please send me an update on your entry situation). Capital University DePaul University John Carroll University Penn State United State Naval Academy University of Michigan University of Texas at Dallas University of Wyoming Thanks, Shawn Whalen From CodyMorrow1 Wed Mar 5 01:46:55 2003 From: CodyMorrow1 (CodyMorrow1 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 02:46:55 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for sean powers - otherwise disregard.. Message-ID: <30AF8D8F.52FF9D04.36E92226@aol.com> if anyone has an e-mail address or cell phone number I would appreciate it..... Sean e-mail me. Athens awaits.... cody From tshuman Wed Mar 5 06:12:03 2003 From: tshuman (Terrance Shuman) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 06:12:03 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Matt Plush rules: ans Logan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030305053358.00a2cc20@mail.magiccablepc.com> De-cloaking again, briefly... At 01:50 AM 3/5/2003 -0500, Cedric Logan wrote: >In case anyone was wondering what the official rules of Colorado policy >debate were, I pulled some from www.chssa.org However "backward" folks think Colorado policy debate is, I doubt that they've taken to posting the rules for the activity on the website of the Connecticut Highway Street Supervisor Association (the link Cedric posted)... ;-) The correct link is: http://www.chsaa.org/ 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 les_phillips98 Wed Mar 5 06:48:28 2003 From: les_phillips98 (Les Phillips) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 04:48:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] NEW ENGLAND NFL SEEKS POLICY JUDGES Message-ID: <20030305124828.94744.qmail@web10001.mail.yahoo.com> Excellent policy debate people within range of Boston are cordially invited to judge at the New England NFL district tournament, March 14 and 15 at Milton Academy, near Boston. Participating coaches can help with transportation from Cambridge or Boston, and partial commitments (Friday 3-10 pm or Saturday 730 am-early afternoon) are welcome. If you'd like to judge extemp, you can increase your compensation. Please backchannel if you're interested. Many thanks. Les Phillips __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From govnt_man Wed Mar 5 08:17:15 2003 From: govnt_man (The Drake) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:17:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] urgent: HS debaters disqualified by CHSAA Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/827ff177/attachment.html From privethedge Wed Mar 5 08:25:18 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:25:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] urgent: HS debaters disqualified by CHSAA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030305142518.80983.qmail@web10004.mail.yahoo.com> Why, Drake.. I would agree with everything you just said. Which is why there needs to be groundswell in Virginia to finally rid us of the Classic Rules. But, that won't be happening, and in the pursuit of fairness and equality, I will continue to enforce the rules. It's a complicated issue, but of course I agree with you. I have serious problems with what happened to those kids in Colorado. At least in Virginia, Classic, and it's rules, are, for the most part, a seperate section, where you can opt to compete or not. Doesn't sound like the kids in Colorado are that fortunate. 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/20030305/8f9b631e/attachment.htm From lexdevil Wed Mar 5 08:39:34 2003 From: lexdevil (lexy green) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 06:39:34 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] SF Bay Area Judges Needed Message-ID: <410-22003335143934936@mindspring.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/752e6dcf/attachment.html From govnt_man Wed Mar 5 08:41:14 2003 From: govnt_man (The Drake) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:41:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] urgent: HS debaters disqualified by CHSAA Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/a06dc5db/attachment.htm From tshuman Wed Mar 5 09:04:54 2003 From: tshuman (Terrance Shuman) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:04:54 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] urgent: HS debaters disqualified by CHSAA: ans Drake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030305085906.00a2b040@mail.magiccablepc.com> De-cloaking again, briefly... I am hopeful that readers of the list will not leap to conclusions based only on one side's presentation of the events... At 09:17 AM 3/5/2003 -0500, you wrote: >Would you also agree that this overly rigid rule structure permited a >political decision that seriously eroded the educational value of the >debate in question? I am unclear as to how the "educational value" of the debate is implicated here. The judge in the round (known to the Aff debaters and from the same college as their coach) ASKED them to run the Aff in question. If I'm Skyline's coach, that would certainly raise a red flag in my mind as to that judge's objectivity. 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 jr3407 Wed Mar 5 09:12:45 2003 From: jr3407 (Sawyer, R. CPT SOCSCI) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:12:45 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] West Point Dates Message-ID: <6A683C506D71A4478D4EE9B0EC22815002C6CFA8@exmailml07> Greetings - The 2003 West Point Tournament will be held 31 Oct - 2 Nov. This is the same weekend as last year. We will run a 6 rounds tournament with three divisions and a Sunday brunch in the Officers' Club overlooking the Hudson River. We look forward to a great tournament. V/R Reid Sawyer ___________________________ Reid Sawyer CPT, MI Department of Social Sciences United States Military Academy 845.938.3247 Lincoln Hall 118 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/75ce85cc/attachment.html From alfred.snider Wed Mar 5 09:41:59 2003 From: alfred.snider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:41:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] DEBATE ACROSS THE CURRICULUM WORKSHOP WEBCAST TODAY Message-ID: DEBATE ACROSS THE CURRICULUM WORKSHOP WEBCAST TODAY This event will be on March 5, 2003 at 3 PM ET. It will consist of a live webcast of the Debate Across the Curriculum workshop that I will be presenting to a small group of UVM faculty at the Center for Teaching and Learning. It can be viewed at http://www.uvm.edu/debate_theater/ and requires QuickTime 6 installed. This is the first of a series of webcasts designed to meet the needs of a global audience. This is a test of that system. THIS PRESENTATION WILL BE AIRED AGAIN AT A TIME MORE SUITABLE FOR VIEWERS IN EUROPE AND ASIA. 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/20030305/ca60f2b1/attachment.htm From privethedge Wed Mar 5 09:51:38 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 07:51:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] urgent: HS debaters disqualified by CHSAA: ans Drake In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030305085906.00a2b040@mail.magiccablepc.com> Message-ID: <20030305155138.52038.qmail@web10003.mail.yahoo.com> Drake was speaking to me here, about a situation in Virginia. Where we have a divison that forbids "fast talking," requires that students will dress in suites and ties, and/or comporable feminine garb, and, sort of, but not really, discourages the use of "massive" amoutns of evidence to make points. It also forbids judges to eat in rounds, and closes cross-ex, and forbids judges from talking to the teams. I'll admit now that if there is an opposite view to the Colorado situation, from a coach who was there, I'd be very interested in hearing it. I'm sure that there might be more to the situation than what is being said. 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/20030305/71454e7d/attachment.html From ccooper Wed Mar 5 10:02:31 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:02:31 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] urgent: HS debaters disqualified by CHSAA: ans Dra ke Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370710C9CC3@exm01w.apac.planning.org> What is comparable feminine garb to a suite? -----Original Message----- From: Duane Hyland [mailto:privethedge at yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:52 AM To: Terrance Shuman; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] urgent: HS debaters disqualified by CHSAA: ans Drake Drake was speaking to me here, about a situation in Virginia. Where we have a divison that forbids "fast talking," requires that students will dress in suites and ties, and/or comporable feminine garb, and, sort of, but not really, discourages the use of "massive" amoutns of evidence to make points. It also forbids judges to eat in rounds, and closes cross-ex, and forbids judges from talking to the teams. I'll admit now that if there is an opposite view to the Colorado situation, from a coach who was there, I'd be very interested in hearing it. I'm sure that there might be more to the situation than what is being said. 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/20030305/5e445b9b/attachment.htm From privethedge Wed Mar 5 10:05:14 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:05:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] urgent: HS debaters disqualified by CHSAA: ans Dra ke In-Reply-To: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370710C9CC3@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Message-ID: <20030305160514.23972.qmail@web10001.mail.yahoo.com> Hmmm..I don't know to be honest with you....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/20030305/7697642c/attachment.html From tshuman Wed Mar 5 10:16:00 2003 From: tshuman (Terrance Shuman) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 10:16:00 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] urgent: HS debaters disqualified by CHSAA: ans Hyland In-Reply-To: <20030305155138.52038.qmail@web10003.mail.yahoo.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030305085906.00a2b040@mail.magiccablepc.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030305101101.00a2d260@mail.magiccablepc.com> De-cloaking again, briefly... At 07:51 AM 3/5/2003 -0800, Duane Hyland wrote: >Drake was speaking to me here, about a situation in Virginia. I don't think so. I thought it was quite clear that he was talking about the Colorado round. I understand that the two of you are also having a conversation about Classic Debate in your area, but I was not responding to his post on that subject, but the earlier one which I quoted. 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 ccooper Wed Mar 5 10:28:39 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:28:39 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Buying Off Dissent... Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370711424A3@exm01w.apac.planning.org> I just read this in the Washington Post, regarding Bush's tax-cut proposal: "Given the rocky start this plan had, the White House probably feels okay about its position right now," said Kenneth J. Kies, a tax lobbyist and former director of the congressional Joint Tax Committee. That shift was, at least in part, because White House officials and Republican Hosue leaders let it be known that the Republican Congress would consider additional special-interest tax provisions as long as the groups seeking them were on Bush's team. "If what people remember about you is that you are not helpful, you are probably not going to be first in line when we do the next tax bill," warned Grover G. Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, who has helped the WHite House rally support behind its plan." This smacks of the worst kind of quid pro quo. It's not enough that Bush attempts to buy off the dissent of our allies (read: Turkey and Mexico)...Now, he's using the same tactic to buy off the dissent of the American people?? COOP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/66b18f08/attachment.htm From ermo Wed Mar 5 10:43:52 2003 From: ermo (Eric Morris) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:43:52 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Buying Off Dissent... References: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370711424A3@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Message-ID: <002001c2e336$681d8760$abcbed81@cc.ukans.edu> Buying Off Dissent...Nothing new in politics or unique to Bush, of course (recall that a favorite Republican objection to the Democratic 'welfare state' is that it seeks to buy votes from the poor). It does serve to reveal the contradictions between Bush's rhetoric ('I want tax reform for everyone, not just the "right people"') and the political reality where power, and not just ideas, rule the day. But, those contradictions should already be apparent to anyone who is paying attention. Eric Morris ----- Original Message ----- From: Christopher Cooper To: 'edebate at ndtceda.com' Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:28 AM Subject: [eDebate] Buying Off Dissent... I just read this in the Washington Post, regarding Bush's tax-cut proposal: "Given the rocky start this plan had, the White House probably feels okay about its position right now," said Kenneth J. Kies, a tax lobbyist and former director of the congressional Joint Tax Committee. That shift was, at least in part, because White House officials and Republican Hosue leaders let it be known that the Republican Congress would consider additional special-interest tax provisions as long as the groups seeking them were on Bush's team. "If what people remember about you is that you are not helpful, you are probably not going to be first in line when we do the next tax bill," warned Grover G. Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, who has helped the WHite House rally support behind its plan." This smacks of the worst kind of quid pro quo. It's not enough that Bush attempts to buy off the dissent of our allies (read: Turkey and Mexico)...Now, he's using the same tactic to buy off the dissent of the American people?? COOP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/9f59c3a6/attachment.html From ccooper Wed Mar 5 11:04:46 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:04:46 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Buying Off Dissent... Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370711424AC@exm01w.apac.planning.org> There is a big difference between votes FOLLOWING the money...that is, people voting for those who support policies that are in their economic interest (e.g. your welfare example)...and the money PUSHING the votes. The White House and GOP Leadership telling DISSENTERS that they will be punished economically...that they will not be considered for future boondoggles...is using the money to CHANGE the votes. That's different. -----Original Message----- From: Eric Morris [mailto:ermo at ukans.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:44 AM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Buying Off Dissent... Nothing new in politics or unique to Bush, of course (recall that a favorite Republican objection to the Democratic 'welfare state' is that it seeks to buy votes from the poor). It does serve to reveal the contradictions between Bush's rhetoric ('I want tax reform for everyone, not just the "right people"') and the political reality where power, and not just ideas, rule the day. But, those contradictions should already be apparent to anyone who is paying attention. Eric Morris ----- Original Message ----- From: Christopher Cooper To: 'edebate at ndtceda.com' Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:28 AM Subject: [eDebate] Buying Off Dissent... I just read this in the Washington Post, regarding Bush's tax-cut proposal: "Given the rocky start this plan had, the White House probably feels okay about its position right now," said Kenneth J. Kies, a tax lobbyist and former director of the congressional Joint Tax Committee. That shift was, at least in part, because White House officials and Republican Hosue leaders let it be known that the Republican Congress would consider additional special-interest tax provisions as long as the groups seeking them were on Bush's team. "If what people remember about you is that you are not helpful, you are probably not going to be first in line when we do the next tax bill," warned Grover G. Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, who has helped the WHite House rally support behind its plan." This smacks of the worst kind of quid pro quo. It's not enough that Bush attempts to buy off the dissent of our allies (read: Turkey and Mexico)...Now, he's using the same tactic to buy off the dissent of the American people?? COOP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/f26857cf/attachment.htm From jmarty Wed Mar 5 11:02:16 2003 From: jmarty (Jillian A. Marty) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:02:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] GEORGE MASON, JAMES MADISON AND WEST VIRGINA PLEASE RESPOND Message-ID: <1046883736.3e662d9876bc6@webmail.uvm.edu> -- HEY CAN SOME ONE FROM EACH SCHOOL PLEASE BACKCHANNEL ME. ITS IN REFERENCE OF WHAT AFFIRMATIVES YALL ARE RUNNING FOR NOVICE NATS. THANKS JILLIAN- UVM From asantora Wed Mar 5 11:19:56 2003 From: asantora (Allen Santora) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 12:19:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Two American congress members walk out on a Muslim prayer.... Message-ID: <000601c2e33b$71df2420$3616ae81@asantora33397> Duane writes: > Hmmmm...boorish to be sure, and they should apologize for lacking good home training > and manners, but wrong? Shouldn't Government and Prayer be dvided? Why was a > religious figure of any faith speaking at a Government function (notice - this is my trying to > be funny, I understand the Supreme Court has ruled that this type of thing is legal) > especially in a state where the Pledge of Allegience can' t be uttered if it includes "under > God." Any less wrong than actively disrupting a speech by a right wing conservative on > your campus? OR destroying a publication that carries an Ad, for instance, with which you > disagree? I would go futher to say that no Islamic prayer should be uttered in a government body when the pledge of Allegiance has been curtailed [even in this case where it was done in another locality]. As for the delegates' justification for refusing to hear the prayer, it shouldn't be an issue, nor should they be in any way reprimanded for their belief. In fact, I would go so far as to say that they shouldn't have to apologize. Standing for that Islamic prayer was compulsory for those delegates, which is wrong all the way around. Respectfully, -A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/518abdb7/attachment.html From Steph293 Wed Mar 5 11:16:35 2003 From: Steph293 (Steph293 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:16:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Matt Plush rules Message-ID: <339E4629.46769296.0084B4FE@aol.com> Hello All, I am going to be the dissent in the group with the CHSSA debate. Between coaching a college team in Denver, hosting high school tournaments and judging at high school tournaments in Colorado - I think that this experience is not the essence of Colorado high school debate. In fact my entire college debate team is comprised of Colorado debaters and they are all smart debaters who are adjusting to the differences in college debate. I think a few things need be be understood before everyone jumps to the conclusion that the CHSSA board was wrong in its decision. First, I am very familiar with some of individuals on the CHSAA committee and why they are unwilling to let individuals dance as a form of debate. Let me remind everyone that college debate has not always been an open forum for free expression of argumentation. The Colorado coaches have an traditional interpretation of what high school debate should be and their view is as valid as those that would like debate to operate in a different framework. Second, Colorado has had a very hard time finding and keeping debate coaches and an even harder time getting coaches that know anything about CX debate. Changing or molding an organization takes time. Change is a process not an overnight express package. Moving so far away from what individuals (coaches) view as debate will indeed garner backlash as we have even seen in college debate with the alternative forms of speaking. These are not just openly accepted, but instead have been a progression over time. Now that being said - I know Matt very well and his team was given an option of apologizing for offending the other team. While that seemed unreasonable to them - it was an option if they wanted to stay in the tournament. They must also recognize that they did indeed offend the other students they were debating against and that was a concern of the tab room. Those students from Skyline were truly offended and that needs to be taken into account. Stephanie From ermo Wed Mar 5 11:19:30 2003 From: ermo (Eric Morris) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:19:30 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Buying Off Dissent... References: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370711424AC@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Message-ID: <004901c2e33b$626a3b60$abcbed81@cc.ukans.edu> Buying Off Dissent...The difference is that it the former is often the euphemism for the latter. The Democratic slogan "the ass you save may be your own" is designed to reveal the consequences of voting the wrong way. Both sides reward people who help them and punish people who hurt them. That's not news. The question is about the means employed and their legality (and, perhaps, morality). The incident suggests that the WH is making its tax cut decisions based on political expediency, not economic principle. I don't think it is bribery in a legal sense, but it is coercive and it violates their own rhetoric (assuming Norquist speaks for the WH, and he well might be doing so). It also sounds like someone one says when one is about to go down in flames. Buying off dissent is normal political practice. It can be hard when the dissenters refuse to be bought or when the price is too high. This appeal may be too little, too late, since it is starting to look like Bush can't deliver the goods (future tax cuts). At least, I hope he can't. Eric Morris ----- Original Message ----- From: Christopher Cooper To: 'Eric Morris' ; edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:04 AM Subject: RE: [eDebate] Buying Off Dissent... There is a big difference between votes FOLLOWING the money...that is, people voting for those who support policies that are in their economic interest (e.g. your welfare example)...and the money PUSHING the votes. The White House and GOP Leadership telling DISSENTERS that they will be punished economically...that they will not be considered for future boondoggles...is using the money to CHANGE the votes. That's different. -----Original Message----- From: Eric Morris [mailto:ermo at ukans.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 11:44 AM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Buying Off Dissent... Nothing new in politics or unique to Bush, of course (recall that a favorite Republican objection to the Democratic 'welfare state' is that it seeks to buy votes from the poor). It does serve to reveal the contradictions between Bush's rhetoric ('I want tax reform for everyone, not just the "right people"') and the political reality where power, and not just ideas, rule the day. But, those contradictions should already be apparent to anyone who is paying attention. Eric Morris ----- Original Message ----- From: Christopher Cooper To: 'edebate at ndtceda.com' Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 10:28 AM Subject: [eDebate] Buying Off Dissent... I just read this in the Washington Post, regarding Bush's tax-cut proposal: "Given the rocky start this plan had, the White House probably feels okay about its position right now," said Kenneth J. Kies, a tax lobbyist and former director of the congressional Joint Tax Committee. That shift was, at least in part, because White House officials and Republican Hosue leaders let it be known that the Republican Congress would consider additional special-interest tax provisions as long as the groups seeking them were on Bush's team. "If what people remember about you is that you are not helpful, you are probably not going to be first in line when we do the next tax bill," warned Grover G. Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, who has helped the WHite House rally support behind its plan." This smacks of the worst kind of quid pro quo. It's not enough that Bush attempts to buy off the dissent of our allies (read: Turkey and Mexico)...Now, he's using the same tactic to buy off the dissent of the American people?? COOP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/879ac484/attachment.htm From lsd041 Wed Mar 5 12:01:31 2003 From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:01:31 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Novice Nationals Team List Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030305114305.02086c98@lulu.it.northwestern.edu> Please double check you entry. I count 25 teams. Registration is on Friday night at 7 p.m. at the Orrington. Pairings for rounds 1-4 will be released there. Check the monitor for a listing of the room for reservation. Round 1 begins at 8:30 a.m. sharp on Saturday. Unless I get more entries, all debates will be in Kresge Hall. See you soon. SD Baylor: Team: Ryan Kreck and Keeli Ford Judge: Leeper Emory: Teams: Stephen Chaudoin and Cyrus Ghavi Jordan Traister and Roy Levkovitz Bot Allen and Vikas Kumar JB Tarter and Marcus Jenkins Nick Stabile and Cecilia Shu Judges: Newnam, D Heidt, Coffman, Goldstein Iowa: Team: Todd Lantz and Dan Paul Judge: TBA Kansas: Teams: Matt Cormack and Lindy Simonsen Greg Holmquist and Jared Zuckerman Judges: Harris, Thompson Kentucky: Teams: Ruben Schy and James Hartmann Alex Thiele and John-Robert Skarabanek Judges: Solt, Hubbard Loyola: Teams: Catherine Kuhn and Emily Doty Gabeir Abbas and Christina Riepel Judge: Gall Michigan State: Teams: Ryan Burke and Elizabeth DeLuca Travis Bye and Mark Rosen Nathan Gibson and Casey Harrigan Judges: W Repko (4), Renken (8) Northwestern: Teams: Randall Bush and Matt Reedy Avery Dale and Anthony Jardina Allan Barkhausen and Jonathan Reynolds Judges: McBride, Fitzmier Richmond: Teams: Nehal Shah and Craig Marcus Casey Seidel and Francis Grice Judges: Kuswa, Hanson Southern Illinois: Team: Justin Hingtgen and Ben Kessler Judge: Waltz Texas: Teams: John Long and Spencer Johnson Brian Peterson and Mariesa Herman Judges: Rollins, Nathan West Georgia: Team: Keith Barnstein and Anita Lamar Judge: Sarah Holbrook Scott Deatherage Director of Debate Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois From michelinmassey Wed Mar 5 12:04:58 2003 From: michelinmassey (Michelin C. Massey) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:04:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] colorado and the process of debate In-Reply-To: <339E4629.46769296.0084B4FE@aol.com> Message-ID: <20030305180458.69833.qmail@web40204.mail.yahoo.com> i too am also originally from colorado and i would only like to make some points... first, policy debate (unfortunately) is dying in many areas. coaches are quitting because going to tournaments upsets potential relationship partners (you know, those people we date who are not debate types). many people tire of the bickering within the community and return to their schools with an endless struggle to gain respect and support. some have chosen to focus on l-d debate. most others just leave. that's a reality of debate no matter where it exists. i think that colorado is demonsrative of this point. virtually no tournaments in colorado are overnight. almost no tournaments require a hotel stay. coaches are still quitting in colorado. policy debate participation at home is diminishing. so what do we do? one thought that i think is a good one is to encourage young people to coach. matt plush works his ass off for those kids at a school that really only had mediocre debaters for years. all of a sudden, he is fielding one of (if not the) top teams in the state. young people have new ideas and sometimes they offend the contemporary structure. decisions like this make it less likely that a person like matt plush will continue coaching as a permanent career. why go through that sort of agony? second, offense (broadly speaking) cannot be a standard to disqualify a team. debate is about ideas. if ideas are stifled by the us the teachers, then we've lost our ability to teach our students by example. the process of the debate: clashing ideas and an audience deciding which ideas were presented the most effectively is what we love. we love it because it is so empowering and invigorating to articulate a position and have another party engage in a dialogue about how and why we disagree. we love it because it gives our students the chance to think and act in new ways. if the judge of the debate (someone i've known for years, by the way) did not like the argument or found it to be ineffectively presented, i am confident that he would vote against said argument. after reading the ballot, however, the negative team offered scant few reasoned responses as to why the philosophy and methodology of the affirmative was unacceptable. instead, they did what we teach our students not to do: to use straw-person and ad-hominem attacks. the killer is that behavior was validated by a tournament committee who found it in their interest to concur that "this is not policy debate." after this decision, isn't the standard now that teams can simply protest a decision with which they are not comfortable because it does not conform to whatever debate philosophy is acceptable by a committee? what if i am offended that a team reads a particular disadvantage to my case? if i'm particularly bashful, should i be offended if a woman wearing a sport coat removes her sport coat to reveal her blouse and cleavage? what if she takes off her heels and shows that she is/(not) wearing pantyhose? in any of the above scenarios, do i not have the right to protest because their conduct was unsportsmanlike? after all, it offended me! third, what happened at that regional tournament was not new. while i was in college, a team of mine was forced to forfeit with zero speaker points a debate at the state tournament because one member stood to read evidence from the other team and accidentally swore in the round (a round they won with perfect speaker points, by the way). while they chose to stay at the event and even cleared, that debate was their only preliminary round loss. their zero speaker points forced them to compete as the bottom seed, then being paired against the eventual state champion team (the top seed). we will not retain debaters and coaches if rounds cannot be decided by judges. there is a generation of people who we should be trying to get in this activity. what happened in fort collins will not help in that process. michelin massey. --- Steph293 at aol.com wrote: > Hello All, > > I am going to be the dissent in the group with the > CHSSA debate. Between coaching a college team in > Denver, hosting high school tournaments and judging > at high school tournaments in Colorado - I think > that this experience is not the essence of Colorado > high school debate. In fact my entire college > debate team is comprised of Colorado debaters and > they are all smart debaters who are adjusting to the > differences in college debate. > > I think a few things need be be understood before > everyone jumps to the conclusion that the CHSSA > board was wrong in its decision. > > First, I am very familiar with some of individuals > on the CHSAA committee and why they are unwilling to > let individuals dance as a form of debate. Let me > remind everyone that college debate has not always > been an open forum for free expression of > argumentation. The Colorado coaches have an > traditional interpretation of what high school > debate should be and their view is as valid as those > that would like debate to operate in a different > framework. > > Second, Colorado has had a very hard time finding > and keeping debate coaches and an even harder time > getting coaches that know anything about CX debate. > Changing or molding an organization takes time. > Change is a process not an overnight express > package. Moving so far away from what individuals > (coaches) view as debate will indeed garner backlash > as we have even seen in college debate with the > alternative forms of speaking. These are not just > openly accepted, but instead have been a progression > over time. > > Now that being said - I know Matt very well and his > team was given an option of apologizing for > offending the other team. While that seemed > unreasonable to them - it was an option if they > wanted to stay in the tournament. They must also > recognize that they did indeed offend the other > students they were debating against and that was a > concern of the tab room. Those students from > Skyline were truly offended and that needs to be > taken into account. > > Stephanie __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From bkantor Wed Mar 5 13:09:46 2003 From: bkantor (Benjamin Kantor) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:09:46 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Matt Plush rules Message-ID: <0770180E-4F3E-11D7-93C0-0003939E3338@macalester.edu> steph, stabs at colorado debaters aside, the argument your advancing in behalf of the dinosaurs is not a very strong one. The defense you put forth relies of the supposedly offensive nature of the affirmative's case, yet there are two problems with the defense: the first is that the reason the team was disqualified, at least as explained by plush, was penalized for taking there shoes off, which, even if the other team found to be offensive, probably does not warrant a forfeit (unless you can think up a compelling arg for 'shod debaters good' ). The second problem is that what counts as offensive is entirely subjective, far too much so to be the basis for pulling the team from the tournament. Eighth round at Northwestern we debated a team from James Madison who made compelling arguments as to why relations disads and similar scenarios are very degrading and rely on a wide range of essentialist, sometimes racist assumptions. We hadn't forward a relations position, but the results of the debate aside the round brings up a good way to differentiate between offensive speech and uncomfortable speech. Community norms serve as a check against the offensive. Few rfd's will ever include "there was no terminal impact articulation on Racism". This said the way community norms get enforced is generally through in-round practices, like if i can win my argument that your framework is heterosexist and misogynistic why cant i tell the judge that and win the round? The other factor that you seem to disregard is judge adaptation. If the other team was offended, the apology might be warranted, but if the judge deemed the defense of the offensive speech sufficient there is no reason they should lose. No one wants anyone to be forced to sing or dance or use a tv as part of their performance, but to go above judges pens and change ballots to keep people who DO want to do those things out is ludicrous. ben mac From marcus Wed Mar 5 12:32:31 2003 From: marcus (Marcus L. Leach) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:32:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] UNT Backchannel Message-ID: <200303051832.h25IWV130407@fiat.cross-x.com> Could someone from UNT backchannel me please. Marcus L. Leach KC Central 03' -Chief Technology Officer -Fiat Utopia Inc. & Assc. "Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than convert."-MLK From ehrlenmeyerflask Wed Mar 5 12:35:43 2003 From: ehrlenmeyerflask (Aaron Klemz) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:35:43 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Zompetti or disregard Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/f3ad7a39/attachment.html From stannardmatt Wed Mar 5 12:46:59 2003 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 11:46:59 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] the colorado thing--hold on a second Message-ID: Starting to hear people say "there's two sides to this story," etc. No kidding. Yeah, everybody needs to calm down and avoid hyperbole like "fascists" etc. We need to get all sides of the story and we need to filter those accounts. We need to do this for the same reason I am writing to some members of the Colorado HS debate community and a couple of administrators: Because what should matter most to us is what is best for Colorado HS debaters. That said, as a DOF, as a high school camp director and occasional high school coach, and as a parent, you will never convince me that disqualifying a team for conduct subject to the interpretation of an ad hoc committee is appropriate, pragmatic, educationally sound, or even good "parenting." And as a recruiter, and an advocate for collegiate forensics, I am concerned when disciplinary structures are directly OR indirectly tied to the argumentative or performative choices of high school forensics competitors or coaches. stannard _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From velcrowe66 Wed Mar 5 12:44:43 2003 From: velcrowe66 (Chris Crowe) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:44:43 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Matt Plush rules Message-ID: In all fairness Stephanie, they agreed to apologize to the other debaters for potentially offending them, but the board said they would still forfeit if they didn't agree to NEVER run the position again. Hardly fair... -Chris Crowe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/f703fbe9/attachment.htm From Jmara17 Wed Mar 5 12:51:37 2003 From: Jmara17 (Jmara17 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 13:51:37 EST Subject: [eDebate] NYC Area Judges Needed --- March 15th, 2003 Message-ID: <39.3508ad21.2b97a139@aol.com> Hello Everyone: The NYUDL is holding the fifth New York Urban Debate League Tournament at Wings Academy on March 15th, 2003. This tournament will be a novice division only tournament. We are seeking volunteers and especially judges to assist with tournament responsibilities. We hope that you will be able to join us for a day of good food, great people, and fantastic debate! Please contact me at your soonest possible convenience, via email or phone, regarding your availability for this tournament. Also, we are always looking for new judges. If you know of anyone that would like to judge, please forward them our contact information and we will be happy to fill them in on the details. I look forward to seeing you on March 15th, 2003. Thank you. Je'Mara Atwood Special Projects Officer IMPACT Coalition Jmara17 at aol.com 212-702-0944 Here is the information you will need for this tournament: Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2003. Time: Judges must arrive by 8:45am and sign in at the front desk Place: Wings Academy Address: 1122 East 180th Street Bronx, New York 10460 ** Additional directions can be found on tournament flyer! As usual, breakfast and lunch will be served, Metro cards will be provided, and judges will be paid $15/round available. This tournament will have 3 rounds. Tournament Flyer: NYUDL Tournament #5 @ Wings Academy 1122 East 180th Street Bronx, New York 10460 The registration deadline is Wednesday, March 12th, at 4 PM. We must have your completed registration form (included in this mailing as well as in the back of your copy of "Keys to Success") faxed to us at 212-471-8664; or go to our website at www.impactcoalition.org. The website registration form is conveniently now on the startup page for our website. The coach (or designated team representative) must register the teams at the tournament to confirm the initial registration form and make any corrections. Registration will end promptly at 8:45am on Saturday, March 15th. Place: Wings Academy Date: Saturday, March 15th, 2003 Who: Novice Division Time: All participants should arrive by 8:30 AM Address: 1122 East 180th Street Bronx, New York 10460 The school is located at 1122 East 180th Street between Bronx Park and Devoe Streets. As always, IMPACT will provide breakfast, lunch, and Metro cards to all participants. If there are problems on the morning of the tournament and you need to speak with a member of the IMPACT Staff, please call 718 930 4026 (Je'Mara) or (917) 620-4776 (Shannon). A DEBATER GOES TO COLLEGE FAIR will start at 1 PM in the cafeteria. Representatives from NYU, John Jay, City College, Marist, the University of Rochester, Williams, and many more will be present. The fair is open to ALL UDL debaters and their parents. Please invite all your students (novice and advanced) to come to the fair and bring their guardians. Please call Sion with any questions (212) 702-0944. Directions to Wings Academy: >From Manhattan: Take the #2 or #5 Subway to East 180th Street in the Bronx. Exit the subway station using the exit marked 'Bronx Zoo '. Once you get to the street make a right and walk ? block. The school will be a gray building on your left. Wings Academy is located on 180th Street between Bronx Park and Devoe Street. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/3eff6878/attachment.html From privethedge Wed Mar 5 13:04:34 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:04:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Summer Camp/Recruiting Information Message-ID: <20030305190434.28571.qmail@web10004.mail.yahoo.com> HI, As many of you know, when I'm not lurking on e-debate, trying to advance the views of the GOP, I'm a mild mannered, badly dressed, greying, and balding, high school debate coach and league officer. Towards those ends, no..not the GOP ends, the debate ends, I'm inviting any coach who runs a camp to send me the pertinent details on that camp (e-mail format please, no shiny brochures needed - but just the facts: Name of Camp Dates Cost Location Entry Deadline Whatever else you have For inclusion in a packet I'm preparing for high school debaters in Northern Virginia. Your information, if delivered to me by next Thursday, the 13th of March, at 12 Noon EST, will reach every member school in our league the next day. I thank anyone who wants to participate. IF you have actual things to mail me, please b/c me for the mailing address. 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/20030305/aec6a9cf/attachment.htm From govnt_man Wed Mar 5 13:11:10 2003 From: govnt_man (The Drake) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:11:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] urgent: HS debaters disqualified by CHSAA: ans Drake Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/acd70752/attachment.html From wnewnam Wed Mar 5 13:31:52 2003 From: wnewnam (Bill Newnam) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:31:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NDT "registrations" References: <3E65027D.1ADC19F@emory.edu> Message-ID: <3E6650A8.1A1BC51B@emory.edu> IN the last 24 hours, I have received two more of these. Posted below. Forms received so far: > > Dartmouth (LT/ST) > Georgetown University (VN) > James Madison University (LM) > Michigan (OF) > Pepperdine (OH) > Samford University (PR) > State University of West Georgia (ET) > University of Northern Iowa (JL:) > University of Pittsburgh (JT) > University of Redlands (AS) > University of Richmond (MS) > > Look forward to seeing your smiling faces in Atlanta, > > bill n > emory > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From mmk_savant Wed Mar 5 13:41:02 2003 From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:41:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] monkeys! Message-ID: as most of you know, at the OIC summit yesterday, Izzat Ibrahim, the deputy chairman of Iraq's ruling Revolutionary Council told the Kuwaiti representative: "Shut up, sit down you small agent, you monkey!" http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/05/sprj.irq.conference/index.html although technically correct because homo sapiens is a monkey species, Izzy meant his outburst as an insult. Iraq hates monkeys, i think. here is a picture of a monkey. look at the cute monkey. http://modernhumorist.com/mh/0011/monkey/ i name the monkey "Cooper Stroube". it is a good name for a monkey. and that is what i have to say about that. Michael Korcok _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: monkey.jpg Type: image/pjpeg Size: 31231 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/a41737ea/attachment.bin From lsd041 Wed Mar 5 13:52:26 2003 From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:52:26 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UPDATED Novice Nationals Team List Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030305134843.020a2020@lulu.it.northwestern.edu> Since my last post, approximately 2 hours ago, note new entries from UMKC and Wake Forest. SD Please double check you entry. I count 28 teams. Registration is on Friday night at 7 p.m. at the Orrington. Pairings for rounds 1-4 will be released there. Check the monitor for a listing of the room for reservation. Round 1 begins at 8:30 a.m. sharp on Saturday. Unless I get more entries, all debates will be in Kresge Hall. See you soon. SD Baylor: Team: Ryan Kreck and Keeli Ford Judge: Leeper Emory: Teams: Stephen Chaudoin and Cyrus Ghavi Jordan Traister and Roy Levkovitz Bot Allen and Vikas Kumar JB Tarter and Marcus Jenkins Nick Stabile and Cecilia Shu Judges: Newnam, D Heidt, Coffman, Goldstein Iowa: Team: Todd Lantz and Dan Paul Judge: TBA Kansas: Teams: Matt Cormack and Lindy Simonsen Greg Holmquist and Jared Zuckerman Judges: Harris, Thompson Kentucky: Teams: Ruben Schy and James Hartmann Alex Thiele and John-Robert Skarabanek Judges: Solt, Hubbard Loyola: Teams: Catherine Kuhn and Emily Doty Gabeir Abbas and Christina Riepel Judge: Gall Michigan State: Teams: Ryan Burke and Elizabeth DeLuca Travis Bye and Mark Rosen Nathan Gibson and Casey Harrigan Judges: W Repko (4), Renken (8) Northwestern: Teams: Randall Bush and Matt Reedy Avery Dale and Anthony Jardina Allan Barkhausen and Jonathan Reynolds Judges: McBride, Fitzmier Richmond: Teams: Nehal Shah and Craig Marcus Casey Seidel and Francis Grice Judges: Kuswa, Hanson Southern Illinois: Team: Justin Hingtgen and Ben Kessler Judge: Waltz Texas: Teams: John Long and Spencer Johnson Brian Peterson and Mariesa Herman Judges: Rollins, Nathan UMKC: Team: Andrew Culp and Malcolm Gordon Judge: Baisley Wake Forest: Teams: Elizabeth Gedmark and Jamie Carroll Brad Hall and David Leung Judges: Ross Smith, J.P. Lacy, Casey Kelly West Georgia: Team: Keith Barnstein and Anita Lamar Judge: Sarah Holbrook Scott Deatherage Director of Debate Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate Scott Deatherage Director of Debate Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois From privethedge Wed Mar 5 13:59:57 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:59:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] urgent: HS debaters disqualified by CHSAA: ans Drake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030305195957.42214.qmail@web10010.mail.yahoo.com> HI, Sorry..Terrance..I honestly thought that Drake was just using hte CO thing to talk to me about VA, and it looks like I was partially right in my thoughts. I think the best solution for the Colorado thing, absent letting the situation stay in the room, and harking to the judge's original decision, was: if the other people were so deeply "offended" by the actions, the team could have forfeited the one round, not the entire tournament. That seems like overkill and uncessary. Especially, given the lack of concrete rules governing the sportsmanship edicts. I;m thinking that if this went to court, the kids would have more than an average chance of getting an injunction allowing them to compete at States. 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/20030305/f7b4afae/attachment.html From ccooper Wed Mar 5 14:09:11 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:09:11 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] monkeys! Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370711424BE@exm01w.apac.planning.org> I have a pet. He is a nice pet. Pet my pet. His name is MK. You can see a picture of him and all his freinds here: http://www.lovelongears.com/memberpix.html I like MK. and that is all I have to say about that. COOP -----Original Message----- From: Michael Korcok [mailto:mmk_savant at hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 2:41 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] monkeys! as most of you know, at the OIC summit yesterday, Izzat Ibrahim, the deputy chairman of Iraq's ruling Revolutionary Council told the Kuwaiti representative: "Shut up, sit down you small agent, you monkey!" http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/05/sprj.irq.conference/index.html although technically correct because homo sapiens is a monkey species, Izzy meant his outburst as an insult. Iraq hates monkeys, i think. here is a picture of a monkey. look at the cute monkey. http://modernhumorist.com/mh/0011/monkey/ i name the monkey "Cooper Stroube". it is a good name for a monkey. and that is what i have to say about that. Michael Korcok _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/161806e4/attachment.htm From lsd041 Wed Mar 5 14:16:01 2003 From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 14:16:01 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UPDATED Novice Nationals Team List Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030305141442.0212a280@lulu.it.northwestern.edu> Since my last post, approximately 20 minutes ago, note two new teams from USC. SD Please double check you entry. I count 30 teams. Registration is on Friday night at 7 p.m. at the Orrington. Pairings for rounds 1-4 will be released there. Check the monitor for a listing of the room for reservation. Round 1 begins at 8:30 a.m. sharp on Saturday. Unless I get more entries, all debates will be in Kresge Hall. See you soon. SD Baylor: Team: Ryan Kreck and Keeli Ford Judge: Leeper Emory: Teams: Stephen Chaudoin and Cyrus Ghavi Jordan Traister and Roy Levkovitz Bot Allen and Vikas Kumar JB Tarter and Marcus Jenkins Nick Stabile and Cecilia Shu Judges: Newnam, D Heidt, Coffman, Goldstein Iowa: Team: Todd Lantz and Dan Paul Judge: TBA Kansas: Teams: Matt Cormack and Lindy Simonsen Greg Holmquist and Jared Zuckerman Judges: Harris, Thompson Kentucky: Teams: Ruben Schy and James Hartmann Alex Thiele and John-Robert Skarabanek Judges: Solt, Hubbard Loyola: Teams: Catherine Kuhn and Emily Doty Gabeir Abbas and Christina Riepel Judge: Gall Michigan State: Teams: Ryan Burke and Elizabeth DeLuca Travis Bye and Mark Rosen Nathan Gibson and Casey Harrigan Judges: W Repko (4), Renken (8) Northwestern: Teams: Randall Bush and Matt Reedy Avery Dale and Anthony Jardina Allan Barkhausen and Jonathan Reynolds Judges: McBride, Fitzmier Richmond: Teams: Nehal Shah and Craig Marcus Casey Seidel and Francis Grice Judges: Kuswa, Hanson Southern California: Teams: Bunny Tucker & Maggie Buckles (Vegetarian) Kamel Chaudhary & Sameer Assad Judges: David Damus (Saturday Only, no elims) 2 Rounds Jon Sharp-2 Rounds Chris Macfarlane-4 Rounds Southern Illinois: Team: Justin Hingtgen and Ben Kessler Judge: Waltz Texas: Teams: John Long and Spencer Johnson Brian Peterson and Mariesa Herman Judges: Rollins, Nathan UMKC: Team: Andrew Culp and Malcolm Gordon Judge: Baisley Wake Forest: Teams: Elizabeth Gedmark and Jamie Carroll Brad Hall and David Leung Judges: Ross Smith, J.P. Lacy, Casey Kelly West Georgia: Team: Keith Barnstein and Anita Lamar Judge: Sarah Holbrook Scott Deatherage Director of Debate Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate Scott Deatherage Director of Debate Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate Scott Deatherage Director of Debate Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois From Maxwell.Schnurer Wed Mar 5 15:02:28 2003 From: Maxwell.Schnurer (Maxwell Schnurer) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 16:02:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] GO POPE! Message-ID: Whoa . . . I don't usually cheer for the pope. But politics makes strange bedfellows. I just love the line by Ari Fleicher below it reminds me of a joke about stalin. Joke: Stalin is in a staff meeting and expresses that he wants to round up all the catholics and execute them. One of Stalin's advisor's says -- "um. . . I don't think the pope will like that very much" To which stalin responded: "F**k the pope -- how big is HIS army?" News from the struggle in Poughkeepsie. 1. The cross-gates mall near albany new york tried to eject a father son duo who were wearing "give peace a chance" t-shirts. The son and his father (the head of New York state's Judicial review . . .doh) were having a disagreement about the increasingly popular tactics of wearing slogan-laden t-shirts into malls as a means to demonstrate. The father believed that the people couldn't ahve been ejected for just wearing t-shirts, that they had to be protesting. So they made some t-shirts at home and wore them to the mall as an experiement. The cops asked them to leave or take them off. The son agreed and took his shirt off and the father refused and was taken away in handcuffs. Should be a lively trial. As someone who has been "ejected" from several local malls for various shenanigans, I am pretty excited to see this tactic getting so much press. 2. Marist college, easily the most conservative school this side of the citadel, had a "books not bombs" rally today in the theatre. About 100 folks came and did some open mike. It was nice and good to see. 3. Tonight is another food not bombs poughkeepsie. We'll see if the police arrest folks for serving food to the homeless. 4. and the pope kicks butt! maxwell/marist Sydney Morning Herald March 6, 2003 Thursday SECTION: News And Features; Pg. 13 LENGTH: 897 words HEADLINE: Pope Takes A Stick To A War In Bad Faith BYLINE: Desmond O'grady BODY: George Bush and his advisers are finding it difficult to ignore the opposition of the Vatican to an attack on Iraq. Desmond O'Grady writes. THE ailing Pope John Paul II seems reinvigorated by his fight to forestall a war over Iraq. In recent weeks he has met political leaders and diplomats from Germany, Spain, Britain, Iraq and Russia and has stated the Vatican viewpoint. This energy has been reflected by the Vatican daily L'Osservatore Romano which described pre-emptive war as "murder on a grand scale; useless, unjust and intrinsically stupid". On Monday John Paul II sent Cardinal Pio Laghi, who in the 1980s was the Vatican's man in Washington, to the United States with a personal letter for the President, George Bush. Its contents are unknown but the Vatican position is that war would have incalculable consequences, that the UN's authority must be upheld, and that more time should be allowed to disarm Saddam. Condoleezza Rice, the US National Security Adviser, has said she cannot understand those who consider action against Iraq immoral and the White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said the President would not be influenced by the Pope. Laghi has been a friend of George Bush snr since they were neighbours when Bush was Ronald Reagan's vice-president. But the retired cardinal will have a hard row to hoe in Washington. The Vatican and the US were at loggerheads before the Bush Administration came to power. There was a prolonged clash over social policy during the Clinton administration. A crucial episode was the International Conference on Population and Development held in Cairo in 1994. There the Vatican and some Latin American countries joined with Islamic states to prevent abortion being approved as a method of family planning. At that time a US State Department representative, Timothy Wirth, said in a press conference that the administration was convinced the Holy See would not negotiate in good faith. That attitude, and the tension, persisted at subsequent UN conferences such as the Beijing Women's Conference, the Istanbul Housing Conference and the Copenhagen Social Summit. For the US, the Holy See was blocking progress but the Vatican saw itself as defending the unborn, the family and religious freedom. It saw itself as speaking for those beyond the First World that is where most of its faithful live. The Vatican is aware of the devastating effects of globalisation in certain countries and has repeatedly called for a better deal from the affluent nations, of which the major is the United States, for the Third World. For almost four decades, the Vatican has pursued religious dialogue with Islam, trying to strengthen its moderate elements. The largest gathering of Islamic leaders to condemn terrorism after September II took place in Assisi under John Paul's auspices. The Vatican fears that an attack on Iraq will increase hostility to the West throughout the Muslim world and drive moderates into the extremist camp. The Pope's "minister for foreign affairs", Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran, in recent speeches has rigorously criticised the idea that a government has the right to topple another government. He fears that this would be a precedent for the law of force whereas the Vatican wants to sustain the force of (international) law, particularly through the UN despite its shortcomings. The Vatican deplores the tendency of the Bush Administration to consider the US an exception to international agreements, ranging from justice to environmental issues. The Vatican also thinks the US has followed an unbalanced policy on the Israel-Palestine issue, which has encouraged Israel to seek a military rather than a political solution. It also distrusts the evangelical fundamentalists who look forward to Armageddon in the Holy Land as a necessary preliminary to the return of the Messiah, and who carry weight in US politics. But even in the Vatican there are some who feel the criticisms of the Bush Administration have been excessive. Bishop Sandro Maggiolini of Como has said that the church's leaders are too ready to adopt an anti-American position. There are also prominent American Catholic writers who disagree with the Vatican assessment of the Bush Administration's approach. Michael Novak, who works for the Republican think tank the American Enterprise Institute, travelled to Rome last month at the invitation of the US Ambassador to the Holy See. He argued that an attack on Iraq satisfied the traditional Catholic criteria for a just war and that, indeed, the US had a moral obligation to go to war. He was received in the Vatican control tower, the Secretariat of State, but subsequently Vatican criticism of US policy has become sharper. While in Rome, Novak, who has been a US ambassador, complained several times of an "unfair" article in the Jesuit publication Civilta Cattolica, which is vetted by the Vatican Secretary of State. It had pointed out that the nations most in violation of UN resolutions were the US and Israel. Hail-fellow-well-met Laghi will have to overcome considerable diffidence in Washington. An administration spokesman recently referred to the Vatican as a "sovereign state" entitled to its own outlook as if it spoke for its few hundred inhabitants. But Laghi will be speaking as representative of the leader of more than a billion Catholics worldwide. From mch766s Wed Mar 5 15:46:29 2003 From: mch766s (Harris, Martin C ) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:46:29 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] monkeys! Message-ID: <236063CE3D22594BA7C9613B71D654A8A37CCA@ruby.smsu.edu> >>although technically correct because homo sapiens is a monkey species, >>Izzy meant his outburst as an insult. Iraq hates monkeys, i think. I normally expect so much better from you Mike. "Technically" there is no part of standard taxonomy that would map to Monkey. Roughly speaking, monkey is about equivalent to family. There are New World and Old World monkeys, so that is still imprecise, but neither family contains a species homo sapiens. New world monkeys (family cebidae) is different then the family that contains homo sapiens which is Hominidae (if talking about Superfamily) or Pongidae. Homo sapiens is a species of primates (order), but NOT monkeys. Monkeys being primates with tails, and we have no tails. "Technically" we are more like Apes, although even that would be imprecise. Now, this is probably just your pot shot at creationists, so we'll give you some latitude, but evolutionarily speaking we are more like cousins to monkeys. Same common ancestor, but DISTINCTLY different evolutionary paths. Otherwise there would be no monkeys, only humans :-). and that is all i have to say about that. Martin Harris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/04ca3280/attachment.html From tweiner1 Wed Mar 5 15:47:54 2003 From: tweiner1 (tweiner1 at gmu.edu) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 16:47:54 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] urgent: HS debaters disqualified by CHSAA Message-ID: <1e741291e72949.1e729491e74129@gmu.edu> > Sisyphus is the nihilistic alternative; he pushes the rock up the hill > because he has nothing else to do and he is happy when it rolls > back down > the hill. Hackman in 1997. That is a pretty henious misreading of the myth of Sisyphus. Just a side note. Jake From BelHomme Wed Mar 5 16:13:49 2003 From: BelHomme (Andy Myers) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 14:13:49 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Treaties cost capital source Message-ID: <1fc801c2e364$7f3ffd50$0a04010a@mail2world.com> What is the source that says that Treaties cost political capital? andy _______________________________________________________________ Get the FREE email that has everyone talking at http://www.mail2world.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/89da0e5a/attachment.htm From Steph293 Wed Mar 5 16:43:43 2003 From: Steph293 (Steph293 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 17:43:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] urgent: HS debaters disqualified by CHSAA: ans Drake Message-ID: <4167DCC7.2045A7DC.0084B4FE@aol.com> Hello All - Again, In response to the conversation about ethics - I think that this should be part of the discussion. The Skyline coach obviously did not know that the judge and Matt had discussed his team running this performance prior to the round and if she did, she probably would have included that in her grievance. And I believe it was an question of unethical behavior. If judges and coaches were allowed to get together and plan out what teams should run in rounds, then there is no impartiality in judging. And as for the argument that it is the same as judging philosophies - there is no comparison. Judge philosophies are open for both teams to read, in this situation the other team had no warning or knowledge that this type of debate was either acceptable or privileged by their judge. Had they known that the judge liked this type of argument, their strategy of attacking the performance probably would have been different. I would hope that this community is not saying that it is acceptable for judges and coaches to plan out debates before the rounds or that it was fair that the other team not be privy to this knowledge. Stephanie Gerali From blackmon47 Wed Mar 5 17:09:51 2003 From: blackmon47 (Neil Blackmon) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 18:09:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Well done ST. Bonaventure Message-ID: It was nice to see the players at Saint Bonnie, who had nothing to do with the administrative wrongdoings at their institution, reject the imposed forfeiture of games and the conference tournament, a punishment decided solely by the administration and effectuating every player who had nothing to do with the problem, and those folks only, take a stand and quit playing for their institution. The notion they are obligated to their university, and that their dissent should be commodified with scholarship reductions, etc... is frightening, and makes their decision all the more brave. -- neil fla debate _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From ragedebate Wed Mar 5 17:18:28 2003 From: ragedebate (Richard Garner) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 15:18:28 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] WGa James Thomas-Backchannell please Message-ID: <20030305231828.75035.qmail@web21010.mail.yahoo.com> 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/20030305/0e0a3bf9/attachment.html From velcrowe66 Wed Mar 5 18:04:32 2003 From: velcrowe66 (Chris Crowe) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 17:04:32 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] urgent: HS debaters disqualified by CHSAA: ans Drake Message-ID: Hey Stephanie, It's not like the judge told them as he went into the round that he would like to see them debate their performance aff, but he had just made an off-hand comment at a prior tournament about it. There was no consensus between the judge and debaters about what to run. If I heard a judge wanted me to run a certain case, just like if they didn't want me to run topicality, I would follow that preference. It also still doesn't justify them being disqualified from the entire tournament. -Chris Crowe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/09b3cee7/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn Wed Mar 5 18:24:55 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 18:24:55 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Treaties cost capital source Message-ID: How much political capital does it cost the Bush administration to sign an international treaty? No idea; it has never been tried. ;) .k _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From BERCHNORTO Wed Mar 5 18:39:48 2003 From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:39:48 EST Subject: [eDebate] unilateral disarmament Message-ID: <117.1ff45b7b.2b97f2d4@aol.com> Dear friends, Following the examples of our friends at Vermont, Richmond, and especially Louisville, the West Virginia University debate program will have the following policy beginning with the 2003-04 season: 1. No WVU debater will debate in more than six novice tournaments in her lifetime (not necessarily consecutively). 2. No WVU debater will debate in more than ten JV tournaments in her lifetime (not necessarily consecutively). We believe that this will maximize debater development while still allowing for competitive success. Anyone care to join us? --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/a667a010/attachment.html From SSbauschard2 Wed Mar 5 18:39:48 2003 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 19:39:48 EST Subject: [eDebate] Missing ADA Judge Philosophies Message-ID: <1e5.3b2dbd9.2b97f2d4@aol.com> I do not have judge philosophies for the following ADA judges. It would be kind of them to email me one or post it on Planet Debate 28 Brossman, Brent ++ 14 Fishbone, Aaron ++ 41 Hamilton, Alisha ++ 15 Hayman, Jethro ++ 19 Ibeike-Jonah, Ma ++ 8 Johnson, Glenn ++ 52 Kemper, Cory ++ 57 Ketsdever, Natha ++ 21 Kimble, Jim ++ 6 Koch, Steve ++ 56 Myers, Jessica ++ 3 Perez, Tino ++ 58 Rao, Anand -++_ 31 Ross, John ++ 11 Snider, Sarah ++ 26 Thomson, Scott ++ 34 Verney, Daisy ++ You can download all the ADA ones at once by logging on to Planet Debate and visiting http://www.planetdebate.com/scripts/user_listing.asp and selecting ADA. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/7230495c/attachment.htm From Zompetti Wed Mar 5 20:04:49 2003 From: Zompetti (Zompetti at aol.com) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 21:04:49 EST Subject: [eDebate] looking for Ede Warner Message-ID: <29.3a966d94.2b9806c1@aol.com> sorry to clutter people's mail.... Ede, can you please backchannel me? thanks, zomp -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/8d338802/attachment.html From swhalen Wed Mar 5 20:39:23 2003 From: swhalen (Shawn Whalen) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 18:39:23 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Michigan debate or Esther Jackson Message-ID: <3E66B4DB.6020506@sfsu.edu> I received a check from Esther Jackson for $150 that I assume is to cover the entry fees for CEDA Nationals. The check says Univ. of Michigan debate fees, but I have no entry from the University of Michigan. Can anyone help me out on this? Thanks, Shawn Whalen From CodyMorrow1 Wed Mar 5 21:18:15 2003 From: CodyMorrow1 (CodyMorrow1 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 22:18:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 6 (maybe 7) rounds or NDT judging available... Message-ID: <2EED1783.221491E8.36E92226@aol.com> just drop me a line if you are still need of covering your judgement committment. thanks cody From pem6751 Wed Mar 5 21:47:10 2003 From: pem6751 (Paul Mabrey III) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 21:47:10 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] fort hays mr 2nd round at large application Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/ef1f519f/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: fortmr 2nd round app.16583DEFANGED-doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 196608 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/ef1f519f/attachment.obj From let_the_american_empire_burn Thu Mar 6 00:25:01 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 00:25:01 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] to those who are pro-war and oh-so-concerned for the Iraqi people Message-ID: on euphemisms (another sentence for that bird), today Tommy Franks (the general in charge of your up-coming 'war of liberation') when asked by Pamela Hess (of UPI, and my favorite Pentagon press-person) about any potential conflicts between the Turks and the Kurds, described Turkey's dispossession and massacre of Kurdish peoples as a "historical friction", which is not only a tremendous understatement, but i would think is certainly more 'painful' (your words) to hear than my posts are to read: i wonder how you would react if i relegated the history between Saddam Hussien and the Kurds of Northern Iraq to one of mere 'friction' - i would expect nothing less than ... well, nothing less than 'serious consequences'. .k _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From bugsyseagle Thu Mar 6 01:56:48 2003 From: bugsyseagle (bugsyseagle at cs.com) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 02:56:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] redlands AS Message-ID: <0AF4C88E.0B186260.49BC8ECB@cs.com> backchannel me dp long beach From bratt Thu Mar 6 06:16:53 2003 From: bratt (Ron Bratt) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 07:16:53 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Julia Burke Finalists - ADA Message-ID: <002a01c2e3da$46575760$61343744@howard01.md.comcast.net> The American Debate Association is pleased to introduce the 2003 finalists for The Julia Burke Award for Excellence and Character in American Debate Association debate: Andrew Barnes - Clarion University Elisha Nix - Liberty University Richard Sampson - Catholic University A special congratulations to the 3 runner ups (alternates) Christy Webster - Rochester Nora Cronin - Mary Washington Patrick Waldinger - Catholic University The winner will be voted by the ADA participants this weekend at Boston College. We will post the results . . . Ronald Bratt Catholic University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030306/a00043fc/attachment.htm From govnt_man Thu Mar 6 07:20:46 2003 From: govnt_man (The Drake) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 08:20:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] urgent: HS debaters disqualified by CHSAA: ans Drake Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030306/5c1a3427/attachment.html From SSbauschard2 Thu Mar 6 07:24:48 2003 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 08:24:48 EST Subject: [eDebate] Boston Weather Message-ID: <1d9.468f92e.2b98a620@aol.com> A few people have inquired about the weather. You can find local weather for the Boston College area at http://www.weather.com/weather/local/02467?lswe=02467& lwsa=WeatherLocalUndeclared Registration is from 8-11. If you get delayed call my cell: 781-775-0433 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030306/87c939ec/attachment.htm From jeffrey.jarman Thu Mar 6 08:44:31 2003 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 08:44:31 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] GTA positions at Wichita State Message-ID: <000401c2e3ee$e8c7b940$8ea01a9c@gatewaycompute> Just a reminder: if you are interested in attending grad school and working with the team, please let me know ASAP. You need to begin the application process soon. Debate GTAs teach 1 or 2 sections of public speaking per semester, work with the team, receive a full tuition waiver, a scholarship to pay for fees, and a stipend of just over 8,000. Also: while we prefer people who study communication, you can pursue a degree in any field offered at WSU. Thanks. Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030306/8708b47a/attachment.html From Martlno4 Thu Mar 6 08:55:05 2003 From: Martlno4 (Martlno4 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:55:05 EST Subject: [eDebate] urgent: HS debaters disqualified by CHSAA Message-ID: <16c.1b975d3f.2b98bb49@aol.com> This is funny, here are my thoughts.... 1) Although the CO teams performance was, in my mind, highly abusive, and completely ridiculous (from what I can take), the judge liked it for whatever reason. 2) Having a panel overturn a critic because they believe the decision was wrong is a dangerous path to go down and the epitome of a slippery-slope. Judges personal preferences are what debate is about, sometimes you will get dropped or picked up by a judge for the strangest reasons. 3) I think if anything this is a time to evaluate what can be the bitter, cutthroat, condescending nature of some debate programs in this country. The "my debaters shouldn't lose to that argument, they have bids", is growing and growing in the community. It is that attitude that pushes people away from debate. I hope it all works out for the CO team. Ciao, NM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030306/32ef5a0a/attachment.htm From gsudebate Thu Mar 6 09:44:09 2003 From: gsudebate (Joe Bellon) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:44:09 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] GSU MS Submits a second round bid Message-ID: Attached is our bid and letter of explanation in Word format. If any of the involved parties have trouble reading it, just let me know. I can always convert it to .pdf if you need me to. Sorry for the duplicate e-debate post, but it seems standard practice now. We appreciate your consideration. -Joe Bellon Director of of Debate Georgia State University -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GSU_MS_2nd_Round.7533DEFANGED-doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 38400 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030306/43f1fdff/attachment.obj From Steph293 Thu Mar 6 09:59:29 2003 From: Steph293 (Steph293 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 10:59:29 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] urgent: HS debaters disqualified by CHSAA: ans Drake Message-ID: <3214B114.5D953AA5.0084B4FE@aol.com> Hello All - The last thing I will say about this situation is that the high school team had a choice to apologize or be disqualified. Like any other structure - if my boss told me that communication classes will be taught in a certain fashion or I will not be teaching at DU then I would teach my classes that way. They were told to apologize and chose not to apologize. Even if they thought that they should not have to - it was a choice and they were only disqualified after they chose not to apologize. From ccooper Thu Mar 6 10:11:13 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 10:11:13 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] urgent: HS debaters disqualified by CHSAA: ans Drak e Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370711424E8@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Are you serious in your defense of this situation? You're joking right? This is "irony" or something, right? COOP -----Original Message----- From: Steph293 at aol.com [mailto:Steph293 at aol.com] Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2003 10:59 AM To: govnt_man at hotmail.com; tshuman at magiccablepc.com; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] urgent: HS debaters disqualified by CHSAA: ans Drake Hello All - The last thing I will say about this situation is that the high school team had a choice to apologize or be disqualified. Like any other structure - if my boss told me that communication classes will be taught in a certain fashion or I will not be teaching at DU then I would teach my classes that way. They were told to apologize and chose not to apologize. Even if they thought that they should not have to - it was a choice and they were only disqualified after they chose not to apologize. _______________________________________________ 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/20030306/80c1b630/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Thu Mar 6 10:26:38 2003 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:26:38 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Steph "Kafka" Gerali? (re. Colorado HS debate) Message-ID: Hey Steph: Regarding your "boss-worker" analogy: What if your boss fired you based on an ad hoc interpretation of unwritten rules, based on the complaint of someone you'd just beat out for a promotion, describing events whose interpretation is irreducibly subjective? Then, you offered to apologize, but not to the specifications of the person who lodged that complaint, and that was deemed not good enough? You wouldn't feel like this was not conducive to good employee/employer relations; not the best way to run a productive business; grossly arbitrary and unfair? Of course, I could also add that an academic debate tournament shouldn't be run like a business, but just answer my first set of questions and I'll be happy. stannard _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From jrollins Thu Mar 6 10:31:37 2003 From: jrollins (Joel D. Rollins) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 10:31:37 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 2nd rounds so far Message-ID: So far I have received bids from the following teams: TexasDM03.DOC Catholic CK Bid SMS CS.doc Liberty KT.doc ISU DD.doc BC SS.doc Baylor BG.doc Baylor CE.doc Mercer BC.doc--unreadable Berkeley SW.doc MSU HV.doc WFU GC.rtf NU BC.doc ESU MS.rtf Florida.doc Fort MR.doc Georgia CK.rtf GMU BH.doc Emory GR.doc GSU MS.RTF Redlands ST.DOC Rochester VW .doc From jwpatt00 Thu Mar 6 10:40:44 2003 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:40:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] TOC: HARVARD AND BERKELEY Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 6405 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030306/7f2934c1/attachment.bin From jmarty Thu Mar 6 10:36:02 2003 From: jmarty (Jillian A. Marty) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 11:36:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Los Angeles City College, Richmond and Southwest Texas please respond Message-ID: <1046968562.3e6778f2160ec@webmail.uvm.edu> -- HEY CAN SOME ONE FROM EACH SCHOOL PLEASE BACKCHANNEL ME. ITS IN REFERENCE OF WHAT AFFIRMATIVES YALL ARE RUNNING FOR NOVICE/JV NATS. If you disclose we will also disclose. THANKS JILLIAN- UVM From jbskarb Thu Mar 6 11:02:34 2003 From: jbskarb (Justin B. Skarb) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:02:34 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Need a judge at CEDA Nats? Message-ID: I can judge 6 rounds for you at CEDA Nats if, obviously, the price is right. If you are interested, contact me at jbskarb at hotmail.com. Justin Skarb CSU Fullerton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030306/857263db/attachment.htm From swhalen Thu Mar 6 11:10:24 2003 From: swhalen (Shawn Whalen) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 09:10:24 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Need a judge at CEDA Nats? References: Message-ID: <3E678100.5050301@sfsu.edu> I'll open the bidding: 2oz of mouthwash and a razor. sw Justin B. Skarb wrote: > > I can judge 6 rounds for you at CEDA Nats if, obviously, the price is > right. If you are interested, contact me at jbskarb at hotmail.com > . > > > > Justin Skarb > > CSU Fullerton > From jamesherndon3 Thu Mar 6 11:20:48 2003 From: jamesherndon3 (james herndon III) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 12:20:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Need a judge at CEDA Nats? Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030306/61e8be2a/attachment.html From Catherine.Palczewski Thu Mar 6 11:27:46 2003 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 11:27:46 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 2nd Rounds Message-ID: <3E678512.B69AD720@uni.edu> Greetings all, it is 11:26 am cst. Thus far, I have received second round bids from the following teams: Baylor BG Baylor CE Berkeley SW Boston College SS Catholic CK CSU-Fullerton TD Dartmouth BS Emory GR Emporia MS Florida BW Fort Hays MR Georgia CK Georgia State MS GMU BH Idaho State DD Liberty KT MSU HV Mercer BC Northwestern BC Redlands AS Rochester VW SMS CS Texas DM Wake Forest GC If you believe you have sent a bid and are not on this list, please contact me asap. Bids are due by 5 pm cst. At 5:01 I will post the final list of bids that have been received. Please make sure you are on that list if you think you have submitted a second round. cate palczewski NDT committee chair From Kcmoattorney Thu Mar 6 11:41:31 2003 From: Kcmoattorney (Kcmoattorney at cs.com) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:41:31 EST Subject: [eDebate] Need info on programs not run through Comm depts Message-ID: <1c1.6333acb.2b98e24b@cs.com> Hello, I would be interested in hearing from anyone associated with debate programs run through departments other than communications (i.e. political science, history, etc.) to assist in my effort to start a new program in this manner. Thanks, Chris Cushman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030306/fc9c632f/attachment.htm From Kcmoattorney Thu Mar 6 11:42:12 2003 From: Kcmoattorney (Kcmoattorney at cs.com) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 12:42:12 EST Subject: [eDebate] Paging Josh Hedrick or anyone from MIzzou Message-ID: Josh/anyone, Please backchannel me at your convenience. Chris Cushman UMKC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030306/f93dc3c6/attachment.html From montestevens Thu Mar 6 09:53:23 2003 From: montestevens (montestevens at earthlink.net) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 09:53:23 -0600 (CST) Subject: [eDebate] Stannard Message-ID: <1051596.1046973338121.JavaMail.nobody@daisy.psp.pas.earthlink.net> Matt, The email I sent you with our bid was bounced back to me. Hollar and I'll send another copy. Thanks, MS From kenrjohnson Thu Mar 6 12:01:05 2003 From: kenrjohnson (Ken Johnson) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 11:01:05 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Defenders of Debate Codes can kiss my ass Message-ID: I've read some things that make my skin crawl, but this takes the cake! Stephanie sez: First, I am very familiar with some of individuals on the CHSAA committee and why they are unwilling to let individuals dance as a form of debate. *** I can't believe that anybody would be willing to defend a group that censors dancing. Come on!!! What good reason can you have for chaining somebody?s feet and making them wear shoes? This makes no sense and smacks of some wild ass fascism. Its one thing to make enforce this ad hoc policy (hopefully those folks aren't fascists, just assholes that wanted this dancin' team removed from talent pool, eh?) but to defend these actions is just plain asinine. *** Stephanie gives a couple reasons for defending the dino's: "Colorado has had a very hard time finding and keeping debate coaches and an even harder time getting coaches that know anything about CX debate." AND "They must also recognize that they did indeed offend the other students they were debating against and that was a concern of the tab room. Those students from Skyline were truly offended and that needs to be taken into account. " *** THIS is your argument?!?! Colorado has a hard time maintaining a repressive bureaucratic so-called debate society -- I say let the sucker die. What is the reason to keep it around? So it can identify and squelch difference or so coaches that are puppet masters of this machine can keep their jobs. What the hell is so scary about dancing nihilists? Because the lame ass "students from Skyline were truly offended?" My goodness, grow a skin and a backbone! If offending somebody's sense of reality is the criteria for student disqualification, then the colorodo debating society needs to give up the ghost. And one more thing -- this distinction between high school and college debate is a freakin' smokescreen lie. Just because a person is trapped in high school doesn't justify limiting their creativity and potential. Its not like these folks are violent or out of control. They're shoe-less. Colorado debate needs to get a grip! I'm glad those students refused to go on and give a bullshit apology. Fuckin' A strike! Maybe other students in CO will get some solidarity and join? And if you know you're getting kicked out, maybe make it worthwhile? Freaked out in Idaho, ken johnson Albertson College of Idaho Beyond shoes ... BEY ?91 (Hakim, ?The Temporary Autonomous Zone, Ontological Anarchy, Poetic Terrorism?, http://www.hermetic.com/bey/taz_cont.html) Poetic Terrorism WEIRD DANCING IN ALL-NIGHT computer-banking lobbies. Unauthorized pyrotechnic displays. Land-art, earth-works as bizarre alien artifacts strewn in State Parks. Burglarize houses but instead of stealing, leave Poetic-Terrorist objects. Kidnap someone & make them happy. Pick someone at random & convince them they're the heir to an enormous, useless & amazing fortune--say 5000 square miles of Antarctica, or an aging circus elephant, or an orphanage in Bombay, or a collection of alchemical mss. Later they will come to realize that for a few moments they believed in something extraordinary, & will perhaps be driven as a result to seek out some more intense mode of existence. Bolt up brass commemorative plaques in places (public or private) where you have experienced a revelation or had a particularly fulfilling sexual experience, etc. Go naked for a sign. Organize a strike in your school or workplace on the grounds that it does not satisfy your need for indolence & spiritual beauty. Grafitti-art loaned some grace to ugly subways & rigid public momuments--PT-art can also be created for public places: poems scrawled in courthouse lavatories, small fetishes abandoned in parks & restaurants, xerox-art under windshield-wipers of parked cars, Big Character Slogans pasted on playground walls, anonymous letters mailed to random or chosen recipients (mail fraud), pirate radio transmissions, wet cement... The audience reaction or aesthetic-shock produced by PT ought to be at least as strong as the emotion of terror-- powerful disgust, sexual arousal, superstitious awe, sudden intuitive breakthrough, dada-esque angst--no matter whether the PT is aimed at one person or many, no matter whether it is "signed" or anonymous, if it does not change someone's life (aside from the artist) it fails. PT is an act in a Theater of Cruelty which has no stage, no rows of seats, no tickets & no walls. In order to work at all, PT must categorically be divorced from all conventional structures for art consumption (galleries, publications, media). Even the guerilla Situationist tactics of street theater are perhaps too well known & expected now. An exquisite seduction carried out not only in the cause of mutual satisfaction but also as a conscious act in a deliberately beautiful life--may be the ultimate PT. The PTerrorist behaves like a confidence-trickster whose aim is not money but CHANGE. Re: [eDebate] Matt Plush rules From: Steph293 at aol.com Date: Wed Mar 05 2003 - 12:16:35 EST Next message: Eric Morris: "Re: [eDebate] Buying Off Dissent..." Previous message: Allen Santora: "Re: [eDebate] Two American congress members walk out on a Muslim prayer...." Maybe in reply to: Cedric Logan: "[eDebate] Matt Plush rules" Next in thread: Michelin C. Massey: "[eDebate] colorado and the process of debate" Reply: Michelin C. Massey: "[eDebate] colorado and the process of debate" Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ] Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello All, I am going to be the dissent in the group with the CHSSA debate. Between coaching a college team in Denver, hosting high school tournaments and judging at high school tournaments in Colorado - I think that this experience is not the essence of Colorado high school debate. In fact my entire college debate team is comprised of Colorado debaters and they are all smart debaters who are adjusting to the differences in college debate. I think a few things need be be understood before everyone jumps to the conclusion that the CHSSA board was wrong in its decision. First, I am very familiar with some of individuals on the CHSAA committee and why they are unwilling to let individuals dance as a form of debate. Let me remind everyone that college debate has not always been an open forum for free expression of argumentation. The Colorado coaches have an traditional interpretation of what high school debate should be and their view is as valid as those that would like debate to operate in a different framework. Second, Colorado has had a very hard time finding and keeping debate coaches and an even harder time getting coaches that know anything about CX debate. Changing or molding an organization takes time. Change is a process not an overnight express package. Moving so far away from what individuals (coaches) view as debate will indeed garner backlash as we have even seen in college debate with the alternative forms of speaking. These are not just openly accepted, but instead have been a progression over time. Now that being said - I know Matt very well and his team was given an option of apologizing for offending the other team. While that seemed unreasonable to them - it was an option if they wanted to stay in the tournament. They must also recognize that they did indeed offend the other students they were debating against and that was a concern of the tab room. Those students from Skyline were truly offended and that needs to be taken into account. Stephanie _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From delliott Thu Mar 6 13:35:58 2003 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 13:35:58 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Thank You re: Budget Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030306133558.00c2fa28@kckcc.toto.net> To everyone that replied regarding the money they get from Student Govt at their respective schools I want to publicly thank you. It helped a lot as I went before our Student Govt Budget Committee Hearing. As a new "club" this year we received the usual $660.00 for this past year. After the hearing, and the compilation of data from many of you I am happy to announce they will be giving us a little over $6,000.00 next year on top of our Dept Budget. A BIG thank you to Tuna for giving me his fact sheet on his program. I told him I would modify it for our use and I think it really helped give these students a feel for who we are and what we do. Tuna continues to be awesome!! Thanks everyone, Chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate Kansas City Kansas Community College From SSbauschard2 Thu Mar 6 13:32:14 2003 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:32:14 EST Subject: [eDebate] ADA Tournament Delay Message-ID: Due to weather, the ADA tournament is delayed. Friday 12:30, 2:30, 5:00 Pairings for rounds 1&2 will be distributed at 11:30 in Carney and lunch will be provided at that time. There will STILL BE REGISTRATION tonight at the Sheraton from 8: until 11 and we will ALSO HAVE REGISTRATION FOR EARLY MORNING ARRIVALS STARTING AT 10:30 am IN CARNEY, 102 on Friday. If you will arrive late, please call my cell at 781-775-0433 to confirm that you are still coming. If you are coming late, there is a map at http://www.planetdebate.com/adamap.pdf Carney is the building with "varsity" and "junior varsity" arrows pointing towards it. The open topic meeting will be moved to lunch time Saturday. Thanks, Stefan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030306/4a42b76a/attachment.htm From jeradfor Thu Mar 6 14:39:24 2003 From: jeradfor (James Edgar Radford Jr.) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:39:24 -0600 (CST) Subject: [eDebate] Driving to CEDA Nats? Message-ID: <32241495.1046983164792.JavaMail.cpadmin@cp.samford.edu> I am looking for a ride to Phoenix. If anyone from the Southeastern United States is driving there and plans to be there before 8:00am on Thursday the 20th, please email me. I realize that the likelihood of these variables being met is slim, but I figured I'd give it a shot. I am trying to get there early enough to attend the tryouts for the Japan tour. Thank you so much Jamie Radford Samford University jeradfor at samford.edu From stannardmatt Thu Mar 6 14:45:46 2003 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 13:45:46 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] redlands--re-send your bid Message-ID: Bill: Please send your bid again, to the following addresses: stannardmatt at hotmail.com stannard at uwyo.edu thanks! matt _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From sternhag Thu Mar 6 14:55:49 2003 From: sternhag (Fred Sternhagen) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:55:49 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 2nd round app "back-up" copy Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20030306145501.01cec280@gloria> Per Cate's recommendation. Attachment is a MS-Word document. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Concordia FK 2nd round application.32037DEFANGED-doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 335872 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030306/e70caccd/attachment.obj -------------- next part -------------- *********************************************************************** Fred Sternhagen Communication Studies and Theatre Art (CSTA) Department Concordia College Moorhead, MN 56562 218-299-3731 *********************************************************************** From partsara Thu Mar 6 15:06:48 2003 From: partsara (partsara at isu.edu) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 14:06:48 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] confirmation of 2nd rounds received and successfully printed Message-ID: <358c337a31.37a31358c3@isu.edu> Baylor BG Baylor EC Berkeley SW Boston College SS Catholic CK Concordia KF Dartmouth BS Emory RG Florida BW Fort Hays MR Fullerton DT George Mason HB Georgia CK Georgia State MS Liberty KT Mercer BC MSU HV Northwestern BC Redlands ST Rochester VW Texas MD UMKC GD Wake GC Wyoming CD Sarah Partlow Idaho State From Zompetti Thu Mar 6 15:25:55 2003 From: Zompetti (Zompetti at aol.com) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 16:25:55 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] confirmed second round app's Message-ID: <766F60C1.6B83754E.008C440C@aol.com> Here is the list of confirmed & printed second round applications that I have received: Baylor BG Baylor CE Berkeley SW Boston College SS Catholic CK Concordia FK Emory GR Emporia MS Florida BW Fort Hays MR Fullerton TD George Mason BH Georgia CK Georgia State MS Idaho State DD Liberty KT Michigan State HV Northwestern BC Redlands ST Rochester VW SMS CS Texas DM UMKC GD Wake Forest GC Wyoming CD From jrollins Thu Mar 6 15:58:36 2003 From: jrollins (Joel D. Rollins) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 15:58:36 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 2nd round bids received Message-ID: this is what i have: Baylor BG.doc Baylor CE.doc BC SS.doc Berkeley SW.doc Catholic CK Bid CSUFullerton .doc Dartmouth BS rtf Emory GR.doc ESU MS.rtf Florida.doc Fort MR.doc Georgia CK.rtf GMU BH.doc GSU MS.RTF ISU DD.doc Liberty KT.doc mercer BC second round RTF.rtf MSU HV.doc NU BC.doc Redlands ST.DOC Rochester VW .doc SMS CS.doc TexasDM03.DOC WFU GC.rtf WFU GM.rtf Concordia FK.doc From potatopeeler Thu Mar 6 15:59:10 2003 From: potatopeeler (Eric Short) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 21:59:10 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] concordia: sarah or nicole Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030306/98f67495/attachment.htm From kenedebate Thu Mar 6 16:18:58 2003 From: kenedebate (Ken DeLaughder) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 16:18:58 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] ESU MS - 2nd round application Message-ID: Hello all, We weren't on Sara's list, so Im resending it to her, as well as to the list, so that all may have access to it... yay. Ken D. ESU _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ESU-MooreSamuels2ndroundapp.15248DEFANGED-rtf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 189869 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030306/6591f086/attachment.obj From phallusjerkins Thu Mar 6 16:27:09 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 17:27:09 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] weather is NOT a factor... Message-ID: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DailyNews/Iraq_weather030206.html the military command is running out of time. they are bluffing and pretending that sending ground troops into oppressive iraqi heat w heavy UNventilated CBW suits is in anyway plausbile. we all know that the february and march wrangling of the corrupt bush administration has to do precisely with weather conditions and the likely possibility that the war plans will deflate if the narrow window of opportunity is lost. the US has been backed into changing their stupid second resolution even though yesterday they boasted again that miraculously somehow they could get that majority vote in the security council that keeps slipping through their fingers. how many times are they going to advertise their diplomatic idiocy? the amendments considered include a completely stupid deadline of mid-march (next week) for iraq to disarm. the french are calling for 4 months b/c everybody knows that another military jackass is lying about the weather factor and that if iraq is given 4 more months then this whole thing is going to hiss like a torn balloon and the people of the united states are going to get fucking pissed about the deliberately imposed austerity measures on the economy and they're going to after the president and his henchpeople. any compromise w the french timeline of 4 months vs. the US timeline of next week will nuke the war plans. a bad corner to be bluffing in.... oh yeah, we forgot that the US command gets big fat dick hard ons for sacrificing their own troops in the name of jesus christ and the christian religion of ritualistic slaughter. remember over 400,000 troops were exposed to depleted uranium dropped by our own US airplanes and countless soldiers got sick from the nuclear radiation ordered into those areas by their own masochistic leaders. no doubt, the evil US command will send their straight-laced boys and girls into hell to fry and no doubt the robots will follow orders and smile while they take the planned suffering inflicted by their own command up the ass...oh, the horrors of being a nobody pawn in a nazi game of chess... _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From phallusjerkins Thu Mar 6 16:31:35 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 17:31:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] mrs. hyland, your husband is a virgin Message-ID: and needs to borrow your electric dildo, the postman always rings twice and we know how to get 2X indemnity on the insurance in the event of an unfortunate accident... _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From velcrowe66 Thu Mar 6 16:54:44 2003 From: velcrowe66 (Chris Crowe) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:54:44 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] urgent: HS debaters disqualified by CHSAA: ans Drake Message-ID: The Poudre boys originally agreed to apologize to the team and the opposing coach if there was any inadvertant offense caused. They were ok with those terms. They were not ok with never running their performance again... -Crowe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030306/73841a10/attachment.htm From Catherine.Palczewski Thu Mar 6 17:04:30 2003 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 17:04:30 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] final list of second rounds Message-ID: <3E67D3FE.393230E6@uni.edu> It is now 5:04 cst. Below is the final list of second round applicants. If you believe you have submitted a second round, and are not on the list, you need to contact me immediately. 319-273-2714 Baylor BG Baylor CE Berkeley SW Boston College SS Catholic CK Concordia FK CSU-Fullerton TD Dartmouth BS Emory GR Emporia MS Florida BW Fort Hays MR Georgia CK Georgia State MS GMU BH Idaho State DD Liberty KT MSU HV Mercer BC Northwestern BC Redlands AS Rochester VW SMS CS Texas DM UMKC DG Wake Forest GC Wake Forest GM Wyoming CD From mmk_savant Thu Mar 6 17:45:22 2003 From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 15:45:22 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] and then there were 4 Message-ID: the resolution of ratification passed the US Senate a minute ago 95-0. sheesh!!! at least it was passed before nats. Mancuso looks golden since it lasted almost the entire season, but if it had made it to CEDA Nats or the NDT, that would have been ridiculous. still shouldn't have been in the resolution though. (oh and to the 4 backchannels pointing out that i was wrong about homo sapiens being a monkey species and to Martin too... BLECH! i SAW Planet of the Apes, so shuddup you!) "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/20030306/1f954d25/attachment.html From SSbauschard2 Thu Mar 6 19:16:09 2003 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:16:09 EST Subject: [eDebate] ADA Judge Preference Sheet Message-ID: <199.16c51552.2b994cd9@aol.com> I know a # of you aren't coming in until tomorrow, but if you could get this sheet done in advance of your morning arrival, this would be great. Please email this back to me. ADA National Tournament Judge Selection Sheet For Division One: Varsity Your School: ______________________________________________ Directions: You must mark AT LEAST 12 judges as number one (most preferred). You must mark AT LEAST 12 judges as number two (more preferred). You must mark AT LEAST 12 judges as number three (preferred). You must mark AT LEAST 12 judges as number four (OK). You may mark NO MORE THAN 6 judges as number six (strike). The remaining judges may be marked as five (not preferred). 0 means emergency use or late elims only [ ] Angat, Jomel (George Mason) [ ] Antonucci, Micha (Hired) [ ] Atchison, Jared (Wake Forest) [ ] Ausland, Travis (Liberty) [ ] Bauschard, Stefa (Boston College) 0 [ ] Berry, Mike (King's) [ ] Brossman, Brent (John Carroll) [ ] Butt, Neill (John Carroll) [ ] Carson, Austin (Catholic) [ ] Choi, EYC (Mary Washington) [ ] Decker, Warren (George Mason) 0 [ ] Devault, Chris (Mary Washington) [ ] Dutcher, Jim (Wayne State) [ ] Ellis, Andy (Marist) [ ] Fields, Jared (Boston College) [ ] Fishbone, Aaron (Catholic) [ ] Gautier, Zach (Liberty) [ ] Guilmartin, Ging (Army) [ ] Hall, Heather (Liberty) [ ] Hall, Michael (Liberty) [ ] Hausrath, Barry (Richmond) [ ] Hayman, Jethro (Cornell) [ ] Ibeike-Jonah, Ma (Cornell) [ ] Jacobson (Cornell) [ ] Jacobus, David (Fordham) [ ] Kasle, Sydney (Michigan Dearborn) [ ] Katsulas, John (Boston College) 0 [ ] Kemper, Cory (Hired) [ ] Kerr, Paul (Catholic) [ ] Ketsdever, Natha (Rochester) [ ] Kimble, Jim (George Mason) [ ] Koch, Steve (Capital) [ ] Lawrence, Bill (Liberty) [ ] Lee, Adam (Rochester) [ ] Louden, Allan (Wake Forest) [ ] Low, Casey (Trinity) [ ] Lyden, Todd (Navy) [ ] Lyle, Jim (Clarion) [ ] Mancuso, Steve (Catholic) [ ] Mccauliff, Krist (Wake Forest) [ ] Miller, Gordie (Marist) [ ] Myers, Jessica (Rochester) [ ] O'Donnell, Tim (Mary Washington) 0 [ ] Overby, Dan (Navy) [ ] Parcher, Jeff (Georgetown) [ ] Rao, Anand (Mary Washington) 0 [ ] Reeves, Derek (Army) [ ] Schnurer, Max (Marist) [ ] Schrage, Dan (Hired) [ ] Snider, Sarah (Catholic) [ ] Stevenson, Ron (Wayne State) [ ] Thomson, Scott [ ] Verney, Daisy (Liberty) [ ] Weiner, Jake (George Mason) [ ] Young, Kelly (Wayne State) [ ] Ziegelmueller (Wayne State) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030306/1550f18b/attachment.htm From swhalen Thu Mar 6 19:38:15 2003 From: swhalen (Shawn Whalen) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 17:38:15 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Jason Stone or delete Message-ID: <3E67F807.3010604@sfsu.edu> Hey Jason, Can you back channel me so I have your address to send the entry confirmation? Thanks, Shawn From swhalen Thu Mar 6 19:39:43 2003 From: swhalen (Shawn Whalen) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 17:39:43 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Kevin Cummings or delete Message-ID: <3E67F85F.4000703@sfsu.edu> Kevin, Can you back channel me so I have your address to send the CEDA Entry confirmation? Thanks, Shawn From serena_turley Thu Mar 6 19:58:41 2003 From: serena_turley (Serena Turley) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 17:58:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Need A New Aff For Nationals? Message-ID: <20030307015841.77558.qmail@web12803.mail.yahoo.com> Try the CEDAW - woops! It's not in the topic. Fuck! What are we gonna do? Talk about a topic with an unfair division of ground for the Aff. Now there's only 4 Affs. in the topic . . . what's a 2AC to do? Oh well . . . I guess it's a good thing that we can still talk about patting the bomb with any of the other treaties, so we're cool. Laughing all the way to the proverbial bank! S-Dawg ===== "Nothing that I can do will change the structure of the universe. But maybe, by raising my voice, I can help in the greatest of all causes -- goodwill among [hu]men[s] and peace on earth." ~Albert Einstein __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From SSbauschard2 Thu Mar 6 19:58:42 2003 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 20:58:42 EST Subject: [eDebate] ADA NATS PREFERENCE SHEET TAKE II Message-ID: <1d1.47f0ec3.2b9956d2@aol.com> USE THIS SHEET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION ADA National Tournament Judge Selection Sheet For All Divisions Your School: ______________________________________________ Directions: You must mark AT LEAST 12 judges as number one (most preferred). You must mark AT LEAST 12 judges as number two (more preferred). You must mark AT LEAST 12 judges as number three (preferred). You must mark AT LEAST 12 judges as number four (OK). You may mark NO MORE THAN 6 judges as number six (strike). The remaining judges may be marked as five (not preferred). 0 MEANS EMERGENCY USE ONLY OR LATE ELIMS PREFERENCES GO INTO EFFECT ROUND III [ ] Angat, Jomel (George Mason) [ ] Antonucci, Micha (Hired) [ ] Atchison, Jared (Wake Forest) [ ] Ausland, Travis (Liberty) [ ] Bauschard, Stefa (Boston College) 0 [ ] Berry, Mike (King's) [ ] Brossman, Brent (John Carroll) [ ] Butt, Neill (John Carroll) [ ] Carson, Austin (Catholic) [ ] Choi, EYC (Mary Washington) [ ] Decker, Warren (George Mason) 0 [ ] Devault, Chris (Mary Washington) [ ] Dutcher, Jim (Wayne State) [ ] Ellis, Andy (Marist) [ ] Fields, Jared (Boston College) [ ] Fishbone, Aaron (Catholic) [ ] Gautier, Zach (Liberty) [ ] Guilmartin, Ging (Army) [ ] Hall, Heather (Liberty) [ ] Hall, Michael (Liberty) [ ] Hamilton, Alisha (Navy) [ ] Hausrath, Barry (Richmond) [ ] Hayman, Jethro (Cornell) [ ] Ibeike-Jonah, Ma (Cornell) [ ] Jacobson (Cornell) [ ] Jacobus, David (Fordham) [ ] Johnson, Glenn (Catholic) [ ] Kasle, Sydney (Michigan Dearborn) [ ] Katsulas, John (Boston College) 0 [ ] Kemper, Cory (Hired) [ ] Kerr, Paul (Catholic) [ ] Ketsdever, Natha (Rochester) [ ] Kimble, Jim (George Mason) [ ] Koch, Steve (Capital) [ ] Lawrence, Bill (Liberty) [ ] Lee, Adam (Rochester) [ ] Louden, Allan (Wake Forest) [ ] Low, Casey (Trinity) [ ] Lyden, Todd (Navy) [ ] Lyle, Jim (Clarion) [ ] Mancuso, Steve (Catholic) [ ] Marmol, Josh (Boston College) [ ] Mccauliff, Krist (Wake Forest) [ ] Miller, Gordie (Marist) [ ] Myers, Jessica (Rochester) [ ] O'Donnell, Tim (Mary Washington) 0 [ ] O'Gorman, Tom (Case Western) [ ] Overby, Dan (Navy) [ ] Parcher, Jeff (Georgetown) [ ] Perez, Tino (Army) [ ] Powell, Mario (Boston College) [ ] Rao, Anand (Mary Washington) 0 [ ] Rayburn, Joel (Army) [ ] Reeves, Derek (Army) [ ] Ross, John [ ] Sampson, Richard (Catholic) [ ] Schnurer, Max (Marist) [ ] Schrage, Dan (Hired) [ ] Snider, Sarah (Catholic) [ ] Stevenson, Ron (Wayne State) [ ] Thomson, Scott [ ] Verney, Daisy (Liberty) [ ] Weiner, Jake (George Mason) [ ] Young, Kelly (Wayne State) [ ] Ziegelmueller (Wayne State) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030306/379f90a4/attachment.html From kkuswa Thu Mar 6 20:10:51 2003 From: kkuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:10:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] later, SORT Message-ID: <3E4D60C8@webmail.richmond.edu> 'bout time. From schizoliberation Thu Mar 6 20:55:40 2003 From: schizoliberation (Schizo Liberation Front) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 21:55:40 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] red alert: democratic civil disobedience on the horizon Message-ID: slf intelligence sources assess a 99% likelihood of nonviolent civil disobedience @ upcoming high-profile national tournaments. again, the threat level has been assessed as a red alert. anonymous indepedent schizo liberation front commando units within the dabait community said today. the heat is on, the insanity wick has been lit. as spokesperson for the slf, you must understand that our job is simply to take credit for the attacks of anonymous actors and then rub it in when the reactive public backlash tramples on the first amendment while they whine about the sabotage that is the democratic process. the structure of the organization mirrors others like the elf and alf and we invoke all rights of protection offered therein. we are prepared for electronic monitoring and will conduct all communications with independent actors using untraceable anonymous remailers on backchannel. we fear the transgression of nonviolent DISobedience. not one human body will be harmed even though the law will be broken and the costs for running elite tournaments of inaction raised. democracy is scary and not armchair comfortable. the horror of the first amendment will shirley incinerate our faces like napalm under the hot babylonian sun. we anticipate psychological warfare from the dabait establishment using transparent techniques common in mainstream journalism and military intelligence communities to discredit and disparage the conduct of democracy. the dabait authorities will defend obedience during a time of war and spin it so that in writing they support "effective" and "appropriate" civil disobedience with no relevant personal examples to offer from their own lives. thus, we have anticipated their zazi, COINTELPRO psych warfare tricks with a pre-emptive strike. it is your duty to george dwi bush w one of his 4 convictions being 4 vandalism, dabait establishment, mother fuckers, to clean up slf messages on the wall. we know how much you despite the shit from your own asshole that we had to make fun of your social hygeine in advance. protect the integrity of your tournament by any means necessary during war and the implementation of the police state. get out your gas masks, ladies and gents, because are going to fart bomb your tournaments to death. our units have been eating habenero chili with pinto beans, fat pork rounds, and cow brains in preparation for the attacks. so get ready. operation shitbag proceeds in full force unabated. the targets know who they are and why they have been targeted so don't play dumb in front of a live, public audience. _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From wnewnam Thu Mar 6 21:14:32 2003 From: wnewnam (Bill Newnam) Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 22:14:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NDT "registrations" References: <3E65027D.1ADC19F@emory.edu> <3E6650A8.1A1BC51B@emory.edu> Message-ID: <3E680E97.AAE98588@emory.edu> And counting: Bill Newnam wrote: > > > > > Dartmouth (LT/ST) > > Georgetown University (VN) > Harvard University > James Madison University (LM) > > Michigan (OF) > > Pepperdine (OH) > > Samford University (PR) > > State University of West Georgia (ET) > University of Alabama > > University of Northern Iowa (JL:) > University of > > University of Pittsburgh (JT) > > University of Redlands (AS) > > University of Richmond (MS) > University of Texas Whitman College > > > > Look forward to seeing your smiling faces in Atlanta, > > > > bill n > > emory > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at ndtceda.com > > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From aogletree Thu Mar 6 21:50:13 2003 From: aogletree (Aaron Ogletree) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 03:50:13 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Confronting the empire Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030307/d4439815/attachment.htm From aogletree Thu Mar 6 21:51:58 2003 From: aogletree (Aaron Ogletree) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 03:51:58 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] The truth about Colin Powell Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030307/8e15f7bf/attachment.html From cisneros_jd Thu Mar 6 23:34:08 2003 From: cisneros_jd (Josue Cisneros) Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 21:34:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Dan Overbey please... Message-ID: <20030307053408.37175.qmail@web41211.mail.yahoo.com> hey dan. if you could backchannel me that would be phenomenal. thanks. david cisneros mercer ===== __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From govnt_man Fri Mar 7 07:08:31 2003 From: govnt_man (The Drake) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 08:08:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Available to judge at the NDT Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030307/8233799c/attachment.htm From privethedge Fri Mar 7 07:30:38 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 05:30:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] mrs. hyland, your husband is a virgin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030307133038.54527.qmail@web10008.mail.yahoo.com> Now you've pissed me off you son-of-a-bitch. YOu were told once by the list moderator to leave my wife out of this. I suggest your listen up. 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/20030307/610f2d79/attachment.html From Catherine.Palczewski Fri Mar 7 12:10:41 2003 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine Palczewski) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 12:10:41 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] ENTER THE NDT NOW Message-ID: <3E68E0A1.A6EE9097@uni.edu> Greetings all, In case the e-scream in the subject line did not make it clear, ahem, let me repeat. ENTER THE NDT NOW!!! If you have qualified through pre-bids and/or districts, please send in the NDT application form asap. The form should be sent to: Catherine Palczewski Donn Parson , William E Newnam At this point, 62 teams have qualified and only 17 teams have sent in their applications. It is particularly important that you get the information to Bill Newnam asap -- for two reasons: 1) so he can get the booklet completed, and 2) so he can order food appropriately And, just in case you cannot find the form -- it follows. Also -- do not forget to send in your judge philosophies to Mike Berry: Send to: mrberry at kings.edu. 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 schizoliberation Fri Mar 7 12:37:15 2003 From: schizoliberation (Schizo Liberation Front) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 13:37:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] official SLF press release Message-ID: As spokesperson, we forward on to our colleagues this message from dabaiters on the tournament frontlines. Good luck to Stefan and his team: Greetings planet da bait. This weekend several agents of the slf direct action team will target the ADA nationals tournament at Boston College for a anti war public space liberation campaign. Building on the strategy developed by the guerilla girls debate at wake forest we will use stickers to spread antiwar messages to the students of Boston College and the debaters at ada nationals (and yes the cleaning staff). We expect the Boston College debate team will face the same choice faced by Wake Forest debate team, either they will remove the stickers and crush effective democratic dissent, or they will risk their ability to host further tournaments and stand courageously with people all over the world who are resisting the war machine in anyway possible. We call on all debaters everywhere to utilize all available means to educate organize and resist against the coming genocidal war. Stickers, graffiti and creative celebrations of peace can have a powerful impact within a growing and diversifying anti war movement. Rasin' a little Ruckus never hurts either. We further call on all debate workers to utilize the tournament space in its whole as a space of dissent, don't bifurcate your strategic and tactical vision with an in round out of round dichotomy, but instead use all available means of disseminating resistant knowledge. By this point it has become obvious that debate tournaments effectively crush organized resistance and direct action, witness the numbers of debate tournaments that have occurred during major actions or protest in the last several months, and if you are antiwar ask yourself what you have done for the movement during the course of the season. What should be painfully obvious is that the resistance da bait provides based on sheer resource and time demands can never match what each and every one of you could be doing to build and support anti war and anti imperial movements around the world. Thus we intend to put direct pressure on tournament directors to begin to cancel debate tournaments because they cannot ensure that they will not be targeted. Each person with a sheet of stickers at each tournament could significantly halt the tournament process and shut down da bait. Each One Teach One Anyway Enjoy SLF Direct Action Team _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From bgaston76 Fri Mar 7 13:41:51 2003 From: bgaston76 (Bryan Gaston) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 11:41:51 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] 2 Rounds For Hire at NDT! Message-ID: I'll be at the NDT and have two rounds left to hire! Email with your price offers, and I'll get back to you today! Bryan Gaston UCO Assistant Coach bgaston76 at lycos.com _____________________________________________________________ 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 phallusjerkins Fri Mar 7 15:18:55 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 16:18:55 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] poor mr. steely duane hineyland Message-ID: a) we luv the smell of napalm in the morning. it reminds us of --- of --- victory. TKO. we warned you, mr. hineyland, to quit b4 we brought out the schizo-napalm and incinerated your face along the information highway of death (IHoD, for military personnel seeking acronyms to make massacres more abstract). you publicly scoffed and nobody feels sorry for the fact that you are now unable to defend your wife or your anus. what a fucking wimp, calling on help from the moderator like a real pussy. you joked along back and forth like you were brave and could take it but obviously you can not which is more proof for the efficacity of reverse psychological warfare. you even called us "sick", doc. you asked for it and deserve it. there is nothing more fun than to push the buttons of incompetent, right wing dabait coaches. a couple of classic noir james cain cinema references and this guy publicly loses his shit. b) sorry, in your last post responding to the "serious about impeachment" thread, you indicated that you had been "enlightened" by the nature of our sodom insane. we were not aware that you were being sarcastic and thought you were genuinely ready to be baptized. next time, we'll know not to take your cowardly cop outs seriously. c) if you don't want your wife to be targeted then you should tell her to shut the fuck up on edabait and stop making ridiculous public defenses of forced anthrax vaccinations without providing information about side-effects including cancer and birth defects and without coming to grips w the court martial of brave zac johnson. you are right. we are a "son of a bitch" but we'd much rather be that than a spouse of a bitch like yourself. d) future tournament dabait scenario: irreverent and refractory students shuffle past mr. hineyland in the hallway crooning "steely dan" and "virgin" under their breath. http://taz3.hyperreal.org/wsb/wsbtrivia.html# e) next, we are going to turn your own students against you. you know all about divide and conquer. see the reply to the articles of impeachment of mr. klemz who in fact does roll on shabas. good shabas, mr. klemz. f) turn -- if you seriously dislike psychological warfare techniques then you need to publicly come forward against the same COINTELPRO techniques utilized by the FBI and Homeland Security to destroy domestic activist groups (on point example, b4 the FBI orchestrated assassination of Dr. King, false letters were sent to his wife by hoover's henchman spreading rumors that he was sleeping around--review the edabait archives asshole) otherwise you only have your wife's prosthetic leg to stand on, mr. hineyland. we have been through this routine turn against the whines so many times. remember the austin carsons incident. the dabait ended up in the same place. "if you don't like psychological warfare, then stop whining about this relatively minor incident and pressure the FBI to cease their immoral activities". we are shocked that you still don't get it. there is no vacuum of psyhological warfare. it permeates the media w dwi bushisms and in the field conducted by intelligence ops who crush democratic movements. FUCKING HISTORICALLY INCOMPETENT ASSHOLE DIPSHIT, you can't have your fascist cake and eat it too. if you respond appropriately to our demands then we will consider de-escalation. goodnight dan, phallus jerkins at harvardabaitfailure, inc, _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From paulj567 Fri Mar 7 15:51:11 2003 From: paulj567 (Paul Johnson) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 13:51:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Fantasy Baseball- REPRESENT YOUR DISTRICT Message-ID: <20030307215111.71261.qmail@web11206.mail.yahoo.com> I'm gonna start up a fantasy baseball league with the intent to have every team representing one of the NDT districts. Since there are 9, if we have extensive interest one district may get two teams. So drop me an email and signal your district of origin and I'll get to organizing this thing. Think this will be a nice distraction from CEDA/NDT prep- and a valuable diversion to undermine productivity. -Paul Johnson Pitt __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From theonlykellen Fri Mar 7 16:19:15 2003 From: theonlykellen (kellen mcaffee) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 22:19:15 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] phallus jerkins press release Message-ID: of all the places people could resist the war, i think debate tournaments will definately be the most effective. when i ask myself, what have I done to resist the war this year? all my rounds, all my public protest, all the speeches and public debates we've done on campus this year using skills from debate, totally useless! I should have been trying to kill debate the whole time! i guess when sitting at a computer with potato chip bags and empty containers of "Easy Cheese" strewn about and smeared into sweatpants and your only view of the world is the internet (mostly edebate), maybe, i guess in a really wierd and twisted way I can sort of see your perspective. get a fucking life. Kellen McAffee Weber Debate _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From Caldebate Fri Mar 7 16:45:08 2003 From: Caldebate (Caldebate at aol.com) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 17:45:08 EST Subject: [eDebate] Berkeley needs NDT judge Message-ID: <188.1681ee3d.2b9a7af4@aol.com> We need eight rounds. Let us know. Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030307/9df49cf7/attachment.htm From privethedge Fri Mar 7 18:27:13 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:27:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] poor mr. steely duane hineyland In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030308002713.30416.qmail@web10004.mail.yahoo.com> I can't speak for my wife,so here she is to speak for myself... Normally, I don't reply to comments that are stupid, but sometimes complete inaccuracies need to be dealth with. 1 - The comments I addressed to this list approximately 1 month ago had nothing to do with Anthrax vaccinations - try to get your facts straight before you shoot your 'mouth' off. 2 - As for the inappropriateness of your remarks in general, intellectual dialogue is the realm of adults. Assuming edebate is an intellectual venue - it should not support vulgar, immature falsehoods simply because you are incapable of sticking to facts. I have read your comments occasionally and in most cases, the majority of your comments are personal attacks against practically anyone you decide to pick on. How immaure - can't you debate anything solely on issue? 3 - Moderator involvement - Moderators exist to ensure a open, safe environment. You don't like the moderator issue being brought up because you know you are in the wrong. Act like an adult and you wouldn't have an issue. "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/20030307/c306e043/attachment.html From privethedge Fri Mar 7 18:43:23 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 16:43:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] poor mr. steely duane hineyland In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030308004323.47113.qmail@web10008.mail.yahoo.com> a) we luv the smell of napalm in the morning. it reminds us of --- of --- victory. TKO. we warned you, mr. hineyland, to quit b4 we brought out the schizo-napalm and incinerated your face along the information highway of death (IHoD, for military personnel seeking acronyms to make massacres more abstract). you publicly scoffed and nobody feels sorry for the fact that you are now unable to defend your wife or your anus. what a fucking wimp, calling on help from the moderator like a real pussy. you joked along back and forth like you were brave and could take it but obviously you can not which is more proof for the efficacity of reverse psychological warfare. you even called us "sick", doc. you asked for it and deserve it. there is nothing more fun than to push the buttons of incompetent, right wing dabait coaches. a couple of classic noir james cain cinema references and this guy publicly loses his shit. >> Hmmm...OK..Bert's had her say, now I'll have mine. YOur obivsously out crusing streets unknown with fellonius, or perhaps you have some sort of Deacon Blue fetish, or wish you lived on Zenor 5 - I don't know....but to attack the disabled is sick. As for taking it, Phallus, I can take whatever you dish out, but only a total sick, asshole, would engage my wife in his mire of shit. b) sorry, in your last post responding to the "serious about impeachment" thread, you indicated that you had been "enlightened" by the nature of our sodom insane. we were not aware that you were being sarcastic and thought you were genuinely ready to be baptized. next time, we'll know not to take your cowardly cop outs seriously. >> Your powers to impeach Bush are nil...and so are Ramsey "I'm a space cadet, whacked out, liberal, who used to be a conservative - go figure" Clarke. The last I looked Phallus, this is a free nation, and I can speak my mind. I jsut don't attack people's wives when doing so. c) if you don't want your wife to be targeted then you should tell her to shut the fuck up on edabait and stop making ridiculous public defenses of forced anthrax vaccinations without providing information about side-effects including cancer and birth defects and without coming to grips w the court martial of brave zac johnson. you are right. we are a "son of a bitch" but we'd much rather be that than a spouse of a bitch like yourself. >> My wife is a hell of a lot smarter than me, and when she talks I tend to listen to, and respect her words. She's a liberal, Phallus, you know, a Clinton loving, Al Gore worshipping, hug a tree, save a fishy, and Bush is the Anti-Christ, liberal - but I still respect and love her. YOu've got 0 right to attack her. But I know that pimply ass, mama-boy's like yourself love to hide in the anonimity of cyberspace, jacking off into your towels, while ogling Britney Spears. Be a man Phallus, let us know who you are. d) future tournament dabait scenario: irreverent and refractory students shuffle past mr. hineyland in the hallway crooning "steely dan" and "virgin" under their breath. http://taz3.hyperreal.org/wsb/wsbtrivia.html# >> That would be funny. I love Steely Dan, thought that the Naked LUnch was a good book, and was a virgin at one time. THere would be nothing wrong with any of that. e) next, we are going to turn your own students against you. you know all about divide and conquer. see the reply to the articles of impeachment of mr. klemz who in fact does roll on shabas. good shabas, mr. klemz. >> Phallus, I coach a team comprised of some of the most liberal people I've ever met, some that even make the most liberal people on this list look like conservatives, in one of the most liberal enclaves on planet earth - my kids already think I'm a facist, jackbooted, oppresive thug in my poltical views - you'd be preaching to the choir. f) turn -- if you seriously dislike psychological warfare techniques then you need to publicly come forward against the same COINTELPRO techniques utilized by the FBI and Homeland Security to destroy domestic activist groups (on point example, b4 the FBI orchestrated assassination of Dr. King, false letters were sent to his wife by hoover's henchman spreading rumors that he was sleeping around--review the edabait archives asshole) otherwise you only have your wife's prosthetic leg to stand on, mr. hineyland. we have been through this routine turn against the whines so many times. remember the austin carsons incident. the dabait ended up in the same place. "if you don't like psychological warfare, then stop whining about this relatively minor incident and pressure the FBI to cease their immoral activities". we are shocked that you still don't get it. there is no vacuum of psyhological warfare. it permeates the media w dwi bushisms and in the field conducted by intelligence ops who crush democratic movements. FUCKING HISTORICALLY INCOMPETENT ASSHOLE DIPSHIT, you can't have your fascist cake and eat it too. if you respond appropriately to our demands then we will consider de-escalation. >> Yeah, I can. Let's look at this as a game; My victory conditions: The US invades Iraq, topples Sadaam, Iraq becomes a stable, liberated democracy. Your victory conditions: There is a popular uprising agasint Bush, he's impeached, and the war never happens. Now, tell me, Phallus, who's going to win this game? Me or You? Seems like I get victory a lot quicker. Phallus - from now on I'm going to ignore you, and my wife is going to ignore. You're a sick, sick man, Phallus, and I hope you find your medicine. Good day sir. goodnight dan, phallus jerkins at harvardabaitfailure, inc, "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/20030307/2fd9dfae/attachment.htm From scottelliott Fri Mar 7 19:29:45 2003 From: scottelliott (Scott M. Elliott) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:29:45 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Another great reason to be pro-choice/pro-abortion Message-ID: <000901c2e512$33bb9a60$e6995a42@grandecom.net> I tend toward the pro-life side. But, this article may just change my mind. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MUCH ABOUT HISTORY Jews saved Saddam from abortion 'We weren't talking about killing a dictator but a fetus' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: March 4, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern ? 2003 WorldNetDaily.com An Iraqi Jewish family took in Saddam Hussein's mother in 1937 and talked her out of an abortion, according to Israel's leading expert on Iraq and the large traditional Jewish community that once prospered there. "The story is true," says Amatzia Baram. "I've pretty much confirmed all of the details, but the family doesn't like to talk about it. There was this fear that people would blame the Jews for Saddam. The family, originally from Tikrit, Hussein's birthplace, lives in Or Yehuda, home to a large community of Iraqi exiles in Israel, says Baram. The family befriended Hussein's mother while she was pregnant with the future dictator. One of only two Jewish families in Tikrit at the time, they took in the woman and persuaded her not to abort, reports South Florida's Sun-Sentinel. "After it became public, the family got this angry response from some people saying they should have done something," said Baram. "But it was ridiculous. We weren't talking about killing a dictator but a fetus." About a decade after the birth of Hussein, Jews across Iraq began a secret exodus of Iraq's increasingly besieged Jewish community to the new state of Israel. In Operation Ezra and Operation Nehemiah, some 120,400 Jews left Iraq with little more than the clothes on their back for the freedom of the Jewish state. Only 38 Jews are left in Baghdad, according to the most recent count. All told, about 450,000 Iraqi Jews now live in Israel, which has a population of 6.5 million, making them the fourth-largest immigrant group behind Russians, Moroccans and Romanians. Meanwhile, today, the survivors in Or Yehuda show up every day at the Museum of Babylonian Jewry. The old men and women look at the pictures of the way things were in Iraq. They walk down a replica of a Baghdad street from their youth, and pause at old Torah scrolls smuggled out of the country. Iraqi Jews were, at one time, part of a privileged elite in Baghdad. They were prosperous landowners, merchants, authors and intellectuals who made up a large percentage of the society's teachers, attorneys and physicians. Leaving many of their possessions behind, they wound up in horrid camps in the fields that eventually would became Israeli cities such as Or Yehuda and Ramat Gan. During the early 20th century, the Jewish Quarter of Baghdad numbered about 137,000 people worshiping at dozens of synagogues. Under the Ottoman Turks, who ruled the region until World War I, the Jews of Baghdad were dhimmis, a so-called protected minority, guaranteed freedom of worship but subject to discriminatory taxes and forbidden to own arms. When the Ottoman Empire fell, relations began to sour as Jewish agitation for a homeland grew stronger. There were periodic attacks on Jewish neighborhoods and schools, but the turning point came in 1941 in the aftermath of a pro-Nazi coup, when 135 Jews were murdered during a two-day rampage. By the end of 1951, only 9,000 Jews remained in the Iraqi capital. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030307/34cc6024/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/gif Size: 1017 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030307/34cc6024/attachment.gif From hansonjb Fri Mar 7 21:32:46 2003 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 19:32:46 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] nw ceda champs, rd 1 References: Message-ID: <000901c2e523$6332e0d0$e3010b0a@whitman.edu> after round 1 at northwest ceda champs, here are team records: emporia st 0 gonz dh 0 gonz hw 1 gonz ls 1 gonz mw 0 gonz os 0 lc sw 0 sac st ga 1 siu bg 1 ups gc 1 ups hh 0 ups sr 0 whit bb 1 whit bo 1 whit cb 0 whit gs 1 whit mk 0 whit sr 1 wwu rc 1 jim hanson :) whitman college hansonjb at whitman.edu sent to: eDebate at ndtceda.com From swhalen Fri Mar 7 22:04:22 2003 From: swhalen (Shawn Whalen) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 20:04:22 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Delinquent CEDA Judging Philosphies Message-ID: <3E696BC6.6010703@sfsu.edu> Below is a list of CEDA Nationals judges who (I believe) have not yet turned in philosophies. If you are on this list, you must email your philosophy immediately to Jeff Jarman at jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu. PLEASE DO NOT SEND THEM TO ME - JARMAN HAS GRACIOUSLY VOLUNTEERED TO HANDLE YOU STRAGGLERS!!!! Chris Baron, Towson Steve Clemmons, Santa Clara Jason Cramer, CSU, Fullerton John Foy, ENMU John Hansen, ENMU John Kephart, USC Stephen Koch, Capital Sue Lowrie, USC David Magriel, University of Kansas Jason Peterson, USC Steven Pointer, Lewis & Clark Reid Sawyer, West Point Academy Jon Sharp, USC Beth Skinner, Towson Nate Smith, Northwestern Gordon Stables, USC John Sullivan, James Madison University James Taylor, Emporia State University Sue Wenzlaff, University of Michigan, Dearborn Owen Zahorcak, Lewis & Clark From swhalen Fri Mar 7 22:30:09 2003 From: swhalen (Shawn Whalen) Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2003 20:30:09 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Important CEDA Nationals Info Message-ID: <3E6971D1.2030903@sfsu.edu> Current Statistics: 90 Institutions Participating, 199 Teams Entered, 160 Judges, 822 rds of judging. I believe that the online entry is now purged of any errors and that what is reflected on the tournament entry page at www.debateresults.com is an accurate reflection of everyone's entry as of March 7, 2003 at 8:10pm PST. Please revisit this site soon to double check your entry and notify me immediately if something is amiss. Please note that all of your teams/judges may not appear together (they may have been separated during editing). Also, you may have hired a judge that is judging for someone else, in that case the judge is entered only once, under one school name, coded off the other school, and the committed rounds have been combined. Changes can no longer be made online. Any drops, adds, or changes must be done through me. Email to swhalen at sfsu.edu. The US Postal Service has not been kind to the following institutions who I have yet to receive hard copy material from: Capital University John Carroll University National American University Pennsylvania State University University of Southern California UT Dallas US Military Academy, West Point If you direct one of these programs, please call me next week at (415) 338-1097. Everyone else should have received a confirmation of your entry status by 3/6. If there were problems with your entry, they were listed in that email. If you did not receive a confirmation please contact me asap. I look forward to seeing you all in Tempe, Shawn Whalen, CEDA President From hansonjb Sat Mar 8 00:08:27 2003 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 22:08:27 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] nw ceda champs, rd 2 References: <000901c2e523$6332e0d0$e3010b0a@whitman.edu> Message-ID: <000901c2e539$22d3fd10$e3010b0a@whitman.edu> after round 2 at northwest ceda champs, here are team records: > emporia st 1 > > gonz dh 1 > > gonz hw 1 > > gonz ls 2 > > gonz mw 0 > > gonz os 0 > > lc sw 0 > > sac st ga 1 > > siu bg 2 > > ups gc 2 > > ups hh 0 > > ups sr 1 > > whit bb 1 > > whit bo 2 > > whit cb 0 > > whit gs 2 > > whit mk 1 > > whit sr 2 > > wwu rc 1 > > > jim hanson :) > whitman college > hansonjb at whitman.edu > > sent to: > eDebate at ndtceda.com From sherwokg Sat Mar 8 01:34:56 2003 From: sherwokg (Sherwood, Kenneth G) Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2003 23:34:56 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Los Angeles City College, Richmond and Southwest Te xas please respond Message-ID: Hey Jillian, LACC has been running ICC with a World Gov advantage all season. We may run Kyoto with a WTO advantage but haven't yet decided on the implementation yet. See you next week. Ken Ken Sherwood Director of Forensics Los Angeles City College (323) 953-4000 xt 2962 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030307/fafd30e8/attachment.html From let_the_american_empire_burn Sat Mar 8 04:58:08 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 04:58:08 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Another great reason to be pro-choice/pro-abortion Message-ID: Scott, But what about Albert Einstien's mother, who was also talked out of having an abortion? ... Well, come to think of it, if not for Eistien's contributions to physics, we might never have developed atomic weapons, and this whole war to stop Saddam from getting a nuke might've been avoided altogether. You might be on to something here Scotty ... Let's abort everyone! No more humyns = no more problems. Cuz people will give you more trouble than anybody. .k _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From carverjoseph Sat Mar 8 11:30:36 2003 From: carverjoseph (Django Carver) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 17:30:36 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] NDT rounds available Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030308/e7df3fd3/attachment.htm From dbuescher Sat Mar 8 13:28:57 2003 From: dbuescher (Derek Buescher) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 11:28:57 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] UPS coaching positions Message-ID: <3E6A43AF@webmail> The University of Puget Sound is seeking candidates for two coaching positions. Each position is a nine-month appointment for the academic year of 2003-2004. Position 1: Policy Debate Coach. The debate coach will assist in coordination and administration of competitive debate program and public/community debates; assist the production of topic-specific research; implement individual coaching plans; assist budget and travel administration; and fulfill duties as assigned by the Director of Forensics. The assistant is expected to travel to tournaments and public debates. Position 2: Parliamentary and Individual Event Coach The Parliamentary and IE coach will assist in coordination and administration of competitive forensics program and the planning and implementation of public/community debates; implement individual coaching plans; assist budget and travel administration; and fulfill duties as assigned by the Director of Forensics. The assistant is expected to travel to tournaments and public debates. Experience with policy debate is a plus for this position. Skills Each assistant position requires experience with and knowledge of academic debate (policy and/or parliamentary); ability to work in a collaborative team environment; excellent human relations and interpersonal communication skills; an ability to effectively assume responsibility for duties and to implement them in a timely fashion; an ability to communicate clearly and concisely in both written and verbal contexts; and an ability to work professionally with students, faculty and staff, alumni, colleagues, and members of the community. Salary is based on a nine-month appointment. Interested Candidates should send an application letter, resume/vita, and list of three references to (email preferred) Derek Buescher Department of Communication and Theatre Arts University of Puget Sound 1500 N. Warner #1026 Tacoma, WA 98416-1026 Email: dbuescher at ups.edu From schizoliberation Sat Mar 8 14:31:51 2003 From: schizoliberation (Schizo Liberation Front) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 15:31:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] dear boston indy media, Message-ID: please consider sending a reporter to Boston College to cover the wheatpasting of photos of incinerated iraqis from the first gulf war among other things @ the American Dabait Association National Tournament. the unique anti-war dabait movement is about to explode. we can provide you w contact information of tournament frontline commandos. long live the schizo liberation front. please note that the coach of Boston College is Stefan Brauschard, a key player in the www.planetdebate.com scam run by harvard dabait tycoon dallas perkins, which is a website that researches quotes from authors and sells them for a profit to aspiring young dabaiters. here is a forward of our press release that went out yesterday: As spokesperson, we forward on to our colleagues this message from dabaiters on the tournament frontlines. Good luck to Stefan and his team: Greetings planet da bait. This weekend several agents of the slf direct action team will target the ADA nationals tournament at Boston College for a anti war public space liberation campaign. Building on the strategy developed by the guerilla girls debate at wake forest we will use stickers to spread antiwar messages to the students of Boston College and the debaters at ada nationals (and yes the cleaning staff). We expect the Boston College debate team will face the same choice faced by Wake Forest debate team, either they will remove the stickers and crush effective democratic dissent, or they will risk their ability to host further tournaments and stand courageously with people all over the world who are resisting the war machine in anyway possible. We call on all debaters everywhere to utilize all available means to educate organize and resist against the coming genocidal war. Stickers, graffiti and creative celebrations of peace can have a powerful impact within a growing and diversifying anti war movement. Rasin' a little Ruckus never hurts either. We further call on all debate workers to utilize the tournament space in its whole as a space of dissent, don't bifurcate your strategic and tactical vision with an in round out of round dichotomy, but instead use all available means of disseminating resistant knowledge. By this point it has become obvious that debate tournaments effectively crush organized resistance and direct action, witness the numbers of debate tournaments that have occurred during major actions or protest in the last several months, and if you are antiwar ask yourself what you have done for the movement during the course of the season. What should be painfully obvious is that the resistance da bait provides based on sheer resource and time demands can never match what each and every one of you could be doing to build and support anti war and anti imperial movements around the world. Thus we intend to put direct pressure on tournament directors to begin to cancel debate tournaments because they cannot ensure that they will not be targeted. Each person with a sheet of stickers at each tournament could significantly halt the tournament process and shut down da bait. Each One Teach One Anyway Enjoy SLF Direct Action Team _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From schizoliberation Sat Mar 8 14:38:09 2003 From: schizoliberation (Schizo Liberation Front) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 15:38:09 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] schizo hijackers' guide 2 da 1st amendment: Message-ID: a masterdabaiters' manual. we luv your corporate evidence crap, stefan, and your collaboration w planet dabait. now we will run u out of business wherever you go and force u to get the brains to try and go and get a GRANT to fund your research. odds are however that scanning in quotes from other authors is pretty worthless from a grant perspective. _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From hansonjb Sat Mar 8 14:38:56 2003 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 12:38:56 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] nw ceda champs, rd 3 References: <000901c2e523$6332e0d0$e3010b0a@whitman.edu> <000901c2e539$22d3fd10$e3010b0a@whitman.edu> Message-ID: <000401c2e5b2$bda1eb80$e3010b0a@whitman.edu> after round 3 at northwest ceda champs, here are team records: > > > emporia st 2 > > > > gonz dh 2 > > > > gonz hw 2 > > > > gonz ls 2 > > > > gonz mw 1 > > > > gonz os 0 > > > > lc sw 1 > > > > sac st ga 1 > > > > siu bg 3 > > > > ups gc 2 > > > > ups hh 1 > > > > ups sr 1 > > > > whit bb 1 > > > > whit bo 3 > > > > whit cb 0 > > > > whit gs 3 > > > > whit mk 1 > > > > whit sr 2 > > > > wwu rc 2 > > > > > > jim hanson :) > > whitman college > > hansonjb at whitman.edu > > > > sent to: > > eDebate at ndtceda.com > From sethtellsworth Sat Mar 8 16:35:50 2003 From: sethtellsworth (Seth Ellsworth) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 22:35:50 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Arizona State Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030308/c92798ce/attachment.html From hansonjb Sat Mar 8 18:05:02 2003 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 16:05:02 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] nw ceda champs, rd 4 References: <000901c2e523$6332e0d0$e3010b0a@whitman.edu> <000901c2e539$22d3fd10$e3010b0a@whitman.edu> <000401c2e5b2$bda1eb80$e3010b0a@whitman.edu> Message-ID: <001b01c2e5d0$7d4ef500$e3010b0a@whitman.edu> after round 4 at northwest ceda champs, here are team records: > > > > > emporia st 2 > > > > > > gonz dh 3 > > > > > > gonz hw 3 > > > > > > gonz ls 3 > > > > > > gonz mw 2 > > > > > > gonz os 0 > > > > > > lc sw 2 > > > > > > sac st ga 1 > > > > > > siu bg 3 > > > > > > ups gc 3 > > > > > > ups hh 1 > > > > > > ups sr 1 > > > > > > whit bb 1 > > > > > > whit bo 4 > > > > > > whit cb 1 > > > > > > whit gs 4 > > > > > > whit mk 1 > > > > > > whit sr 2 > > > > > > wwu rc 3 > > > > > > > > > jim hanson :) > > > whitman college > > > hansonjb at whitman.edu > > > > > > sent to: > > > eDebate at ndtceda.com > > > > > From phallusjerkins Sat Mar 8 18:25:43 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 19:25:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] anti-dabait bush admin fabricates evidence Message-ID: http://www.msnbc.com/news/882311.asp powell tried to stand on a plagiarized british dossier. blix saw through the satellite photo scam and now the inspectors have caught the US red-handed forging documents. the dabait case for the war is so fucking bad that they are pulling dirty dabait tricks that only assholes like steely dan hineyland and his liberal wife bitch support. clearly there is such a great case for the war that we need to plagiarize old documents and make them appear current and now FORGE. you guys' credibility w the inspectors is slipping through your fingers precisely b/c unlike the military the inspectors scrutinize evidence and actually have standards of proof. powell is a fascist using stupid ploys to try to diplomatically bully other nations into support 4 the war. we haven't seen shit like this since tricky dick. the dabaiting postures of the bush admin are plain scary. _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From phallusjerkins Sat Mar 8 18:35:50 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 19:35:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] fabricated ev in the last war -- incubator hoax Message-ID: http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/gallagher83.html without a total hoax, bush the elder might not have been able to swing the public to go to war. it was the "lynchpin" of his sinister rhetorical strat and total lie w amnesty international retracting and confessing being duped by a PR firm intimate w bush the elder. they had to lie to get the war started and they had to lie to prevent prosecution for war crimes that took place @ the end. this time the lies are being seriously scrutinized and bush has been called out for trying it again. they are shooting themselves in the foot @ the UN where standards of dabait are still upheld: quote: "Bush the Elder began using the stories in his speeches. He rallied public opinion to wage war against Iraq with indignant references to "newborn babies thrown out of the incubators and then the incubators being shipped to Baghdad." Six times in a little over a month, Bush the Elder pointed to the story, and the American people and media nodded in shared rage. Saddam kills babies. John MacArthur, author of "The Second Front," the story of the media and the Gulf War, wrote, "Of all the accusations made against the dictator, none had more impact on American public opinion than the one about Iraqi soldiers removing 312 babies from their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold hospital floors of Kuwait City." Amnesty International issued a report on the human rights violations in occupied Kuwait, saying, "Babies in the premature unit of one hospital had been removed from their incubators so that these, too, could be carried off." Six senators specifically pointed to the baby incubator stories in their speeches supporting the resolution to give the president power to use American forces in Kuwait. The measure passed the Senate by a narrow five-vote margin. A bellicose Vice President Dan Quayle, pumped up with fervor from his National Guard experience during the Vietnam War, bellowed, "These are pictures Saddam doesn't want us to see. Pictures of premature babies that were tossed out of their incubators and left to die." Well, there were no pictures, and for good reason. The entire incubator story was a colossal lie. It never happened. The story was a complete fabrication that many Americans still believe to this day. It was a hoax the Kuwaiti government concocted, and their public relations firm propagated the big lie with great success. First, the compelling Nayirah. She had good reason for keeping her last name secret. She was, in fact, the daughter of Sheik Saud Nasir al-Sabah, Kuwait's Ambassador to the United States. She was never in a hospital in Kuwait. She never left Washington, D.C., and made up the entire story. A Hill & Knowlton staffer coached her on how to deliver the stream of lies that an uncritical media, ready to lead the jingoism parade, sold to the world. The heartbroken doctor-turned-undertaker, who brought the hoax to the United Nations, was really a dentist, and was nowhere near Kuwait when the Iraqis invaded. When U.S. troops "liberated" Kuwait, investigators from Amnesty International were quickly sent to the scene to document human rights abuses. They could not find a single witness nor a scintilla of evidence to support the babies-thrown-from-incubators stories. Amnesty International, which had initially gone for the big lie, issued an embarrassed retraction. The man who headed Hill & Knowlton's Washington office and handled the Citizens for a Free Kuwait account was Craig L. Fuller, an intimate of former President George H.W. Bush. Fuller had been Bush's chief of staff when he was vice president and he had daily contact with his friends in the White House. It is beyond reasonable belief to think for a moment that the brass at Hill & Knowlton was unaware of Nayirah's outrageous lies and the fraud they helped spread. What happened was an unconscionable perversion of the democratic process, used to sway public opinion and, ultimately, shape decisions on war and peace. The wonderful Canadian television show, "The Fifth Estate," was one of the first in the media to blow the lid off the big lie. The CBC piece put the whole sordid story together and exposed the lies. When the Canadians tried to get permission to interview Nayirah, her father, the ambassador, angrily refused. Several months later, "60 Minutes" picked up on the story and aired a truncated, watered-down version of the CBC report. Much of the mainstream American media just ignored the truth. Bush the Elder no longer tells the incubator stories, but still refuses to call the lies what they are: Lies. He brushes off the calculated deceptions, saying he knows "some babies" did die in Kuwait, and that's all there is to that.' unquote _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From schizotrope Sat Mar 8 19:17:31 2003 From: schizotrope (Giving You What You Like) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 17:17:31 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] (no subject) Message-ID: Remember when GHWB encouraged the Iraqi people to rise up against their brutish leader, only to sit back Kennebunkport and watch them die. God, that was funny! He's such a practical joker. http://www.counterpunch.org/sayed1220.html _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From let_the_american_empire_burn Sat Mar 8 19:50:50 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 19:50:50 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 'Don't thumb your nose at me, young man!' Message-ID: Ever notice how officials in Washington, D.C. speak of foreign countries like parents and teachers speak of children? Afghanistan presents "progress reports" to the President. If Mexico doesn't go along with this or that, they must be "disciplined". France and Germany are accused of acting "unruly". Iraq either learns to "cooperate" or it will be "punished for defiance". A pro-Bush caller on C-Span's morning program, Washington Journal, gave the following reasoning (or lack thereof): "When I tell my kids to do something, and they don't do it, there's a consquence. Now the U.S. told Saddam to disarm four months ago, four months ago!, and he hasn't done it, so i can't fathom why people don't understand that there's gotta be a serious consequence" (8/3/03). Humor aside, all this discourse reveals something fundamental about the way an Empire looks at the rest of the world - the height differential is substantial. In a chapter entitled 'Kids are not Equal', from the parenting manual Toughlove (1982), Phillis & David York and Ten Wachtel write: "The father, who smokes marijuana occasionally, was discovered by his high school-age daughter. When she challenged him with 'How come you can smoke grass and I can't?' his response was simple: 'Because I have a double standard and I say you can't.' In this family the parents clearly assert the inequality of their relationship with their children in the parents' favor." I love that priceless line: 'Because I have a double standard'. The authors explain their rationale two pages later (p59), "When parents are earning the money, paying the rent or the mortgage, buying the groceries, taking responsibility for keeping the household running smoothly, and providing emotional support as well, a child has no right to claim authority over anything, not even his or her 'own' room. In truth it's not his or her room, it's the parents' room. Privacy is a privilege that grows out of cooperation." We've seen this 'I pay the bills'-baloney before, of course - when chauvanist husbands kept their wives in marital bondage, they also claimed that sole economic responsibility went hand-in-hand with their authority. And slave-owners made similar arguments as well. As we're seeing in the now-inevitable invasion/occupation of Iraq, sovereignty is also 'a privilege that grows out of cooperation'. When Saddam Hussien's regime engages in unprovoked invasions of its neighbors, this is rightly considered a violation of the United Nations Charter, and yet the Allied military-leaders talk about violating those same international conventions for their own reasons (i.e. oil). The federal government pours tens of billions of dollars of the American taxpayer into Israel, even as this country uses those dollars to maintain an illegal occupation of annexed territories (in violation of UN resolution 242) and to run an illegal, clandestine nuclear program (in violation of UN resolution 687, which called for an *entire* Middle East without Weapons of Mass Destruction). The current administration has also remained silently unapologetic for the atrocious legacy of supporting Saddam Hussien throughout the 1980s, giving him direct military assistance even as he gassed hundreds of thousands of Iranians and Kurds. We also see that the humanitarian aid the coalition partners are promising to deliver to Iraqis ('buying the groceries', if you will) is used to justify the incineration of thousands of innocent civilians with an unprecedently massive air campaign (over 100,000 explosive tonage dropped in less than three days). The reason for all this is simple: because the U.S.A. has a double standard - and as George Bush the Father said of this New World Order during Persian Gulf I, "What we say goes." So in coming weeks, as world-citizens watch the heated debates of the U.N. Security Council, it is helpful to remember the words of Toughlove (p57): "Parents do not need to win arguments to make their point." And as we'll soon see, the same holds true for paternalistic empires. _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From WoodyardKM Sat Mar 8 19:51:53 2003 From: WoodyardKM (WoodyardKM at aol.com) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 20:51:53 EST Subject: [eDebate] Veronica Baretto ONLY Message-ID: <78.3a328568.2b9bf839@aol.com> Veronica, Could you please backchannel me? Thanks, Kerith Woodyard University of Utah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030308/c7cb4164/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn Sat Mar 8 20:46:18 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 20:46:18 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] for those who aren't terrorist-supporters, read what the whistleblower says: Message-ID: The following is the full text from a Feb. 26 open-letter to Director Robert S. Mueller III of the F.B.I. from Special Agent Coleen Rowley of the Bureau's field office in Minneapolis. ___ Dear Director Mueller: In June, 2002, on the eve of my testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, you told me that you appreciate constructive criticism and that FBI agents should feel free to voice serious concerns they may have about senior-level FBI actions. Since then I have availed myself twice of your stated openness. At this critical point in our country's history I have decided to try once again, on an issue of even more consequence for the internal security posture of our country. That posture has been weakened by the diversion of attention from al-Qaeda to our government's plan to invade Iraq, a step that will, in all likelihood, bring an exponential increase in the terrorist threat to the U.S., both at home and abroad. In your recent testimony to the Senate, you noted that "the al-Qaeda network will remain for the foreseeable future the most immediate and serious threat facing this country," adding that "the prevention of another terrorist attack remains the FBI's top priority." You then noted that a "U.S.-Iraq war could prompt Baghdad to more directly engage al-Qaeda and perhaps provide it with weapons of mass destruction." But you did not connect these very important dots. Your recent briefings of field management staff have thrown light on the immense pressures you face as you try to keep the FBI intact and functioning amid persistent calls for drastic restructuring. You have made it clear that the FBI is perilously close to being divided up and is depending almost solely upon the good graces of Attorney General Ashcroft and President Bush for its continued existence. Clearly, this tense environment poses a special challenge to those like you who are responsible for providing unbiased, objective intelligence and national security advice to the country's leaders. But I would implore you to step out of this pressure-cooker for a few minutes and consider the following: 1) The FBI is apparently the source for the public statement that there are 5,000 al-Qaeda terrorists already in the U.S. I would ask you to inquire as to whether this figure is based on any hard data. If it is, rather, an estimate based largely on speculation, this can only feed the suspicion, inside the organization and out, that it is largely the product of a desire to gain favor with the administration, to gain support for FBI initiatives and possibly even to gain support for the administration's initiatives. 2) What is the FBI's evidence with respect to a connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Polls show that Americans are completely confused about who was responsible for the suicidal attacks on 9-11 with many blaming Iraq. And it is clear that this impression has been fostered by many in the Administration. As far as the FBI is concerned, is the evidence of such a link "bulletproof," as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld claims, or "scant," as General Brent Scowcroft, Chairman of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board has said? The answer to this is of key importance in determining whether war against Iraq makes any sense from the FBI's internal security point of view. If the FBI does have independent data verifying such a connection, it would seem such information should be shared, at least internally within the FBI. 3) If, as you have said, "the prevention of another terrorist attack remains the FBI's top priority," why is it that we have not attempted to interview Zacarias Moussaoui, the only suspect in U.S. custody charged with having a direct hand in the horror of 9-11? Although al-Qaeda has taken pains to compartmentalize its operations to avoid compromise by any one operative, information obtained from some al-Qaeda operatives has nonetheless proved invaluable. Moussaoui almost certainly would know of other al-Qaeda contacts, possibly in the U.S., and would also be able to alert us to the motive behind his and Mohammed Atta's interest in crop dusting. Similarly, there is the question as to why little or no apparent effort has been made to interview convicted terrorist Richard Reid, who obviously depended upon other al-Qaeda operatives in fashioning his shoe explosive. Nor have possible links between Moussaoui and Reid been fully investigated. It therefore appears that the government may have sacrificed the possibility of acquiring information pertinent to future attacks, in order to conduct criminal prosecution of these two individuals. Although prosecution serves worthy purposes, including deterrence, standard practice in "Organized Crime/Terrorism 101" dictates imaginative, concerted attempts to make inroads into well-organized, cohesive groups. And sometimes that requires "dealing with the devil." In short, it is a matter of priorities. And lack of follow-through with regard to Moussaoui and Reid gives a hollow ring to our "top priority;" i. e., preventing another terrorist attack. 4) It is not clear that you have been adequately apprized of the potential damage to our liaison relationships with European intelligence agencies that is likely to flow from the growing tension over Iraq between senior U.S. officials and their counterparts in key West European countries. There are far more al-Qaeda operatives in Europe than in the U.S., and European intelligence services, including the French, are on the frontlines in investigating and pursuing them. Indeed, the Europeans have successfully uncovered and dismantled a number of active cells in their countries. In the past, FBI liaison agents stationed in Europe benefitted from the expertise and cooperation of European law enforcement and intelligence officers. Information was shared freely, and was of substantial help to us in our investigations in the U.S. You will recall that prior to 9-11, it was the French who passed us word of Moussaoui's link to terrorism. 5) I know the FBI is no longer (or will shortly be no longer) in charge of regulating the color codes, but I expect we will still have input. I realize that decisions to change color codes are made at the most senior level, but perhaps you can caution senior officials about the downside to alarming the public unless there is adequate reason to do so. Increased vigilance must be encouraged when needed, but the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces can easily get bogged down in attempting to pursue all the leads engendered by panicky citizens. This, in turn, draws resources away from more important, well predicated and already established investigations. Unintended consequences like the recent stampede in the Chicago dance club (which initial news accounts reported to be the case) can also occur when the public is put on these heightened alerts. The terrorists win in such circumstances even without attacking. 6) The vast majority of the one thousand plus persons "detained" in the wake of 9-11 did not turn out to be terrorists. They were mostly illegal aliens. We have every right, of course, to deport those identified as illegal aliens during the course of any investigation. But after 9-11, Headquarters encouraged more and more detentions for what seem to be essentially PR purposes. Field offices were required to report daily the number of detentions in order to supply grist for statements on our progress in fighting terrorism. The balance between individuals' civil liberties and the need for effective investigation is hard to maintain even during so-called normal times, let alone times of increased terrorist threat or war. It is, admittedly, a difficult balancing act. But from what I have observed, particular vigilance may be required to head off undue pressure (including subtle encouragement) to detain or "round up" suspectsparticularly those of Arabic origin. 7) As I believe you know, I have a reputation for being quite "conservative" on legal and policy issues regarding law enforcement. I have complained loudly on occasions when some of our laws and procedures have-unnecessarily, in my view, hindered our ability to move boldly against crime. At the same time, I know from experience that the FBI's policy on permissible use of deadly force has served the FBI and the country well. It should be noted, however, that the Administration's new policy of "preemptive strikes" abroad is not consistent with the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) "deadly force policy" for law enforcement officers. DOJ policy restricts federal agents to using deadly force only when presented with an imminent threat of death or serious injury (essentially in self-defense or defense of an innocent third party). I believe it would be prudent to be on guard against the possibility that the looser "preemptive strike" rationale being applied to situations abroad could migrate back home, fostering a more permissive attitude towards shootings by law enforcement officers in this country. 8) I believe the FBI, by drawing on the perspective gained from its recent history, can make a unique contribution to the discussion on Iraq. The misadventure in Waco took place well before your time as Director, but you will probably recall that David Koresh exerted the same kind of oppressive control over members of his Branch Davidian followers, as Saddam Hussein does over the Iraqis. The parallel does not stop there. Law enforcement authorities were certain Koresh had accumulated a formidable arsenal of weapons and ammunition at his compound and may have been planning on using them someday. The FBI also had evidence that he was sexually abusing young girls in the cult. After the first law enforcement assault failed, after losing the element of surprise, the Branch Davidian compound was contained and steadily increasing pressure was applied for weeks. But then the FBI decided it could wait no longer and mounted the second assaultwith disastrous consequences. The children we sought to liberate all died when Koresh and his followers set fires leading to their mass death and destruction. The FBI, of course, cannot be blamed for what Koresh set in motion. Nevertheless, we learned some lessons from this unfortunate episode and quickly explored better ways to deal with such challenges. As a direct result of that exploration, many subsequent criminal/terrorist "standoffs" in which the FBI has been involved have been resolved peacefully and effectively. I would suggest that present circumstances vis-a-vis Iraq are very analagous, and that you consider sharing with senior administration officials the important lessons learned by the FBI at Waco. You are only too well aware that fighting the war on terrorism and crime is an unbelievably difficult mission that will only become more difficult in the years to come, adversely affecting future generations of Americans. The extraneous pressures currently being brought to bear by politicians of both parties upon the FBI and other U.S. intelligence agencies, however, only worsen the present situation. I know that my comments appear so presumptuous for a person of my rank in the organization and I'm very sorry for that impression. A word of explanation is therefore probably in order as to why I feel moved to write you directly about these issues. A good part of the reason lies in a promise I made to myself after I realized the enormity of what resulted when FBI Headquarters Supervisory personnel dismissed the warnings of Minneapolis agents pre-September 11, 2001. I was well aware of the forceful but frustrated efforts being made by Minneapolis case agents and their supervisor in their efforts to get Headquarters to move. But since my own role was peripheral, I did not think I could be of much additional help. Since that fateful day of September 11, 2001, however, I have not ceased to regret that perhaps I did not do all that I might have done. I promised myself that in the future I would always try. I appreciate that you alone do not determine policy on the terrorist threat from inside or outside the countrythat, indeed, you may have little influence in the crafting of broad domestic or foreign policy. And it seems clear to me now that the decision to attack Iraq was taken some time ago and you, even as FBI Director, may be little more than a helpless bystander. Such an attack, though, may have grave consequences for your ability to discharge your responsibility to protect Americans, and it is altogether likely that you will find yourself a helpless bystander to a rash of 9-11s. The bottom line is this: We should be deluding neither ourselves nor the American people that there is any way the FBI, despite the various improvements you are implementing, will be able to stem the flood of terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack on Iraq. What troubles me most is that I have no assurance that you have made that clear to the president. If you believe my concerns have merit, I would ask you to share them with the president and attorney general. We no doubt can agree that our Government has a gargantuan task facing it of melding American foreign policy to make the world, and primarily United States soil, a safer place. I pray for our American and allied world leaders' success in achieving this most important objective. Thank you so much for allowing me to express these thoughts. They are personal in nature and should not be construed as representing the view of any FBI unit or other agents. Yours truly, Coleen Rowley Special Agent, Minneapolis ___ _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From hansonjb Sat Mar 8 21:16:26 2003 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 19:16:26 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] nw ceda champs, rd 5 References: <000901c2e523$6332e0d0$e3010b0a@whitman.edu> <000901c2e539$22d3fd10$e3010b0a@whitman.edu> <000401c2e5b2$bda1eb80$e3010b0a@whitman.edu> <001b01c2e5d0$7d4ef500$e3010b0a@whitman.edu> Message-ID: <000401c2e5ea$44ea9f10$e3010b0a@whitman.edu> after round 5 at northwest ceda champs, here are team records: > > > > > > > emporia st 3 > > > > > > > > gonz dh 4 > > > > > > > > gonz hw 3 > > > > > > > > gonz ls 3 > > > > > > > > gonz mw 2 > > > > > > > > gonz os 1 > > > > > > > > lc sw 2 > > > > > > > > sac st ga 1 > > > > > > > > siu bg 3 > > > > > > > > ups gc 4 > > > > > > > > ups hh 2 > > > > > > > > ups sr 1 > > > > > > > > whit bb 2 > > > > > > > > whit bo 5 > > > > > > > > whit cb 1 > > > > > > > > whit gs 5 > > > > > > > > whit mk 2 > > > > > > > > whit sr 3 > > > > > > > > wwu rc 3 > > > > > > > > > > > > jim hanson :) > > > > whitman college > > > > hansonjb at whitman.edu > > > > > > > > sent to: > > > > eDebate at ndtceda.com From tmor103178 Sat Mar 8 23:27:24 2003 From: tmor103178 (Tristan Morales) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 23:27:24 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] whodda thunk it? Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030308/f929331b/attachment.html From phallusjerkins Sat Mar 8 23:32:01 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 00:32:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] make or break trip points outlined Message-ID: http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,910690,00.html we hold true to our predictions. the US is fucked handcuffed to the UN on every angle. british gov't will collapse without second UN resolution. cannot go completely unilateral. france, russia or china will block any military action clause. france will also win the majority of the so called "middle six". chirac just got back from african tour. look for a french version of a second resolution or an amendment with a longer timeframe than march 17 which is ridiculous and not enough time to do anything. weather is a factor (hence, the ridiculous march 17 deadline) and the french will use the momentum of past diplomatic victories to stretch the deadline into april or may. best case scenario if the US-British resolution below actually is voted through, saddam will comply @ the last second like he has demonstrated everytime to avoid regime change. he does not want war. all that hype about iraqi troop movements is bullshit. he played dan rather feigning early in the week that he wasn't going to destroy the al-samouds. he is outsmarting the US move 4 move and knows that through britain the US tied to the UN and that repeatedly incompetent US officials boast that they can beat the french in the UN and get facecrushed. and still we have no northern access through turkey. weather is a factor. that bluff alone proves that military leaders fear that bush can't pull it off in time. bush has got too little too late. quote "Tony Blair hopes that by relying on evidence supplied by the UN itself to push through the vital second resolution on war, Britain and America will avoid accusations that they will act against Iraq whatever the UN says. He also wants to head off a growing rebellion of backbench MPs and the threat of resignation by up to 30 Ministers if no second resolution is achieved. Last night a number of junior Ministers were named as being ready to resign if there was no second resolution. Anne Campbell, Parliamentary Private Secretary to Patricia Hewitt, the Trade Secretary, Andy Reed, aide to Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary, and Michael Jabez Foster, who works for Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, have all said they would consider their position. More than 200 backbench MPs are also likely to rebel if a vote is taken in the Commons on conflict with Iraq without a second resolution." unquote quote "It was clear last night that the international community was facing the final make or break week on Iraq. In a desperate plea for more time, France said yesterday it would not support the resolution and made an official appeal for a summit of world leaders to discuss the looming conflict. Russia also said it was opposed to any resolution that 'authorised war'. The position of the two permanent members of the Security Council, which both have the power of the veto, is supported by Germany and Syria. Britain and America's position was supported yesterday by Spain and Bulgaria. The British and US 'trip points' will be based on a summary draft of Blix's UN report circulated by Number 10 yesterday. The document demands that Saddam: ? accounts for Iraq's al-Hussein missile system and 50 Scud Bs which the UN says 'may have been retained for a proscribed missile force'; ? explains the illegal import of 131 Volga engines for its al-Samoud 2 missile system and why Unmovic, the UN inspections team, had later found 231 engines and documentation for a further 150; ? accounts for and destroys 550 mustard gas shells and 350 R-400 bombs, which are capable of carrying chemical and biological weapons, which are still outstanding; ? reveals the whereabouts of 80 tonnes of mustard gas as well as VX, Sarin and Soman gas. It is likely that the resolution will be voted on by the middle of this week. If Britain and America succeed in getting the nine votes needed to pass the resolution then Saddam would have until 17 March to comply. If he did not do so military conflict would begin soon after. If the resolution is passed Government sources said that the Commons would be given a vote on the issue with a possible emergency recall of Parliament next weekend. Downing Street was bullish last night about the chances of getting the required nine votes to pass the resolution. Sources close to Blair said that all the diplomatic effort would be aimed at persuading the key 'middle six' countries - Pakistan, Angola, Cameroon, Guinea, Mexico and Chile - to support the resolution. " unquote _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From phallusjerkins Sat Mar 8 23:41:33 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 00:41:33 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Kofi investigates spy scandal---fucks bush by alienating middle 6 Message-ID: http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,910657,00.html this could turn into a watergate fiasco 4 the president...chances in the UN are zero...mainstream US press out of it...calling 4 dabait watchdog group 2 conduct independent journalism into the Koza memo...looks like this was an INTERNAL job leaked by our own US intelligence agencies to fuck the out of the control LYING JERKOFF PRESIDENT--- HA HA HA HA -- maybe pj is CIA...even if he doesn't get paid...HA HA HA HA...bush is FUCKED... "Last week The Observer published details of a memo sent by Frank Koza, Defence Chief of Staff (Regional Targets) at the US National Security Agency, which monitors international communications. The memo ordered an intelligence 'surge' directed against Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea with 'extra focus on Pakistan UN matters'. The 'dirty tricks' operation was designed to win votes in favour of intervention in Iraq. The Observer reported that the memo was sent to a friendly foreign intelligence agency asking for help in the operation. It has been known for some time that elements within the British security services were unhappy with the Government's use of intelligence information. The leak was described as 'more timely and potentially more important than the Pentagon Papers' by Daniel Ellsberg, the most celebrated whistleblower in recent American history. In 1971, Ellsberg was responsible for leaking a secret history of US involvement in Vietnam, which became known as 'the Pentagon Papers', while working as a Defence Department analyst. The papers fed the American public's hostility to the war. The revelations of the spying operation have caused deep embarrassment to the Bush administration at a key point in the sensitive diplomatic negotiations to gain support for a second UN resolution authorising intervention in Iraq. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were both challenged about the operation last week, but said they could not comment on security matters. The operation is thought to have been authorised by US National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, but American intelligence experts told The Observer that a decision of this kind would also have involved Donald Rumsfeld, CIA director George Tenet and NSA chief General Michael Hayden. President Bush himself would have been informed at one of the daily intelligence briefings held every morning at the White House. Attention has now turned to the foreign intelligence agency responsible for the leak. It is now believed the memo was sent out via Echelon, an international surveillance network set up by the NSA with the cooperation of GCHQ in Britain and similar organisations in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Wayne Madsen, of the Electronic Privacy Information Centre and himself a former NSA intelligence officer, said the leak demonstrated that there was deep unhappiness in the intelligence world over attempts to link Iraq to the terrorist network al-Qaeda. 'My feeling is that this was an authorised leak. I've been hearing for months of people in the US and British intelligence community who are deeply concerned about their governments "cooking" intelligence to link Iraq to al-Qaeda.' The Observer story caused a political furore in Chile, where President Ricardo Lagos demanded an immediate explanation of the spying operation. The Chilean public is extremely sensitive to reports of US 'dirty tricks' after decades of American secret service involvement in the country's internal affairs. In 1973 the CIA supported a coup that toppled the democratically-elected socialist government of Salvador Allende and installed the dictator General Augusto Pinochet. President Lagos spoke on the telephone with Prime Minister Tony Blair about the memo last Sunday, immediately after the publication of the story, and twice again on Wednesday. Chile's Foreign Minister Soledad Alvear also raised the matter with Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Chile's ambassador to Britain Mariano Fern?ndez told The Observer: 'We cannot understand why the United States was spying on Chile. We were very surprised. Relations have been good with America since the time of George Bush Snr.' He said that the position of the Chilean mission to the UN was published in regular diplomatic bulletins, which were public documents openly available." unquote _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From stannardmatt Sun Mar 9 00:23:23 2003 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2003 23:23:23 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] lenin on terrorism Message-ID: The rebelliousness which manifests itself in the form of terrorism is essentially that of persons drawn from, or with the outlook of, the petty-bourgeoisie: "Petty-bourgeois revolutionariness, which smacks of, or borrows something from anarchism . . in all essentials falls short of the conditions and requirements of sustained proletarian class struggle. . . The small proprietor, the small master, (a social type that is represented in many European countries on a wide mass scale) . . easily becomes extremely revolutionary, but is incapable of displaying perseverance, discipline and staunchness. The petty bourgeois in a 'frenzy' over the horrors of capitalism is a social phenomenon which, like anarchism, is characteristics of all capitalist countries. The instability of such revolutionariness, its barrenness, its liability to become swiftly transformed into submission, apathy, something fantastic, and even into a 'mad' infatuation with one or another bourgeois 'fad' -- all this is a matter of common knowledge". (V. I. Lenin: ibid; p. 70-71). The petty bourgeoisie is a class which is in process of rapid destruction by monopoly capital - so that, anarchism must be seen as a political reflection of the desperate and futile striving of the petty bourgeois to retain his individual freedom: "The philosophy of the anarchists is bourgeois philosophy turned inside out. Their individualistic theories and their individualistic ideal are the very opposite of socialism. Their views express, not the future of bourgeois society, which is striding with irresistible force towards the socialisation of labour, but the present and even the past of that society, the domination of blind chance over the scattered and isolated small producer". (V. I. Lenin: "Socialism and Anarchism", in: "Collected Works", Volume 10; Moscow; 1962; p. 73). "The point is that Marxism and anarchism are built up on entirely different principles in spite of the fact that both come into the arena of struggle under the flag of socialism. The cornerstone of anarchism is the individual, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the masses, the collective body. According to the tenets of anarchism, the emancipation of the masses is impossible until the individual is emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: 'Everything for the individual?. The cornerstone of Marxism, however, is the masses, whose emancipation, according to its tenets, is the principal condition for the emancipation of the individual. That is to say, according to the tenets of Marxism, the emancipation of the individual is impossible until the masses are emancipated. Accordingly, its slogan is: "Everything for the masses!" (J. V. Stalin: "Anarchism or Socialism?", in: "Works",' Volume 1; Moscow; 1952; p. 299). Terrorism and economism (the theory that the working class can be expected to engage only in economic, and not political, struggles) have common, roots in the "theory of spontaneity" -- which rejects the possibility of elevating the working class to socialist consciousness through the propaganda and day-to-day leadership of a vanguard party: "The Economists and the modern terrorists spring from a common root, namely, subservience to spontaneity. . At first sight, our assertion may appear paradoxical, for the difference between these two appears to be so enormous: one stresses the 'drab everyday struggle' and the other calls for the most self-sacrificing struggle of individuals. But this is not a paradox. The Economists and terrorists merely bow to different poles of spontaneity: the Economists bow to the spontaneity of the 'pure and simple' labour movements while the terrorists bow to the spontaneity of the passionate indignation of the intellectuals, who are either incapable of linking up the revolutionary struggle with the labour movement, or lack the opportunity to do so. It is very difficult indeed for those who have lost their belief, or who have never believed that this is possible, to find some other outlet for their indignation and revolutionary energy than terror". (V. I. Lenin: "What Is to be Done?", in: "Selected Works", Volume 2; London; 1944; p. 94). "The present-day terrorists are really 'economists' turned inside out, going to the equally foolish but opposite extreme". (V. I. Lenin: "Revolutionary Adventurism in Collected Works", Volume 6 Moscow; 1961; p. 192. Thus terrorism -- like economism -- reflects the lack of faith of the petty bourgeoisie in the masses of the working people. Reviewing a leaflet issued by the Socialist-Revolutionaries in 1902, Lenin remarks: "The April 3 leaflet follows the pattern of the terrorists' latest arguments with remarkable accuracy. The first thing that strike's the eye is the words: 'we advocate terrorism, not in place of work among the masses, but precisely for and simultaneously with that work'. They strike the eye particularly because these words are printed in letters three times as large as the rest of the text. But just read the whole leaflet and you will see that the protestation in bold type takes the name of the masses in vain. The day "when the working people will emerge from the shadows' and 'the mighty popular wave will shatter the iron gates to smithereens' 'alas' (literally, 'alas!') 'is still a long way off, and it is frightful to think of the future toll of victims!' Do not these words 'alas, still a long way off' - reflect an utter failure to understand the mass movement and a lack of faith in it?" (V. I. Lenin: ibid.; p.190-91). "Individual" Terrorism In repudiating terrorism, Marxist-Leninists are speaking, of course, of what is generally termed "individual terrorism", such acts as the assassination of a reactionary judge or the planting of a car-bomb outside the office of a government department. In the sense of "attempting to strike terror into an enemy" Marxist-Leninists by no means reject the use of terrorism. The socialist revolution can be brought about only against the armed men who form the core of the machinery of force of the capitalist state, and one of the aims of armed struggle is to strike terror into the enemy and so facilitate his defeat. Again, one of the functions of a state is to strike terror into those who might attempt to overthrow it. Thus, the dictatorship of the working class which must be installed on the victory of the socialist revolution has as one of its aims to strike terror into the overthrown capitalist class, and its active supporters, so as to restrain their desire to overthrow the power of the working class. Marxist-Leninists, therefore, repudiate individual terrorism not on the grounds that terrorism -- in the sense of striking terror into the Enemy ? is unethical, but because acts of individual terrorism harm the cause they purport to serve: "In principle we have never rejected, and cannot reject terror. Terror is one of the forms of military action that may ..be perfectly suitable and even essential at a definite juncture in the battle, given a definite state of the troops and the existence of definite conditions. But the important point is that terror, at the present time, is by no means suggested as an operation for the army in the field, an operation closely connected with and integrated into the entire system of struggle. Without a central body and with weakness of local revolutionary organsations, this in fact, is all that terror can be. We, therefore, declare emphatically that under the present conditions such a means of struggle is inopportune and unsuitable; that it diverts the most active fighters from their real task, the task which is most important from the standpoint of the interests of the. movement as a whole, it disorganises the forces not of the government, but of the revolution". (V. I.,Lenin: "Where to Begin", in: "Collected Works", Volume 5; Mosoow;1961; p. 19). "Of course, we reject individual terrorism only out of considerations of expediency; upon those who 'on principle' were capable of condemning the terror of the Great French Revolution, or the terror in general employed by a victorious revolutionary party which is besieged by the bourgeoisie of the whole-world - upon such people even Plekhanov in 1900-0, when he was a Marxist, and a revolutionary, heaped ridicule and scorn". (V. I. Lenin: "'Left-wing' Communism, an Infantile Disorder", in: 'Selected Works", Volume 10; London;1946;.p.72). While no one individual is generally capable ' of planning and 'carrying out a series of terrorist acts, such acts constitute "individual terrorism" in so far as the organisations involved in them are extremely small, composed of a few skilled persons (usually petty bourgeois intellectuals), and secret (to the working class if not to the police). The Spurious Arguments for:Terrorism The advocates of terrorism argue that terrorist acts weaken the capitalist state machine and so assist the revolutionary process. But if a judge is assassinated, there are a dozen reactionary barristers waiting to step into his shoes; if a courthouse is destroyed, it can be rebuilt at the cost of the working people. The strength of the state relative to that of a small terrorist group, and the protective measures which the state has the power to take when a threat of terrorist acts becomes apparent, causes terrorism to be directed increasingly against the less well defended -- because less important -- aspects of the state. Indeed, this process often results in the activity of terrorist groups, in an effort to evade the defences erected by the state degenerating into mere indiscriminate acts of destruction in which working people are killed and maimed. Reviewing the leaflet of the Socialist-Revolutionaries already mentioned, Lenin poured scorn on the illusion that the state, could be significantly weakened by acts of terrorism: "Just listen to what follows: 'every terrorist blow, as it were, takes away part of the strength of the autocracy and transfers (!) all this strength (!) to the side of the fighters for freedom' . 'And if terrorism is practised systematically (!) it is obvious that the scales of the balance will finally weigh down on our side'. Yes, indeed, it is obvious to all that we have here in its grossest form one of the greatest prejudices of the terrorists: political assassination of itself 'transfers strength." (V.I.Lenin "Revolutionary Adventurism", In: "Collected Works", Volume 6, Moscow; 1961; p.191). The advocates of terrorism also argue that terrorist acts "excite" the masses to greater revolutionary enthusiasm. This theory too was discussed by Lenin: "It would be interesting to note here the specific arguments that 'Svoboda' (a terrorist group-- Ed.) advanced in defence of terrorism. It . . . stresses its excitative significance. . . . .It is difficult to imagine an argument that disproves itself more than this one does! Are there not enough outrages committed in Russian life that a special 'stimulant' has to be invented? On the other hand, is it not obvious that those who are not, and cannot be aroused to excitement even by Russian tyranny will stand by ?twiddling their thumbs? ?even while a handful of terrorists are engaged in a single combat with the government? The fact is, however, that that the masses of the workers are roused to a high pitch of excitement by the outrages committed in Russian life, but we are unable to collect, if one may put it that way, and concentrate all these drops and streamlets of popular excitement, which are called forth by the conditions of Russian life to a far larger extent than we imagine, but which it is precisely necessary to combine into a single gigantic-flood.. . Calls for terror . . are merely forms of evading the most pressing duty that now rests upon Russian revolutionaries, namely, to organise all-sided political agitation. ?Svoboda? desires to substitute terror for agitation, openly admitting that 'as soon as intensified and strenuous agitation is commenced among the masses its excitative function will be finished"' (V I Lenin: "What Is. to be Done?.", in: "Selected Works", Volume 2. London; 1944; p. 96-97). "Nor does the leaflet eschew the theory of excitative terrorism. 'Each time a hero engages in single combat, this arouses in us all a spirit of struggle and courage', we are told. But . . . single combat has the immediate effect of simply creating a short-lived sensation, while indirectly it even leads to apathy and passive waiting for the next bout, We are further assured that 'every flash of terrorism lights up the mind? which unfortunately, we have not noticed to be the case with the terrorism preaching party of the Socialist-Revolutionaries". (V. I. Lenin: "Revolutionary Adventurism" in: "Collected Works"; Volume 6; Moscow; 1961; p. 193). A Pretext for Repression The Marxist-Leninist case against terrorism is not merely that it amounts to a repudiation of the need for the political mobilisation of the masses of the working class -- the force which alone is capable of smashing the state machinery of force of monopoly capital: 'Their tactics (i.e., of the anarchists -- Ed.) . . . amount to a repudiation of the political struggle, disunite the proletarians and convert them in fact into passive participators in one bourgeois policy, or another". (V. I. Lenin: "Socialism and Anarchism"; "Collected Works"; 'Volume 10, Moscow; 1963; p. 73). In fact, far from weakening the state, acts of terrorism provide the pretext for the strengthening of the state machinery of force and for the imposition of repressive measures against the genuine progressive movement -- measures which, without that pretext, would arouse much more vigorous opposition from the working people. In this respect, terrorist groups, whatever their intentions, objectively assist monopoly capital. Thus, the counter-productive hi-jacking of civilian airliners by Arab terrorists was, used by King Hussein of Jordan as the pretext for a war of extermination in September 1970 against the Palestine liberation forces in Jordan, an act necessary to the new policy of US imperialism in the Middle East. And in Britain terrorist acts have provided the pretext for the strengthening of Special Branch., for police raids on the homes of-anti-fascists and the offices of anti-fascist organisations, for pressure to reduce the rights of defendants in political trials, for the repeated army/police manoeuvres at London Airport, and for the "draconic" powers given to the police by the Labour government. Agents Provocateurs An agent of the class enemy who succeeds in entering a revolutionary, or pseudo-revolutionary, organisation is generally an agent of the state intelligence service. His aim, in doing so may simply be to collect information about the members, leaders, strength, etc.; of the organisation for the benefit of the state (that is, to act as a spy), or it may also be to seek to incite the members of the Organisation to commit a terrorist act which would provide a pretext- -- a pretext that would seem a reasonable one to wide sections of working people -- for some repressive measure or measures on the part of the state (that is, to act as an agent provocateur). Where it is not possible to incite a terrorist group to commit a terrorist act desired by the state, this may be performed directly by the intelligence service itself. And where one or more terrorist groups exist, it is difficult or impossible for an outsider to know whether a particular act of terrorism has been carried out by such a group or by the intelligence service. In either case, however, the act may provide the pretext for some repressive measure or measures on the part of the state directed at the genuine progressive movement. The most notorious example of such a terrorist act carried but by the state itself is, of course, the burning of the Reichstag in 1933 to provide the pretext for the repression of the Communist Party of Germany, even though that party was completely opposed to the carrying out of such acts of terrorism. Within a genuine revolutionary organisation, it, is difficult to distinguish an agent provocateur from an honest, but misguided, exponent of "left" adventurism; indeed this distinction can be made, not on the basis of political analysis, but only by means of counter-intelligence activity which reveals the agent's connection with the state. But an agent provocateur is powerless to incite an act of terrorism on the part of a genuine revolutionary organisation unless there is support for such acts on the part of a majority of the members. The cardinal task, therefore, is to expose terrorism politically to its honest, but misguided, supporters, thus isolating the agent provocateur and opening the way to his exposure to the members and supporters of the organisation and his expulsion from it: "We must get the workers to understand that while the killing of spies, agents provocateurs and traitors may sometimes of course, be absolutely unavoidable, it is highly undesirable and mistaken to make a system of it, and that we must strive to create an organisation which will be able to render spies innocuous by exposing them and tracking them down. It is impossible to do away with all spies, but to create an organisation which will ferret them out and educate the working class masses is both possible and necessary". (V. I. Lenin. Footnote to: ' Letter to a Comrade on Our Organisational Tasks", in: "Collected Works", Volume 6; Moscow; 1961; p. 245). And, of course, given a partially clandestine organisation with adequate security measures and tight discipline, the harm which agents may do to a Marxist-Leninist Party may be limited, and they can even be compelled to do positive Party work ? as Lenin pointed out in the case of the tsarist police agent Roman Malinovsky: "In 1912 ? an agent provacateur, Malinovsy got into the Central Committee, of the Bolsheviks. He betrayed scores and scores of the best and msot loyal comrades, caused them to be sent to penal servitude and hastened the death of many of them. If he did not cause even more harm than he did, it was because we had established proper coordination between our legal and illegal work. As a member of the Central Committee of the Party and a deputy in the Duma, Malinovsky was forced, in order to gain our confidence, to aid us in establishing legal daily paper. While with one hand Malinovsky sent scores and scores of the best Bolsheviks to penal servitude, and to death, with the other he was compelled to assist in the education of scores and scores of thousands of new Bolsheviks through the medium of the legal press". (V. Lenin: 'Left-wing' Communism, an Infantile Disorder", in: "Selected Works", Volume 10; London; 1946; p. 85). Guerilla Warfare Socialist revolution involves armed struggle -- that is civil war - between, on the one hand, the machinery of force under the leadership of it's Marxist-Leninist vanguard party, and on the other hand ? the machinery of force of the capitalist state. Guerilla warfare is a form of armed struggle waged by relatively small units of armed men against a considerably stronger armed force ? in the case of revolutionary guerilla warfare against the armed force of a reactionary state. The essence of guerilla military tactics is to make localised "hit-and-run" attacks on the weakest and most exposed sectors of the enemy's forces, so nibbling away at his strength without the losses to one?s own forces that would result from a direct confrontation with his main forces. Thus, revolutionary guerilla warfare must be seen as a development of the struggle for socialist revolution -- when this has reached the stage of armed struggle: Firstly, before this armed struggle has reached the stage of a country-wide armed uprising, and Secondly, when it has reached the stage of a country-wide armed uprising in the intervals between major engagements: "The phenomenon in which we are interested (i.e., guerilla warfare - Ed.) - is the armed struggle. It is conducted by individuals and by small groups . . .. . . Guerilla warfare is an inevitable form of` struggle at a time when the mass movement has actually reached the point of an uprising and when fairly large intervals occur between the 'big engagements? in the civil war. . . . An uprising cannot assume the old form of individual acts restricted to a very short time and to a very small area. It is absolutely natural and inevitable that the uprising should assume the higher and more complex form of a prolonged civil war embracing the whole country. . . . . . Such a war cannot be conceived otherwise than as a series of a few big engagements at comparatively long intervals and a large number of small encounters during these intervals. That being so -- and it is undoubtedly so ? the Social-Democrats (i.e., Marxist-Leninists -_ Ed.) must absolutely make it their duty to create organisations best adapted to lead, the masses in these big engagements and, as far as possible, in these small encounters as well". (V. I. Lenin: "Guerilla Warfare", in: "Collected Works", Volume 11; Moscow; 1962; p. 216, 219, 222-23). Revolutionary guerilla warfare has three principal aims: Firstly, to weaken the military and para-military armed forces of the capitalist state (and of fascist militia) by killing their officers and men: "The Party must regard the fighting guerrilla operations of the squads affiliated or associated with it as being, in principle, permissible and advisable in the present period; ?.. the paramount immediate object of these operations is to destroy the government, police and military machinery, and to wage a relentless struggle against the active Black Hundred Organisations (i.e. rural fascist-type organisations -- Ed.) which are using violence against the population and intimidating it", (V. I. Lenin: Draft Resolution for Unity Congress of RSDLP, 1906, in: "Collected Works", Volume 10; Moscow; 1962; p. 154). "In the first place, this (guerilla - Ed.) struggle aims at assassinating individuals, chiefs or subordinates, in the army and police". (V.I. Lenin: "Guerilla Warfare",- in: "Collected Works", Volume 11; Moscow; 1962; p. 216). Secondly, to give practical military training to working class leaders: "The character of these fighting guerilla operations must be adjusted to the task of training leaders of the masses of the workers at a time of insurrection, and of acquiring experience in conducting offensive and surprise military operations". (V. I. Lenin: Draft Resolution for Unity Congress of RSDLP, l906, in: "Collected Works", Volume 10; Moscow; 1962; p.154). Thirdly, to confiscate funds in the possession of the capitalist class for the use of the revolutionary movement: "In the second place, it (i.e., guerilla warfare -- Ed.) aims at the confiscation of monetary funds both from the government and from private persons. The confiscated funds go into the treasury of the Party, partly for the special purpose of arming and preparing for an uprising, and partly for the maintenance of the persons engaged in the struggle we are describing". (V. I. Lenin: "Guerilla Warfare", in: "Collected Works", Volume 11; Moscow; 1962; p. 216). "Fighting operations are also permissible for the purpose of seizing funds belonging to the enemies, i.e., the autocratic government, to meet the needs of insurrection, particular care being taken so that the interests of the people are infringed as little as possible". (V. I. Lenin: Draft Resolution for Unity Congress of RSDLP, l906, in: "Collected Works", Volume 10; Moscow; 1962; p.154). (So deep was the respect for private property inculcated in the minds of a majority of the delegates to the 1906 Congress of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, that the congress approved guerilla warfare for the purpose of killing soldiers and police, but rejected Lenin's clause approving it for the purpose of confiscating funds from the ruling class for the financing of the revolutionary movement). At first glance, the distinction between terrorism (which Marxist-Leninists oppose), and revolutionary guerilla warfare (which Marxist-Leninists support) seems blurred. In fact, however, the distinction is quite clear. In the first place, guerilla warfare becomes a correct revolutionary tactic only when it has the support of the mass of the working people in the locality in which it is carried out: "Fighting guerilla organisations must be conducted ?.. such a way as . .to ensure that the state of the working class movement and the mood of the broad masses of the given locality are taken into account". (V. I.. Lenin: Draft Resolution to Unity Congress of RSDLP 1906, In "Collected Works"; Volume l0; Moscow; 1961; p. 154). In the second place, and following from the above, guerilla war becomes a revolutionary tactic only when the class struggle has been elevated, as a result of correct day-to-day leadership by the Marxist-Leninist Party, to the stage where the mass of the working people have come to see the armed-forces of the capitalist state and the fascist bands as their irreconcilable enemies who must be fought -- for only then will this guerilla warfare have the support of the mass of the working people in the locality in which it is carried out. Terrorist acts, on the other hand, are carried out before this stage has been reached and in isolation from the class struggle of the working people: "This act (i.e., the assassination of Sipyagin ?Ed) was in no way connected with the masses, and moreover could, not have been by reason of the very way in which it was carried out --that the persons who committed this terrorist act neither counted on nor hoped for any definitive action nor support on the part of the masses. In their naivete, the Socialist-Revolutionaries do not realise that their predilection for terrorism is most intimately linked with the fact that, from the very outset, they have always kept, and still keep, aloof from the working class movement, without even attempting to become a party of the revolutionary class which is waging the class struggle". (Lenin: "Revolutionary Adventurism"; In "Collected Works" Volume 6; Moscow; 1961; p. 189). In the third place, guerilla warfare becomes a correct revolutionary tactic in the special circumstance that it is conducted under the control of the Marxist-Leninist Party: "Fighting guerilla organisations must be conducted under the control of the Party". (V. I. Lenin: Draft Resolution for the Unity Congress of RSDLP, l906, in: "Collected Works", Volume 10; Moscow, 1961; p. 154). The principles of guerilla warfare advocated by "Che" Guevara are,thus completely opposed to the principles of Marxism-Leninism: "The revolutionary guerilla force is clandestine. It is born and develops secretly. . . The guerilla force is independent of the civilian population in action as well as in military organisation; consequently it need not assume the direct defence of the peasant population. . . Eventually the future People's Army will beget the party. . The people's army will be the nucleus of the party, not vice versa. The guerilla force is the political vanguard in nuce, and from its development a real party can arise. . . That is why, at the present juncture, the principal stress must be laid on the development of guerilla warfare and not on the strengthening of existing parties or the creation of new parties"," (R. Debray: "Revolution in the Revolution?"; London; 1968; p.41, 105, 115). The castroite principles of guerilla warfare form part of an anti-Marxist Leninist revolutionary strategy which serves the interests of the national bourgeoisie of a colonial-type country with a weak state machinery of force. (This question is analysed in more detail in "The Theory of the in: RED VANGUARD,. No. l; p.83f). Contemporary Lessons The Provisional Irish Republican Army is an armed force of the Irish national-liberation movement. It is, however, not led by a Marxist-Leninist Party of the working class, which does not at present exist in Ireland, but by representatives of the Irish national bourgeoisie, who wish for independence from Britain in order to develop the country as an independent capitalist state. As long as the Provisional IRA was seen by the people of the Catholic areas of Northern Ireland as their defence against the armed forces and police of the colonial regime, and the fascist bands which had the "open support of the police, it had their enthusiastic support. To the extent however, that the IRA has turned to tactics of terrorism, often of an indiscriminate character in which working people have been killed and maimed, this support has been whittled away -- and this has tended to make terrorism, increasingly the only form of activity which it is physically able to undertake. In Britain, too, the effect of indiscriminate bombing by the Provisional IRA has been to alienate sympathy from the Irish national-liberation struggle among the British working class, which is, objectively, the ally of the Irish people in the struggle against their common enemy British imperialism. The use that British imperialism can make of a movement whose activity is predominantly of a terrorist character was pointed out in a recent issue of CLASS AGAINST CLASS on the plan under consideration by the British imperialists for the creation of a united neo-colonial Ireland by creating the pretext for the military intervention in Northern Ireland of the army of the Republic of Ireland: "The aim is, under the slogan of ?allowing the people of Northern Ireland to settle their own problems?, to permit the restoration of a fascist-type of state machine in Northern Ireland dominated by the right-wing Protestant leaders. These leaders are already pledging themselves to the pogroms against the 'Catholic population which will inevitably follow -- that, is, they are pledging themselves not to carry out such pogroms unless the Provisional IRA renews its campaign".. ("Ireland: New Tactics of British Imperialism"; in: CLASS AGAINST CLASS, No. 6; June 1974; p. 8). The British imperialists calculate that the Provisional IRA, as a result of its turn to tactics of terrorism, has lost too much strength and support to be capable of defending the Catholic population, so that the call for the "protective" intervention of the armed forces of the Republic will come from the Catholic working people of Northern Ireland themselves. Again, one of the most important tasks facing the British working class is the organisation of an anti-fascist united front, properly organised and with a correct tactical programme. Even at this early stage of the anti-fascist movement, certain maoist groups (such as the "Communist Party of England (Marxist-Leninist) and trotskyite groups (such as the International Marxist Group) have begun to launch assaults upon the police during anti-National Front demonstrations. But an assault upon the armed forces of the state becomes a correct tactic of revolutionary guerilla warfare in a developed capitalist country only when the class struggle has reached a much higher level of development and when it is directed by a Marxist-Leninist Party, which does not yet exist in Britain. Such assaults on the police as that which took place in Red Lion Square in 1974, being completely premature, constitute mere terrorism, which tends to disorganise the embryo anti-fascist movement and provide the pretext for police violence and repressive measures on the part of the state against genuine anti-fascists "Leftist" groups which carry out such actions at the present time are objectively assisting fascism. Conclusion Terrorism, whatever the motives of the terrorists, objectively serves the interests of the forces opposed to social and national liberation. It is necessary for Marxist-Leninists, therefore, to expose terrorism for what it is, and to wage a principled and consistent struggle against this ideology, in line with Lenin's formula: "Bolshevism grew, took shape and became hardened, in long years of struggle against petty-bourgeois revolutionariness, which smacks of, or borrows something from, anarchism, and which in all essentials falls short, of the conditions and, requirements of the sustained proletarian class struggle". (V. I. Lenin.: '"Left-wing' Communism", an Infantile Disorder", in: "Selected Works Volume .10; London; 1946; p.70). >From COMBAT: JOURNAL OF THE COMMUNIST LEAGUE, 1975 _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From drwiese1 Sun Mar 9 02:38:36 2003 From: drwiese1 (DANIELLE WIESE) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:38:36 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] NDT JUDGING AVAILABLE Message-ID: The University of Iowa has four rounds of judging it will sell to the next available bidder... Please contact me. Danielle Wiese University of Iowa -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030309/30231dac/attachment.htm From phallusjerkins Sun Mar 9 00:45:45 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 01:45:45 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] adios dan hineyland, ultimate right wing pussy Message-ID: a) not corecock not shiros but steely dan hineyland who lives a little too close to the railroad tracks for comfort...knock knock, it's the postman, cum to see your wife again while you're @ work...no wonder your teams always suck...their coach is an idiot who can't even defend himself, his wife, or his anus on edabait...worse mr. dildo himself is an ENEMY OF DABAIT...we hope you lose your job...you so far have not come forward and condemned the presidential attack on dabaiting societies, instead you continue to support the frightening executive branch like there's nothing wrong..you think dabaiting means being a "polite adult"...FUCK YOU WAR CHILD...dabait means providing evidence and not cheating and fabricating DICKFACE LOSER...wake up... b) TKO --- MORE TIMELY AND POTENTIALLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PENTAGON PAPERS---we're gonna nail rice for sure and probably the president too and who knows how many...MORE TIMELY AND POTENTIALLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE PENTAGON PAPERS...WHISTLEBLOWER...your laughingstock white house PR FUCKS remain conspiratorially silent invoking "national security"...what a joke...get beat by france and so try to cheat and it backfires and the whole thing is called off...get beat by france and try to "cook' intelligence on iraq and al-qaeda and face mutiny from your own intelligence community...HA HA HA...mr. steely dan nixon hitler FUCKFACE pussy who can't dabait 4 shit...TKO not february, not march, not april...NO FUCKING WAR, SPOOK FUCKING CHEATERS...SHOULD HAVE LEARNED FROM TRICKY DICK'S MISTAKES... requote: "The leak was described as 'more timely and potentially more important than the Pentagon Papers' by Daniel Ellsberg, the most celebrated whistleblower in recent American history. In 1971, Ellsberg was responsible for leaking a secret history of US involvement in Vietnam, which became known as 'the Pentagon Papers', while working as a Defence Department analyst. The papers fed the American public's hostility to the war. The revelations of the spying operation have caused deep embarrassment to the Bush administration at a key point in the sensitive diplomatic negotiations to gain support for a second UN resolution authorising intervention in Iraq." unquote c) you're right. your "liberal" wife is not the bitch who vindicated forced anthrax vaccinations w no information as to the side-effects. you are. instead your wife is the FUCKING LOSER BITCH WHO MARRIED A KILLER and wrote that post that says we should go to war to liberate iraq from a dictator once bolstered by US arms sales and approval of the accused atrocities. good cop wife, bad cop husband routine fails. your wife is as insensitive to the likely atrocities to be committed by bloodthirsty US goons as you are. your mom is the stupid bitch who forgot to abort you. your students are the idiots who lose more rounds than they win because they don't push the school to get a better coach. d) where's kerpen? you make empty threats on his behalf while we shred your ass. if you were half the adult you say you are then you wouldn't call on the moderator, coward, killer, right-wing dabait pussy. you appear to be seriously backpedalling. coming on first in outrage about bringing in your wife making empty threats and then pretending that you like being called steely dan and that you are unaffected by the insults levied against you w an amicable departure. nobody believes your wolf crying. busted... e) if you read Naked Lunch, then you would know something about the blurred boundary between sanity and insanity -- AND YOU WOULDN"T BE A PENCIL DICK LOSER @ THE BOTTOM OF YOUR POST ADMONISHING US TO TAKE MEDICINE. you keep trying to fake it, CAREER ASSHOLE and keep getting busted by people like Mr. Klemz who does roll on shabas. you would stop playing the tight ass adult who enforces the speaking rules like a good censorship pig. if you had read Naked Lunch, poser FUCKFACE, your grand "endgame" strategy would not be a pathetic "you're sick" alibi crying wolf and everybody knows. but that was long ago when you supposedly read naked lunch, right? let me introduce you to Dr. Benway who has been working on treating the disease of homosexuality w special normalizing drugs.... f) what's your definition of "virgin", mr. dildo w no other leg to stand on? g) you refuse to take a stance on psychological warfare being conducted right now against activist groups using the same tactics that you whine about being used against you because YOU ARE A SHITTY FUCKING DABAIT COACH W NO ANSWER TO THE TURN except "bush has got brass knuckles"...congratulations mr. dipshit you take the cake...ALL-TIME DABAIT COACH COWARD...bullet-dodging pussy who can't stand up 4 himself...you got nothing to say about what the FBI did to Dr. King b/c you are a closet KKK racist who lynched niggers in the south...STAR--the dropped argument "g)" if you can still flow flunky white boy...you just divert boasting some bogus quick timeframe 4 slaughtering more iraqi civilians b/c you think you're hot shit w your immoral cover up jobs... h) everyone knows that you quit b/c you got your ass kicked and right wing flunkies like yourself can't keep up w the line by line...TKO "uncle" phallus _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From phallusjerkins Sun Mar 9 01:28:35 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 02:28:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] stannard = PC leftist wannabe Message-ID: come on...pathetic...citing Lenin to indict individual acts of terrorism and purge the list...jack stroube answered that shit on point almost a year and a half ago...we'll bring back the answers for you incompetent asshole PC cop who can't read...mr. sanitary eat your own shit...come on dipshit the evidence below from foucault indicates that lenin's denouncement of individual terrorism comes from an out of date conception of revolution as capture of the state..i.e. the logic goes like this "don't act unless you can capture the state otherwise you will be coopted"...lenin's theory of revolution was crushed and exposed for his outdatedness in may' 68 when middle-class student provocateurism brought france to its knees and horkheimer documented the same process in france theorizing a new revolutionary class and the reverse psychological techniques condoned by the slf ended the vietnam war...academic boring dinosaur, you need some K theory updates --- french stuff post-68 or horkheimer... a) first we have the karl korsch answer to lenin. lenin, stanny's new wetdream hero, crushed the worker communes to centralize the party mobilizing the counter-revolution and setting up stalin. your so-called "leninist dogma" revelations about terrorism supporting the petit bourgeoisie were the very rhetorical strategy developed by the lenin to crush the worker communes and intimidate them out of resistance. duh duh duh...you are a revisionist historian posing as a leftist. jack stroube beat roston on 12-14-2001 w this evidence. we rightfully distanced ourselves from lenin and stalin and now you eat all of roston's impacts to centralized party communism and uniformity of obedience. this is a turn, punk who couldn't dabait the line by line on this if he tried. requote: "my old teacher, douglas kellner, summarized korsch's theory aptly in his 1977 book Karl Korsch: Revolutionary Theory on pages 58-59. "In a detailed and penetrating examination of "Ten Years of Class Struggle in the Soviet Union," Korsch turned his historical materialist method to the Soviet Union. The essay is a model of critical reflection and provides a sharp criticism of the degeneration of the revolution under Stalin. It is important to note that Korsch did not ever undialectically reject the Russian Revolution. Rather, his focus was on the class struggles that he saw going on in the Soviet Union from the beginning and which took, after Lenin's death, the form of a struggle between opportunistic, counterrevolutionary forces (represented by Stalin and his various allies) and genuine, proletarian revolutionary forces (represented at different times by the workers' opposition, Zinoviev, and Trotsky).139 Like Marx, in his analysis of class struggle in France, Korsch did not want to reduce political conflict to "personal power struggles between ambitious cliques of leaders."140 Rather, he wanted to reveal the "hidden material interests and social classes and class factions which represented and fought for these interests."141 For Korsch, the "ten years of Soviet Russia" should be seen as "a period of new and a new kind of class struggle."142 From the beginning, the revolutionary proletarian forces had to struggle against those who wanted a "bourgeois agrarian revolution in Russia." From the beginning, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" had to exercise "state repression" against the previously ruling local bourgeoisie and an external defensive war against the capitalist powers, thus introducing "new forms of class struggle."143 This process of defending the "Soviet fatherland" gave rise to a new contradiction that would fatefully plague the subsequent development of the Soviet Union and would have dire consequences for the entire international revolutionary movement: the contradiction between "revolutionary state necessity" and "proletarian class necessity."144 This "objective contradiction" was to force/allow Lenin in the early 1920's to reject the demands of the workers' opposition and Trotsky to use the Red Army to crush workers' revolts. It then served to justify an increasingly centralized dictatorship of the party and diminuition of the Soviets when the NEP replaced the previous "war communism." Then Stalin's version of the slogan "socialism in one country" was used to justify the suppression and purging of the revolutionary opposition and the construction of a counterrevolutionary state apparatus and party politics on both a national and international scale. Hence, Korsch concluded that the revolutionary working class had suffered "an almost unbroken chain of defeats, including the Brest-Litovsk treaty, the 1920/1 suppression of the Leningrad workers opposition, the crushing of the Kronstadt uprising, the purging of the Trotskyists in 1923/4, the purging of the left opposition in 1925/6, and Stalin's recent victory over the Trotsky-Zinoviev left-oppositional bloc."145 This meant that the counterrevolution had triumphed in the Soviet Union and had "sacrificed the proletarian revolution of Red October" through the erection of a "new capitalistic class state."146 Or, to put it differently, the interests of the large farmers (the kulaks), the remains of the bourgeoisie, and the Stalinist elements in the party-state apparatus had triumphed over the revolutionary working-class forces. ?????The triumph of the "bourgeois counterrevolution" in Russia was seen by Korsch as part of a world-wide resurrection of bourgeois power and the capitalist economy after its near collapse in World War I, from which had arisen a series of revolutionary struggles in Russia, Germany, Hungary, and other countries that took a bitter and intense form. Although at times the class struggles seemed to signal the triumph of socialist revolution on a world scale, the high tide of revolution (1917-1920) receded and starting around 1921 the forces of counterrevolution began their world-wide offensive on the basis of a "changing of the economic situation itself and the power relationships conditioned by it."147. With the restoration of capitalism in Europe and the return to power of the bourgeoisie "there was a wide-ranging transformation in the fundamental conditions under which all the international proletariat, as well as the Russian proletariat, had to fight their struggles in the newly beginning period."148 Hence, the defeat of the Russian proletariat was part of a series of defeats suffered by the proletariat on a world-wide scale. Further, the counter-revolution in Russia was part of an international counter-revolution which on the basis of a relatively stabilized capitalism had reinforced bourgeois domination.149" endquote b) unlike stupid stanny, foucault too studied his korsch as much as he studied korsch's students benjamin and brecht who theorized against stanny's PC commodified kritiks. we will requote the onpoint foucault answer for you. the situation is May' 68 in france and the communist party stands against the student capture of the latin quarter as well as the largest wildcat strike in history using the same reactionary leninist thesis being bandied by stanny. foucault, deleuze, guattari and other revolutionaries are accused of being bourgeois "bulwarks" by sartre and co. we reject what foucault calls your MICROTERRORISM and INTIMIDATION. you might as well just be running shamaham statism links that are easy to beat. stroube provided the following quote in his infamous "questions for shuster" post of 11-27-2001: "It is necessary to make a distinction between critique of reformism as a political practice and the critique of a political practice on the grounds that it may give rise to a reform. This latter form of critique is frequent in left-wing groups and its employment is part of the mechanisms of MICRO-TERRORISM by which they have often operated. It amounts to saying, 'Beware: however ideally radical your intentions may be, your action is so localised and your objectives so isolated that at this particular spot the adversary will be able to handle the situation, to yield if necessary without in any way compromising his global position; even better, this will allow him to locate the sites of necessary transformation; and so you will have been recuperated'. The anathema is pronounced. Now it seems to me that this critique rests on two errors: ???First, there is a misunderstanding of the strategic form that processes of struggle take. If one accepts the form--both general and concrete--of struggle is contradiction, then clearly everything which allows the contradiction to be localised or narrowed down will be seen as a brake or a blockage. But the problem is precisely as to whether the logic of contradiction can actually serve as a principle of intelligibility and rule of action in political struggle. This touches on the momentous political question: how is it that since the nineteenth century the specific problems of struggle and the strategy of struggle have tended so constantly to be dissolved into the meager (slf generally uses "weak-ass") logic of contradiction? There are a whole series of reasons for this that will need to be analysed some day (why not today shamaham fans?). In any case, one must try to think struggle and its forms, objectives, means and processes in terms of a logic free of the sterilising constraints of the dialectic. In order to think the social bond, 'bourgeois' political thought of the eighteenth century adopted the juridical form of the contract. In order to think struggle, the 'revolutionary' thought of the nineteenth century adopted the logical form of contradiction. The latter, no doubt, is no more valid than the former. In contrast, the great States of the nineteenth century adopted a strategic mode of thought, while the revolutionary struggles conceived their strategy only in a very conjunctural manner, endeavoring at the same time always to inscribe it within the horizon of contradiction. ????The phobia of the adversary's reformist riposte is also linked with second error. This is the privilege accorded to what is solemnly termed the 'theory' of the weakest link. A local attack is considered to have sense and legitimacy only when directed at the element which, if broken, will allow the total breach of the chain. That is, it must be a local action but one which, through the choice of its site, will act radically on the whole. Here again we should ask why this thesis has had such success in the twentieth century, and why it has been erected into a theory. Certainly it rendered thinkable the event that Marxism had failed to foresee: the revolution in Russia. But in general it must be recognised that we are dealing here not with a dialectical, but a strategic proposition--and a very elementary one at that. It provided the acceptable minimum of strategy for a mode of thinking ruled by the dialectic, and has remained closely linked to dialectic because it expressed the possibility for a local situation to count as the contradiction of the whole. Hence the solemnity with which this 'Leninist' thesis was erected into a 'theory'--one which is barely on a level with the preliminary training given to a sub-lieutenant in the reserves. And it's in the name of this thesis that every local action is terrorised with the following dilemma: either you attack on a local level, but you must be sure it's at the weakest link, the one whose breakage will demolish the whole structure; or else, since the whole structure fails to collapse, the link wasn't the weakest one, the adversary needed only to re-organise his front, and a reform has reabsorbed your attack. ???It seems to me that this whole INTIMIDATION with the bogy of reform is linked to the lack of a strategic analysis appropriate to political struggle, to struggles in the field of political power. The role for theory today seems to me to be just this: not to formulate global systematic theory which holds everything in place, but to analyse the specificity of mechanisms of power (even though "discourse" is emphasized in dabait, we should assume there is not alot of power circulating even under the guise of "kritik"), to locate the connections and extensions (like the "kritik"-policy relays under the competitive format and the high school institute racket), to build little by little a strategic knowledge (savoir). ??If 'the traditional parties have re-established their hegemony over the Left', and over the diverse forms of struggle which had not originally been under their control, one reason among many for this was that only a profoundly inadequate logic was available to these struggles for the analysis of their unfolding and their effects" ("Power and Strategies" chapted, p. 143-5) _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From hansonjb Sun Mar 9 01:56:44 2003 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:56:44 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] nw ceda champs, rd 6 In-Reply-To: <000401c2e5ea$44ea9f10$e3010b0a@whitman.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Jim Hanson wrote: > after round 6 at northwest ceda champs, here are wins with seeding in brackets: > > > > > > > > > emporia st 4 (4) > > > > > > > > > > gonz dh 4 (7) > > > > > > > > > > gonz hw 3 (8) > > > > > > > > > > gonz ls 4 (5) > > > > > > > > > > gonz mw 3, missed on points > > > > > > > > > > gonz os 1 > > > > > > > > > > lc sw 2 > > > > > > > > > > sac st ga 2 > > > > > > > > > > siu bg 4 (3) > > > > > > > > > > ups gc 4 (6) > > > > > > > > > > ups hh 3, missed on points > > > > > > > > > > ups sr 1 > > > > > > > > > > whit bb 2 > > > > > > > > > > whit bo 6 (1) > > > > > > > > > > whit cb 2 > > > > > > > > > > whit gs 6 (2) > > > > > > > > > > whit mk 3, missed on points > > > > > > > > > > whit sr 3, missed on points > > > > > > > > > > wwu rc 3, missed on points > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jim hanson :) > > > > > whitman college > > > > > hansonjb at whitman.edu > > > > > > > > > > sent to: > > > > > eDebate at ndtceda.com > > > From hansonjb Sun Mar 9 01:58:38 2003 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2003 23:58:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] speaker awards, nw ceda champs In-Reply-To: <000401c2e5ea$44ea9f10$e3010b0a@whitman.edu> Message-ID: 1. thad blank, whitman (becky galentine speaker award) 2. charles olney, whitman 3. beth schueler, whitman 4. paul bellinger, siu 5. chris losnegard, gonzaga 6. sj moore, emporia state 7. jessica gates, ups 8. dave guidry, whitman 9. eric sullivan, gonzaga 10. eric suni, whitman jim hanson :) whitman college hansonjb at whitman.edu On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Jim Hanson wrote: > after round 5 at northwest ceda champs, here are team records: > > > > > > > > > emporia st 3 > > > > > > > > > > gonz dh 4 > > > > > > > > > > gonz hw 3 > > > > > > > > > > gonz ls 3 > > > > > > > > > > gonz mw 2 > > > > > > > > > > gonz os 1 > > > > > > > > > > lc sw 2 > > > > > > > > > > sac st ga 1 > > > > > > > > > > siu bg 3 > > > > > > > > > > ups gc 4 > > > > > > > > > > ups hh 2 > > > > > > > > > > ups sr 1 > > > > > > > > > > whit bb 2 > > > > > > > > > > whit bo 5 > > > > > > > > > > whit cb 1 > > > > > > > > > > whit gs 5 > > > > > > > > > > whit mk 2 > > > > > > > > > > whit sr 3 > > > > > > > > > > wwu rc 3 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jim hanson :) > > > > > whitman college > > > > > hansonjb at whitman.edu > > > > > > > > > > sent to: > > > > > eDebate at ndtceda.com > > > From hansonjb Sun Mar 9 02:00:24 2003 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 00:00:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] quarters, nw ceda champs In-Reply-To: <000401c2e5ea$44ea9f10$e3010b0a@whitman.edu> Message-ID: whitman bo vs gonzaga hw whitman gs vs gonzaga dh southern ill. bg vs u. puget sound gc emporia state ms vs. gonzaga ls jim hanson :) whitman college hansonjb at whitman.edu On Sat, 8 Mar 2003, Jim Hanson wrote: > after round 5 at northwest ceda champs, here are team records: > > > > > > > > > emporia st 3 > > > > > > > > > > gonz dh 4 > > > > > > > > > > gonz hw 3 > > > > > > > > > > gonz ls 3 > > > > > > > > > > gonz mw 2 > > > > > > > > > > gonz os 1 > > > > > > > > > > lc sw 2 > > > > > > > > > > sac st ga 1 > > > > > > > > > > siu bg 3 > > > > > > > > > > ups gc 4 > > > > > > > > > > ups hh 2 > > > > > > > > > > ups sr 1 > > > > > > > > > > whit bb 2 > > > > > > > > > > whit bo 5 > > > > > > > > > > whit cb 1 > > > > > > > > > > whit gs 5 > > > > > > > > > > whit mk 2 > > > > > > > > > > whit sr 3 > > > > > > > > > > wwu rc 3 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > jim hanson :) > > > > > whitman college > > > > > hansonjb at whitman.edu > > > > > > > > > > sent to: > > > > > eDebate at ndtceda.com > > > From phallusjerkins Sun Mar 9 02:26:25 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 03:26:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] we meant habermas not horkheimer Message-ID: in the stannard answer sorry...habermas documented the successes of the german student tactics of provocateurism in GERMANY not france...apologies _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From let_the_american_empire_burn Sun Mar 9 02:45:01 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 02:45:01 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] lenin on terrorism Message-ID: if Lenin condemned terrorsts, then i'm proud to consider myself one. there've been many great anarchist thinkers & revolutionaries -after looking at the history of soviet and chinese 'communisms', i think we can say that mikhail bakunin certainly won his debate with marx (the vanguard-state killed the socialist-utopia). also, goldman, thoreau, proudhon, that guy who shot mckingley, hell, even howard zinn, and so forth. al-Qaeda certainly does have reformed petty-bourgeois in it, that i'll give you - but giving up the comfortable European life to hide-out in a cave or risk one's life in a plane is hardly either selfish or cowardly. moreover, Islam is very much a communal way of life (consider that alms for the poor is one of the five pillars), and militant Islam is very popular among Arabs in the Middle East (if your slogan is 'For the masses!'). i don't believe in the politics of long-term dreams, nor do i have much faith in the so-called common man, and i think Nietzsche was most right about socialism. instead i believe in the Act, and i like the word 'spontaneity'. the single moment when a person or a group (or a group through a person) transcends the condition of their oppression, when they can't take it anymore, when they decide to live for one needful thing, and when they risk it all to let it rip. lenin wanted money and fame and power - a true terrorist desires none of these. john brown tore the conscience of this country apart with one simple act; now, one can praise him for bettering his society and one can condemn him for killing a lot of people, but his heart was in neither of these calculative places: he simply saw something that was ethically inexcusable to him and he gave his life to protest it. norman morrison did likewise. so did nat turner. and if you think that ushama bin laden hasn't borrowed a page from the play-book of geurilla warriors, you haven't read about his toppling of the soviet empire - bin laden is the ned ludd of post-industrial society: his terrorism is an operative, localized network which doesn't require a central hub. he knows that to defeat this empire he needs to take a different approach, and will good reason; the computerized age of late capitalism is a fundamentally different time and requires new tactics. here's the geo-political reality - empires are only defeated by two things: other empires or themselves. (non-state-)terrorism is the acceleration of the self-destructive processes of modern captialism. the economic impact of 9/11 isn't what's important; that, i grant you, capitalism will quickly recover from - what's important is that 9/11 caused the true colors of American imperialism to shine through (as we'll soon see in Iraq), and more terrorist acts will induce more over-strech, more snafu, more domestic neo-fascism, more foreign neo-colonialism, more backlash, and ultimately, decline and fall. "In fact, far from weakening the state, acts of terrorism provide the pretext for the strengthening of the state machinery of force and for the imposition of repressive measures against the genuine progressive movement -- measures which, without that pretext, would arouse much more vigorous opposition from the working people." but measures which would've never been done in the first place! without 9/11 there might not have been mass arrests of Muslims or an invasion of Afghanistan & Iraq, and thus there also might not of been these millions of people protesting worldwide. until Palestinians started commiting suicide was there any balanced, Western media coverage of the brutal Israeli occupation? terrorism causes a 'pretext for repression', sure, but that serves as a pretext for protest and dissent, which then serves as a pretext for further repression, which then serves as a pretext for more terrorism, and the cycle accelerates on a track of imperial self-annihilation. the more draconian the state reveals itself to be, the more it will be resisted. (i also think the Reichstag fire of 1933 works against you, since it was only because Hitler planned this act of terrorism that the cycle didn't accelerate - had Communists actually supported outright terrorism at the time, perhaps history would be different. after all, what did their rejection of terrorism gain them? they still got sent off to the camps; they even got marginalized by the victors of WWII, Trotsky in Russia and the McCarthy era here.) what i'm saying is that all empires have a fuse, and the job of terrorists is to shorten that fuse. the soviets fell because of internal collapse precipitated by the successful non-conventional military tactics of one bin laden in afghanistan - this is an empirical example from the last three decades. the quotations you cite are from a specific time, and Matt, i think you're trying to apply an out-dated political philosophy - there's no bolshevik revolution on the horizon, and there's no more 'expedient' alternative (since lenin's critique of terroism isn't grounded in principle but in practicality, which places the burden of proof on you, what's the practical alternative?). there is one dominant super-power which holds almost all the cards, but if suicidal terrorism is an effective contagion (and i believe it can be), then this empire might be said to have caught the plague, and hopefully we'll see the corpose of the American empire in our lifetime. lastly, i resent the idea that only the lives of working people are important - every being of infinite worth. and i also advocate a terrorism that refuses to kill people in mass (if al-Qaeda, for example, would've evacuated the WTC first, then the reaction of the politico-military elites in the USA would've been exactly the same, but without the benefit of as much domestic/international public-support. maybe i'm not even sure killing military officers is ethical anymore, since the line between military and civilians in has been almost completely disintegrated.) of course, this is more than tactical issue with me, because, like al-Qaeda's orginator, Abdullah Azzam, i do not think one should sink to the level of one's enemy, and i personally believe that killing innocent people, for whatever reason, is unethical. history shows that lenin had no problem with killing people, just so long as it was done in the alleged interests of the working class: he hung dissidents in the street, he used biological warfare by spreading diseases, and he opened up the first death camps in the western world. i fucking despise this romanticism of lenin that marxists get brainwashed into believing - he was an evil fuck with no redeeming value and for all his criticisms of 'short-lived revolutionaries', lenin left no long-term legacy except joseph fucking stalin. one final note: 'Svoboda' means freedom, but it means the regular civil liberties that one has within an existing framework of law. 'Volja' also means freedom, but it is a freedom that denotes the will to risk self-destruction for what one believes - so Russians like to say, 'In the West, you have Svoboda, but we have Volja'. na awos, .k _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From bgaston76 Sun Mar 9 03:02:17 2003 From: bgaston76 (Bryan Gaston) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 01:02:17 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] What Democrats running for the 2004 nomination would do in FP. Message-ID: Ran across while doing some research...found it interesting. Click the "If I were President" link.. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/ B.Gaston UCO Assistant Coach _____________________________________________________________ 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 Sun Mar 9 03:13:12 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 03:13:12 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] we meant habermas not horkheimer Message-ID: habermas would be exactly the contemporary leftist who would most share stannard's arguments against terrorism because habermas also seems to define success by a political groups' capacity to seize state-power - he's obsessed with constitutional checks & balances, he worries that student protests will go too far, he's basically looking for a vanguard minus the armed struggle. remember, phallus, habermas called foucault a conservative - habermas buys into the critique of localized resistance (as merely reifying a planetary capitalistic structure), which is why he invents things like 'communicative rationality' and 'universal pragmatics' in order to provide a new global vision. habermas writes some intelligent things sometimes, but if you're going to use him in a post juxtaposed with foucault, some explaining is necessary. in fact i think both versions of political ethos involve a sort of unwillingness to act, a wishy-washy tendency to delay excused by a series of minor provocations. perhaps they're both what they seek to negate - reformists - and their over-abundance of knowledge might've induced spiritual indigestion. maybe they never learned to let go. not that i don't like them both, but at some point one must choose between books and bullets. .k _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From jas_brar Sun Mar 9 03:49:33 2003 From: jas_brar (Jas Brar) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 09:49:33 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] UNT PP Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030309/f7e949f7/attachment.html From jas_brar Sun Mar 9 03:50:51 2003 From: jas_brar (Jas Brar) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 09:50:51 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] MSU SS Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030309/672ce82e/attachment.htm From asantora Sun Mar 9 12:03:51 2003 From: asantora (Allen Santora) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:03:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] adios dan hineyland, ultimate right wing p_____ Message-ID: <000601c2e666$3e23ee30$3616ae81@asantora33397> PJ writes [referring to Duane Hyland]: "...no wonder your teams always suck...their coach is an idiot who can't even defend himself, " For the record, a Yorktown H.S. team [that Duane coaches] that consisted of at least one lesser experienced debater managed to beat a much more experienced team of upper classmen on a T violation [and other issues] to win a VHSL tournament. I should know, I wrote the ballot in that round. This is not an indication of bad coaching. FYI, and respectfully, -A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030309/ed882715/attachment.html From suebell Sun Mar 9 12:12:13 2003 From: suebell (suebell at ksu.edu) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 12:12:13 -0600 (CST) Subject: [eDebate] GTA Positions At Kansas State Message-ID: K-State hasd graduate Teaching Assistantships for our Masters Degree program. A Debate assitantship includes a stipend for 10,000 plus a tuition waiver. The good news is K-State does not require the GRE so its not too late to apply, however, it is important to begin the application process soon. GTAs are expected to work with the debate team and teach 2 sections of the public speaking course. If you're interested, please e-mail me at suebell at ksu.edu Sue Susan Stanfield Kansas State University From serena_turley Sun Mar 9 15:21:54 2003 From: serena_turley (Serena Turley) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:21:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Need Copeland Cite Message-ID: <20030309212154.32272.qmail@web12801.mail.yahoo.com> Could someone e-mail me with the cite for the Rhonda Copeland cite everyone reads to answer 7-3? I need it for a paper I'm writing. Thanks for the help! S-Dawg ===== "Nothing that I can do will change the structure of the universe. But maybe, by raising my voice, I can help in the greatest of all causes -- goodwill among [hu]men[s] and peace on earth." ~Albert Einstein __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From mch766s Sun Mar 9 15:04:05 2003 From: mch766s (Martin Harris) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 15:04:05 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Mizzou Message-ID: <3E6BEF53@caliber> ROcckkk Challkkk JAyyyhawwkk KKKKUUUUU. 79-74 AT the Hearnes Center. From hansonjb Sun Mar 9 15:56:07 2003 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 13:56:07 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] nw ceda champs quarters results, semis pairings References: Message-ID: <002a01c2e688$cb01d1b0$e3010b0a@whitman.edu> semis pairings (round began at 1:45pm, pacific time) whitman bo vs emporia ms whitman gs vs southern ill. bg quarters results whitman bo over gonzaga hw 3-0 whitman gs over gonzaga dh 2-1 southern ill. bg over u. puget sound gc 3-0 emporia state ms over gonzaga ls 2-1 jim hanson :) whitman college hansonjb at whitman.edu From let_the_american_empire_burn Sun Mar 9 17:18:00 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 17:18:00 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] adios dan hineyland, ultimate right wing p_____ Message-ID: allen, winning a tournament on T violation is a clear indication of bad coaching. .k _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From gordonm+ Sun Mar 9 17:22:02 2003 From: gordonm+ (Gordon Mitchell) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 18:22:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Karl Rove's debate roots Message-ID: <110523.3256222922@8.21.20-22.142.136.in-addr.arpa> >From James Moore and Wayne Slater, BUSH'S BRAIN: HOW KARL ROVE MADE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENTIAL (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2003): 117-19. [I mirrored the carriage returns as presented in the book so as to preserve the prose's pacing]: * * * Very early at Olympus High [Salt Lake City, UT], Rove knew he wanted to be part of the debate team. Debate was a perfect melding of two things - words and opinions - and he had plenty of both. The star of the debate team his sophomore year was a senior named Keith Roark, who became a lawyer and ran unsuccessfully in 2002 for attorney general in Idaho, as a Democrat. Roark was president of the debate club and captain of the debate team. He seemed to be everything Rove was not - at least not yet - confident, self-possessed, and physically impressive. Rove latched onto him immediately. "I didn't think of him as a great debater at that point in time. He was a little guy, diminutive with glasses half as big as his head. A classic towhead. He had a very high, irritating voice and something of an immature manner. But it was pretty clear he was focused. What struck me then, and still strikes me now, was the fact that when I first met him, he was a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. It was somewhat peculiar, even in conservative Salt Lake City, for anyone of his age to be so deeply interested in politics." Roark noticed something else, too. Rove was obsessively well prepared. "His card file was twice the size of anybody else's." Debaters kept their arguments on 3 X 5 cards, which they carried about in shoeboxes or metal containers. Rove had the most impressive collection of debate cards at Olympus High. If his teammates had a shoebox filled with the cards, Rove carried two, which he plunked down on the table in an ominous display of force. By his senior year, the arsenal had swelled to 5 or 10 boxes. Rove figured that if two or three boxes unnerved an opposing team, why not something truly overwhelming? Why not a table full of cards? Why not buy them by the thousands and wheel them in on hand-carts? Why not throw the fear of God into the enemy before the debate even began? The thing was, the thing nobody knew was, that the cards were mostly fake. "We went out and bought thousands, if not tens of thousands, of debate cards," says debate partner Emil Langeland, now a lawyer in Salt Lake City. "Everybody was using 3 X 5 cards. And we decided we'd better have 4 X 6 - a little bigger than the next guy. And we had shoeboxes, a table full. We would come in and set up those boxes with file cards in them, color-coded, with tabs sticking up, and there were literally thousands and thousands of them. And you know what? There wasn't a thing on 99 percent of them. "If they gave us a 4 X 4 table, we'd make it a 4 X 8 table and we'd stack this information - what appeared to be information - on the table. We'd lay out all these papers. The reality was that the core of our attack or strategy was on 20 or 30 cards. We never used much more than that. But we'd just hand truck them in, then go back out into the hall and hand truck another set in and set them up on the table almost to the point where you couldn't see us. It was all psychological, to psych out your opponent." Rove didn't just want to win, he wanted his opponents destroyed. His worldview was clear even then: There was his team and the other team, and he would make the other team pay. He would defeat them, slaughter them, and humiliate them. He would win by any means, but he would win. "Debate was a big deal when we were in high school. The competitive debates were in the classroom, so the debate team would literally travel from classroom to classroom, all day long, with whoever the opposing debater was from the opposing team. Kids at school would actually watch this debate, so you got a fair amount of visibility," said Cary Jones, a Salt Lake City lawyer who was a fellow debater in high school. "What would happen is, say, East High School or another Salt Lake school's debate team would come to your high school and for four periods - social science, English, whatever - there would be a debate. Kids would stand up in class with judges in the classroom, typically parents or whatever. And you literally spoke before every student in the school, maybe five times a year." The best debaters could argue every side of every issue with both evidence and conviction. Rove's junior year [1968], the subject was the Miranda warning. "Resolved: Congress should establish uniform regulations to control criminal investigation procedures." Rove was equally adept at arguing the affirmative - the Miranda warning is a linchpin of freedom and liberty - and the negative - the law handcuffs the police and jeopardizes our safety. From schizotrope Sun Mar 9 17:28:34 2003 From: schizotrope (Giving You What You Like) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 15:28:34 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] adios dan hineyland, ultimate right wing p_____ Message-ID: errrrr, losing a tournament on a t violation is a evident sign of poor coaching _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From GatorDebate Sun Mar 9 17:48:50 2003 From: GatorDebate (GatorDebate at aol.com) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 18:48:50 EST Subject: [eDebate] Karl Rove's debate roots Message-ID: <15.c27e12b.2b9d2ce2@aol.com> Thank you for this post Gordon. This excerpt was insightful and inspiring. Even a bit humorous. I didn't know that Karl Rove was a H.S. debater but this should serve as yet another inspiration to young H.S. debaters that doing debate can open doors and create many opportunities for you. Thanks again! frank gator debate In a message dated 3/9/2003 6:24:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, gordonm+ at pitt.edu writes: > From James Moore and Wayne Slater, BUSH'S BRAIN: HOW KARL ROVE MADE GEORGE > W. BUSH PRESIDENTIAL (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2003): 117-19. [I > mirrored the carriage returns as presented in the book so as to preserve > the prose's pacing]: > > * * * > > Very early at Olympus High [Salt Lake City, UT], Rove knew he wanted to be > part of the debate team. Debate was a perfect melding of two things - words > and opinions - and he had plenty of both. The star of the debate team his > sophomore year was a senior named Keith Roark, who became a lawyer and ran > unsuccessfully in 2002 for attorney general in Idaho, as a Democrat. > > Roark was president of the debate club and captain of the debate team. He > seemed to be everything Rove was not - at least not yet - confident, > self-possessed, and physically impressive. > > Rove latched onto him immediately. > > "I didn't think of him as a great debater at that point in time. He was a > little guy, diminutive with glasses half as big as his head. A classic > towhead. He had a very high, irritating voice and something of an immature > manner. But it was pretty clear he was focused. What struck me then, and > still strikes me now, was the fact that when I first met him, he was a > dyed-in-the-wool Republican. It was somewhat peculiar, even in conservative > Salt Lake City, for anyone of his age to be so deeply interested in > politics." > > Roark noticed something else, too. Rove was obsessively well prepared. > > "His card file was twice the size of anybody else's." > > Debaters kept their arguments on 3 X 5 cards, which they carried about in > shoeboxes or metal containers. Rove had the most impressive collection of > debate cards at Olympus High. If his teammates had a shoebox filled with > the cards, Rove carried two, which he plunked down on the table in an > ominous display of force. > > By his senior year, the arsenal had swelled to 5 or 10 boxes. Rove figured > that if two or three boxes unnerved an opposing team, why not something > truly overwhelming? Why not a table full of cards? Why not buy them by the > thousands and wheel them in on hand-carts? Why not throw the fear of God > into the enemy before the debate even began? > > The thing was, the thing nobody knew was, that the cards were mostly fake. > > "We went out and bought thousands, if not tens of thousands, of debate > cards," says debate partner Emil Langeland, now a lawyer in Salt Lake City. > > "Everybody was using 3 X 5 cards. And we decided we'd better have 4 X 6 - a > little bigger than the next guy. And we had shoeboxes, a table full. We > would come in and set up those boxes with file cards in them, color-coded, > with tabs sticking up, and there were literally thousands and thousands of > them. And you know what? There wasn't a thing on 99 percent of them. > > "If they gave us a 4 X 4 table, we'd make it a 4 X 8 table and we'd stack > this information - what appeared to be information - on the table. We'd lay > out all these papers. The reality was that the core of our attack or > strategy was on 20 or 30 cards. We never used much more than that. But we'd > just hand truck them in, then go back out into the hall and hand truck > another set in and set them up on the table almost to the point where you > couldn't see us. It was all psychological, to psych out your opponent." > > Rove didn't just want to win, he wanted his opponents destroyed. His > worldview was clear even then: There was his team and the other team, and > he would make the other team pay. He would defeat them, slaughter them, and > humiliate them. He would win by any means, but he would win. > > "Debate was a big deal when we were in high school. The competitive debates > were in the classroom, so the debate team would literally travel from > classroom to classroom, all day long, with whoever the opposing debater was > from the opposing team. Kids at school would actually watch this debate, so > you got a fair amount of visibility," said Cary Jones, a Salt Lake City > lawyer who was a fellow debater in high school. > > "What would happen is, say, East High School or another Salt Lake school's > debate team would come to your high school and for four periods - social > science, English, whatever - there would be a debate. Kids would stand up > in class with judges in the classroom, typically parents or whatever. And > you literally spoke before every student in the school, maybe five times a > year." > > The best debaters could argue every side of every issue with both evidence > and conviction. Rove's junior year [1968], the subject was the Miranda > warning. > > "Resolved: Congress should establish uniform regulations to control > criminal investigation procedures." > > Rove was equally adept at arguing the affirmative - the Miranda warning is > a linchpin of freedom and liberty - and the negative - the law handcuffs > the police and jeopardizes our safety. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/20030309/e97780d5/attachment.htm From asantora Sun Mar 9 18:14:17 2003 From: asantora (Allen Santora) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:14:17 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] adios dan hineyland, ultimate right wing p_____ Message-ID: <000601c2e699$fd901c20$3616ae81@asantora33397> Kevin writes: "winning a tournament on T violation is a clear indication of bad coaching. " I guess that is a matter of perspective. Personally, I regard T as prima facia. I only vote neg. once or twice a year on T, and I made it clear to teams prior to the round that arguing theory [especially T theory] wouldn't help the respective argument [i.e. my vote depends entirely on the strength of the violation and how it is argued]. The neg. team that Duane coaches knew this, knew that T was an unlikely voter, and wisely spent their time building a strong T argument that would ultimately warrant the ballot. The point here though is that Duane Hyland is an outstanding coach. His teams consistently perform well and this is in addition to Duane's tireless dedication to the WACFL. I don't know P.J., but I know Duane and while he has his political views and I have mine I find it appalling that the discourse in this forum has fallen to the level it has. Respectfully, -A -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030309/0ed01b65/attachment.html From elliottdarren Sun Mar 9 18:16:04 2003 From: elliottdarren (DARREN ELLIOTT) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 18:16:04 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Need swinger for NJDDT Message-ID: Anyone who has an extra person for the NJDDT at JCCC, KCKCC would be interested. : ) Right now I think I have 3 people. 1 is Novice eligible. I can do whatever. I can move the novice to JV with one of my JV kids and use the other JV kid to swing or if you have a novice who can swing that would be fine too. Let me know if anyone is interested. I'll cover the entry fee and we can figure out the judging. If you email this acct and it bounces back (it fills up sometimes) email me at delliott at toto.net and I will get it at work tomorrow! Thanks, Chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate Kansas City Kansas Community College _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From hansonjb Sun Mar 9 18:50:51 2003 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 16:50:51 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] nw ceda champs final results References: <002a01c2e688$cb01d1b0$e3010b0a@whitman.edu> Message-ID: <000901c2e69f$20263a80$e3010b0a@whitman.edu> thanks to everyone who came to the tournament. the northwest is a great community and it was very cool to have siu, emporia, and sac state join us. jim hanson :) whitman college hansonjb at whitman.edu whitman bo and whitman gs closeout > semis pairings > whitman bo over emporia ms 3-0 > whitman gs over southern ill. bg 2-1 > > quarters results > whitman bo over gonzaga hw 3-0 > whitman gs over gonzaga dh 2-1 > southern ill. bg over u. puget sound gc 3-0 > emporia state ms over gonzaga ls 2-1 > > jim hanson :) > whitman college > 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 phallusjerkins Sun Mar 9 19:01:30 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 20:01:30 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] koza memo, the real smoking gun evidence Message-ID: http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,910756,00.html US press bottlekneck will burst this week following the findings of kofi annan...regardless of censorship, the world knows and the US just lost the middle six... quote "On 31 January a memo was sent from the National Security Agency in Maryland from one Frank Koza at GCHQ's American sister listening operation. The memo was blunt. It asked the recipients at GCHQ to help with an American mission: to analyse US intercepts of the homes and offices of certain UN delegations to the Security Council. It singled out key members of the UNSC (Angola, Cameroon, Guinea, Bulgaria, Chile and Pakistan) for special attention, but said the operation should stretch to all delegations (except Britain and America, of course) if that proved necessary to give the US an edge. The United States was looking for any information that could help Koza's government put pressure on these countries to vote for a US and UK-sponsored resolution that would authorise a war against Iraq. What Koza never suspected was that someone outside the NSA would be so shocked by his request to help with a dirty tricks campaign that they would leak his memo, or that it would end up in the hands of The Observer. But by last week that memo had led to the biggest spy-hunt since the David Shayler affair. In the Maryland headquarters of the NSA, incredulity at the leak - and the knowledge that someone in one of its partner intelligence organisations had deliberately disclosed evidence of the operation at a time designed to cause severe damage to America's attempts to secure a second Security Council resolution authorising war against Iraq - turned to fury. The leak, however, raises as many questions as the number of secrets it reveals. The most pressing of these remains: why would a career intelligence officer risk discovery, ignominy and imprisonment to leak it in the first place? The answer to that question is to be found not simply in the conscience of the individual intelligence officer, but in a wider conflict between the intelligence community on both sides of the Atlantic and their political masters. " _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From cisneros_jd Sun Mar 9 19:03:54 2003 From: cisneros_jd (Josue Cisneros) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 17:03:54 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] DSR-TKA? Message-ID: <20030310010354.44459.qmail@web41202.mail.yahoo.com> does anybody have results from the dsr? thanks david cisneros mercer ===== __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From GatorDebate Sun Mar 9 19:44:09 2003 From: GatorDebate (GatorDebate at aol.com) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:44:09 EST Subject: [eDebate] 2nd round bid announcements? Message-ID: <112.1fd43763.2b9d47e9@aol.com> Does anyone know what time the 2nd round bids will be posted. Thank you for your help and sorry for the clutter. frank gator debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030309/ac9a2eeb/attachment.htm From scottelliott Sun Mar 9 20:08:28 2003 From: scottelliott (Scott M. Elliott) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 20:08:28 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Karl Rove's debate roots Message-ID: <000601c2e6a9$f19c2980$e6995a42@grandecom.net> It is scary to know that a former debater--one who could convincingly argue things like nuke war good, malthus, 1st strike justified, No global warming, or warming is good, etc.--actually wields power in America. Scott Elliott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030309/34864e17/attachment.html From kenedebate Sun Mar 9 20:10:09 2003 From: kenedebate (Ken DeLaughder) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 20:10:09 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] thanks to whitman... Message-ID: even though it just ended... I would just like to thank the folks at Whitman for making my folks feel welcome at CEDA champs. The reports back have been "this is how tournament hospitality should be run" (James Taylor) I know my people enjoyed themselves, and Im sorry I wasnt there in person to celebrate the final CEDA champs of some great debaters in the northwest. hopefully we can make this a tradition. lastly, IM proud of the emporia folks... good way to wrap up the normal tournament season folks. congrats to whitman for an outstanding showing on the homefield! Ken D. DOD. emporia state _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From Alysia07 Sun Mar 9 20:33:55 2003 From: Alysia07 (Alysia07 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 21:33:55 EST Subject: [eDebate] Four Rounds of NDT Judging Available Message-ID: <17.36f93433.2b9d5393@aol.com> Hello all - I am available to judge four rounds at the NDT. Please backchannel me if you're interested. Thanks, Alysia Cockrell Davis -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030309/381b3a79/attachment.htm From Catherine.Palczewski Sun Mar 9 20:49:14 2003 From: Catherine.Palczewski (Catherine.Palczewski at uni.edu) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 20:49:14 -0600 (CDT) Subject: [eDebate] Announcement of 2nd Round Bids to the NDT Message-ID: <01KTC1FKDT408X27U9@uni.edu> 2003 NATIONAL DEBATE TOURNAMENT: SECOND ROUND AT LARGE BIDS Greetings, The following teams have been awarded a second round bid to the National Debate Tournament. Congrats to all. Berkeley SW Boston College SS Dartmouth BS Emory GR Emporia MS Florida BW Ft. Hays MR George Mason BH Georgia CK Mercer BC Michigan St HV UMKC DG Northwestern BC Rochester VW SW Missouri CS Wake Forest CG From jpmika Sun Mar 9 20:54:41 2003 From: jpmika (Jason Mika) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 21:54:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NDT Judge Available Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030309/89bc9d8b/attachment.html From olneyce Sun Mar 9 21:16:02 2003 From: olneyce (Charles Olney) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:16:02 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Whitman Debate Presents: The Return of the King (a film) Message-ID: Don't want to wait 9 more months for the third installment of the Lord of the Rings? Want to laugh at Whitman Debate? Want your very own copy of Thad's kissing scene? Want to see Charles dressed like an escaped patient from a mental institution? It's all here in: The 30 Minute Return of the King* A Film by Scott Daniel and Charles Olney It has already received rave reviews, including: "The Academy would be wise to consider the supporting role of James Hanson...His portrayal led me to believe that miracles can happen." --Will Repko "It was funny...I'm glad I'm not in it." --Brian Simmonds After its successful big-screen debut, it's now ready for release on video so that you, too, can watch in the comfort of your own homes. Be the first one on your block to own it. It costs $15. We'll take two dollars to cover the cost of the tape and copying, and send the other $13 to the Seattle Urban Debate League. If you desperately want a copy but are short on cash, we can probably work something out. I will deliver them to you personally at the NDT for the first 15 (or as many as I can fit into my bag) ordered. After that, you'll have to pay for posting, come to Walla Walla, or wait until next fall. If you won't be at the NDT, but will be at the Ceda Nats, we will have a couple ready by then. Just reply to me at this address to order one. It's a good cause, you get to laugh at us embarrassing ourselves in public, everyone else is getting one so you should, too. Plus, a guy with a shaved head wearing only gym shorts wrestles with himself on the sketchiest corner in Walla Walla. Who doesn't want to see that? The film stars: Dave Guidry as Frodo Scott Daniel as Sam and Gollum Jim Hanson as Denethor Thad Blank as Aragorn Charles Olney as Gandalf Beth Schueler as Gimli Emily Marr as Legolas Eric Suni as Eomer Kathryn Bergh as Eowyn Gareth Campbell as the Mouth of Sauron Rob Olsen as Pippin * actual film length: 35 minutes Charles Olney Whitman College In this life that we call home The years go fast and the days go so slow --Modest Mouse From Steph293 Sun Mar 9 21:48:19 2003 From: Steph293 (Steph293 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2003 22:48:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 4 rounds of juding available at the NDT Message-ID: <49326291.67EC1ADE.0084B4FE@aol.com> If anyone needs to hire out for 4 rounds at the NDT - shoot me an e-mail. Stephanie Gerali The University of Denver From SSbauschard2 Mon Mar 10 00:31:45 2003 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:31:45 EST Subject: [eDebate] ADA Results Message-ID: More info later Novice: Liberty closes out Varsity : Catholic DP and SW closed Out JV: Mary Washington Nagy and Woods (N) defeated Liberty E. Krause and can't rememer 2-1. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030310/22b487b0/attachment.htm From blackdebateguy Mon Mar 10 01:16:47 2003 From: blackdebateguy (doug dennis) Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 23:16:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Mizzou In-Reply-To: <3E6BEF53@caliber> Message-ID: <20030310071647.4936.qmail@web40401.mail.yahoo.com> stop hating dd Martin Harris wrote:ROcckkk Challkkk JAyyyhawwkk KKKKUUUUU. 79-74 AT the Hearnes Center. _______________________________________________ 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, and more -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030309/8b83d842/attachment.html From let_the_american_empire_burn Mon Mar 10 02:37:56 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:37:56 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Karl Rove's debate roots Message-ID: Frank: "Thank you for this post Gordon. This excerpt was insightful and inspiring. Even a bit humorous. I didn't know that Karl Rove was a H.S. debater but this should serve as yet another inspiration to young H.S. debaters that doing debate can open doors and create many opportunities for you. Thanks again!" Or it could also prove how (mono-)competitive debate turns people into evil fucks. The book Gordon quoted goes on to connect-the-dots of Rove's sinister career, suggesting that he was behind the phone calls in South Carolina claiming John McCain fathered an illegitimate black child, as well as spreading rumors in the Texas governors' race that Ann Richards was a closet lesbian. But i guess whatever gets you the most ballots, right? (Reminds of a long-running lecture at Darmouth Debate Institution: 'How to lie, cheat, and steal'. Hey, maybe Rove went to DDI?) So i fail to see what you find so 'inspirational' here, Frank. Is noteriety its own reward, no matter how notoriously achieved? If David Duke partipated in forensics too, would that make him a wit more 'insightful'? To me, the Dick Morrises and Karl Roves are emblematic of a political culture which is entirely devoid of ethics - folks whose brilliant brains are so filled with rhetorical sound-bites that they can't hear the sound of their own conscience. And i fail to see what's so 'humorous' about academic debate's paradigmatic complicity in this shameful legacy: 'Oh goodie, high school debaters go on to be the key amoral side-kicks of those in charge, so keep up the work-work-work, kids! For you too can grow up and spew your victory-at-any-cost Machiavellianism into the ear of the President of the United States! And who cares who you step on on your way to the top? Those people are just losers. Be a winner!' .k ___ From: Gordon Mitchell (gordonm+ at pitt.edu) Date: Sun Mar 09 2003 - 18:22:02 EST _ [eDebate] Karl Rove's debate roots _ >From James Moore and Wayne Slater, BUSH'S BRAIN: HOW KARL ROVE MADE GEORGE W. BUSH PRESIDENTIAL (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2003): 117-19. [I mirrored the carriage returns as presented in the book so as to preserve the prose's pacing]: * * * Very early at Olympus High [Salt Lake City, UT], Rove knew he wanted to be part of the debate team. Debate was a perfect melding of two things - words and opinions - and he had plenty of both. The star of the debate team his sophomore year was a senior named Keith Roark, who became a lawyer and ran unsuccessfully in 2002 for attorney general in Idaho, as a Democrat. Roark was president of the debate club and captain of the debate team. He seemed to be everything Rove was not - at least not yet - confident, self-possessed, and physically impressive. Rove latched onto him immediately. "I didn't think of him as a great debater at that point in time. He was a little guy, diminutive with glasses half as big as his head. A classic towhead. He had a very high, irritating voice and something of an immature manner. But it was pretty clear he was focused. What struck me then, and still strikes me now, was the fact that when I first met him, he was a dyed-in-the-wool Republican. It was somewhat peculiar, even in conservative Salt Lake City, for anyone of his age to be so deeply interested in politics." Roark noticed something else, too. Rove was obsessively well prepared. "His card file was twice the size of anybody else's." Debaters kept their arguments on 3 X 5 cards, which they carried about in shoeboxes or metal containers. Rove had the most impressive collection of debate cards at Olympus High. If his teammates had a shoebox filled with the cards, Rove carried two, which he plunked down on the table in an ominous display of force. By his senior year, the arsenal had swelled to 5 or 10 boxes. Rove figured that if two or three boxes unnerved an opposing team, why not something truly overwhelming? Why not a table full of cards? Why not buy them by the thousands and wheel them in on hand-carts? Why not throw the fear of God into the enemy before the debate even began? The thing was, the thing nobody knew was, that the cards were mostly fake. "We went out and bought thousands, if not tens of thousands, of debate cards," says debate partner Emil Langeland, now a lawyer in Salt Lake City. "Everybody was using 3 X 5 cards. And we decided we'd better have 4 X 6 - a little bigger than the next guy. And we had shoeboxes, a table full. We would come in and set up those boxes with file cards in them, color-coded, with tabs sticking up, and there were literally thousands and thousands of them. And you know what? There wasn't a thing on 99 percent of them. "If they gave us a 4 X 4 table, we'd make it a 4 X 8 table and we'd stack this information - what appeared to be information - on the table. We'd lay out all these papers. The reality was that the core of our attack or strategy was on 20 or 30 cards. We never used much more than that. But we'd just hand truck them in, then go back out into the hall and hand truck another set in and set them up on the table almost to the point where you couldn't see us. It was all psychological, to psych out your opponent." Rove didn't just want to win, he wanted his opponents destroyed. His worldview was clear even then: There was his team and the other team, and he would make the other team pay. He would defeat them, slaughter them, and humiliate them. He would win by any means, but he would win. "Debate was a big deal when we were in high school. The competitive debates were in the classroom, so the debate team would literally travel from classroom to classroom, all day long, with whoever the opposing debater was from the opposing team. Kids at school would actually watch this debate, so you got a fair amount of visibility," said Cary Jones, a Salt Lake City lawyer who was a fellow debater in high school. "What would happen is, say, East High School or another Salt Lake school's debate team would come to your high school and for four periods - social science, English, whatever - there would be a debate. Kids would stand up in class with judges in the classroom, typically parents or whatever. And you literally spoke before every student in the school, maybe five times a year." The best debaters could argue every side of every issue with both evidence and conviction. Rove's junior year [1968], the subject was the Miranda warning. "Resolved: Congress should establish uniform regulations to control criminal investigation procedures." Rove was equally adept at arguing the affirmative - the Miranda warning is a linchpin of freedom and liberty - and the negative - the law handcuffs the police and jeopardizes our safety. _____ _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From hansonjb Mon Mar 10 03:50:01 2003 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 01:50:01 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] nw ceda champs pictures Message-ID: <000401c2e6ea$6c78d870$1304070a@whitman.edu> okay, this is my last post. but you should at least check out todd graham yelling at judges; brian simmonds moment of profound thought; and a flowsheet from a wipe out debate. jim hanson :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From let_the_american_empire_burn Mon Mar 10 04:11:56 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 04:11:56 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] lenin on terrorism Message-ID: someone suggested that my post implied that the massive superiority of the USA military makes it invincible - this was not my intent. though the tactics bin Laden used against the conventional Soviet military would probably not work against the imperial armed forces of today, there are still holes that can be exploited. in fact, i'd recommend three womyn journalist in examining those potential gaps. first, Pamela Hess at United Press International is a truly marvellous reporter, who always asks the really tough questions of those in charge at the Pentagon. for instance, she's done several stories about the success of computer programs to disrupt Pentagon info-networks, reporting that low-level newly-installed computers aren't likely to update their patches often enough, meaning that incredibly destructive viruses can sneak in through the backdoor and crash the entire system. she quoted one general as saying, 'we can't fight a war without these computers'. (and hackers reading this should use a double-edged-sword virus approach, anticipating the likely patch which be used to stop the virus in question and then using that virus as a diversion to transmute *the patch itself* into a contagion which steals, corrupts, or disrupts relevant information. second, no one writes more accurately about the military than Dana Priest whose recent book should be read by all concerned(http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/fall02/001024.htm) - she discusses how specific decisions are made on-the-ground, what situations the military is still not able to handle effectively, how the overall military infastructure operates, what soldiers simply will not do, etc. all helpful in gauging one's enemy. third, Samantha Power has written a great book on American by-standing in relation to genocide, but she discusses many ways that dissidents can attack the ideological contradictions in USA foreign policy. and this link here is for Duane (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/09/power.htm). i'd also add James Bamford's definitive books on the NSA (he being former army intelligence) - though the NSA is the hardest nut to crack, he does discuss things that people can do to expose intelligence fuckups, which most government secrets, defended on national security grounds, are merely used to cover-up. anyway, the basic gist of my last post in this thread wasn't that things are hopeless so you might as well strap a bomb to your chest and jump off the empire state building (though if you do, i respect your moment of choice) - it was that the way one short-circuits an empire of this inordinant power-magnitude is to turn itself against itself: its a very complex, oft-confused system which is given to miscalculation and quite capable of being misdirected. i wasn't suggesting that people run out and join al-Qaeda either - that organization is already doing their job and one can only hope they will begin to focus on assasinations, property-destruction, hostage-taking, etc. (as opposed to mass murdering civilians). but al-Qaeda has inaugrated a new era of terrorism and every person must ask themselves whose side they are on. if you're on the empire's side, you really don't get a lot of choice in how to design your own political activity - you pay your taxes, you vote, maaaybe you hold up a nasty sign or two, and then you go home and watch tv. but if you're on the terrorist side, there's no over-arching oath with which you must comply - you don't even need money, just some clever ideas and an adventuresome spirit. of course, i'd encourage you to listen to the conscience of Islam, but even that is optional - there's terrorists who are as anti-theocratic as the next person (like that guy who sent the letter-bombs so as to draw a smilie face across the USA - he didn't seem Islamic to me). to say that leftism is dead, that we shouldn't wait around for a socialist revolution that isn't coming anyway, and that Lenin's books should be left alone to cross the eyes of political science majors is NOT nihilistic: it is instead a positive statement that in the present, right here and now, the terror-ific possibilites are endless - we live on a well-lit stage, where each can play their part, and yours needn't be a sad one. enjoy, .k _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From hansonjb Mon Mar 10 04:17:01 2003 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 02:17:01 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] nw ceda champs pictures In-Reply-To: <000401c2e6ea$6c78d870$1304070a@whitman.edu> Message-ID: <000701c2e6ee$31d283c0$1304070a@whitman.edu> okay, this is my last post on ceda champs: the url for these pictures: http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/54college.htm jim hanson :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -----Original Message----- From: edebate-admin at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-admin at ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Jim Hanson Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 1:50 AM To: EDebate Listserv Subject: [eDebate] nw ceda champs pictures okay, this is my last post. but you should at least check out todd graham yelling at judges; brian simmonds moment of profound thought; and a flowsheet from a wipe out debate. 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 let_the_american_empire_burn Mon Mar 10 04:17:07 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 04:17:07 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] lenin on terrorism Message-ID: (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/bamfordreport.html) inarresting Bamford q&a: ___ Q: What about the Internet? A: That's another technology they missed. OBL used email. OBL did not use encryption of any sort on any communication. The best breakthrough in the whole intelligence gathering surrounding Sept 11 was by the New York Times, who spent $1100 for a computer owned by one of the El Qaeda guys. The disk was encrypted, but by a cheap encryption that the NYT broke easily, to find lots of info about Al Qaeda plans. Another major failure of the CIA and NSA. Q: Will NSA try to limit encryption? A: Yes, they'll try to place new limits on encryption. And Clipper and key escrow will make a comeback. And lots of other nonsense. Q: Can we stop surprise attacks? A: No. We cannot avoid these kind of attacks. We have to somehow explain to people that this is just one of the hazards of life, like 50,000 Americans dying of colon cancer, or 50,000 Americans dying in car accidents every year. The government cannot bring itself to say the truth, that terrorism is just one of the risks of life. Q: What's your relationship with NSA? A: On the day the second book was published, NSA held a book signing at NSA HQ. I teach a class at NSA. The Defense Intelligence Agency used my first book as a textbook. Q: What about the NSC. A: The National Security Council mostly has nothing to do with NSA. Technically the NSA reports to the head of the NSC, but besides some basic rules of engagement, there's no link. The difference between them is remarkable: we've all heard of Condaleeza Rice, but who's heard of the head of NSA, Gen. Mike Hayden? Q: What about misinformation? A: It's a big problem. The FBI spy Robert Hanssen worked closely with the NSA. Everything he knew about NSA's progress or lack thereof was probably provided to the Russians. Also, the Russians were provided with the names of all the CIA sources in Russia. NET: the Russians knew everything we knew. Thus, we have to assume that everything we got from the Russians or our spies was actually misinformation. Or not. A "wilderness of mirrors." Q: How does NSA work? A: Heavy use of polygraphs. Mandatory exams every five years, plus random use of polygraphs, for every employee. NSA has more PhDs in mathematics than any other organization in the western world. NSA has a mental health unit for those who can't deal with the secrecy and complexities of codes. Q: Aren't most rules on government secrecy just ways to protect those in power from looking like fools? A: Yes, pretty much. Best solution to this is a diligent journalistic force (a free press) but today's press is actually getting worse. Before Sept. 11 all the coverage was on Gary Condit and on shark attacks, in spite of the fact that there are fewer shark attacks every year. Sells papers. Q: What should we do? A: Put national privacy at the same level as national security. Support privacy groups. ___ _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From jeffrey.jarman Mon Mar 10 04:57:57 2003 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 04:57:57 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Exec Sect Report, March 2003 Message-ID: <004d01c2e6f3$ec2081f0$6601a8c0@gatewaycompute> 2002-2003 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION Executive Secretary Report March, 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. *** WEB SITE HAS MOVED. Due to security problems, my department has changed the web site for the executive secretary information. The new web site is http://escweb.wichita.edu/ceda/exec-sect.htm. I hope to have this report uploaded later in the day. I have fixed many of the links, but a few problems may remain. Please let me know if you have any problems. * National Sweepstakes Awards. The totals are constantly updated as I receive new information. You may want to check your totals to ensure that your points have been accurately recorded. You can check your points by following the "information about the rankings" link on the main page and then selecting the "comprehensive list." This will produce an alphabetical list of all schools and the number of points they earned at each tournament. * Other National Awards. PLEASE, let me know if you believe your school is eligible for the Select Sweepstakes, Junior College Award, or Newcomer Award. I have a list of eligible schools for these awards posted online , but I am not sure that it is accurate. PLEASE, if you or your school should be considered for one of these awards, make sure you are on the list. * Membership. MANY schools who likely will earn a sweepstakes award have not paid their dues. You cannot receive an award without paying dues. PLEASE, check the list of current members to ensure that your school has paid dues. We will give out sweepstakes trophies at CEDA Nationals only to schools that have paid. Some of you paid with your entry, and I will be able to update that information soon. * CEDA Nationals. The entry deadline was February 24, 2003. Shawn Whalen will be sending out information about the tournament over the next few weeks. Please contact him directly if you have any questions. As I receive tournament information I will post it online. * Amendments . There are several new proposals to amend the constitution. These will be discussed at the business meeting at CEDA Nationals. Please use the proxy form if you will not able to attend the meeting. You may send your proxy directly to me or have anyone bring them to the beginning of the business meeting. * Business meeting. An agenda is included with this report. The meeting is scheduled for 9:00am on Friday at the Sheraton. Pairings will be released immediately following the meeting. * 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 website regularly to see how your school is ranked. If a tournament is not counted and you have results, please send them to me. 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/20030310/fa0dafca/attachment.htm From jeffrey.jarman Mon Mar 10 04:59:17 2003 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 04:59:17 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Exec Sect Report, agenda Message-ID: <005f01c2e6f4$1c9e99c0$6601a8c0@gatewaycompute> 2002-2003 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION Executive Secretary Report March, 2003 CEDA Business Meeting The meeting is scheduled on Sunday, March 23, 8:30am, at the Sheraton. Agenda I. Officer Reports A. President B. First Vice President C. Second Vice President D. Treasurer E. Executive Secretary F. National Student Rep. G. CAD Editor H. Committees/Project Teams II. Old Business III. New Business (see proposed amendments) IV. As may arise -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030310/f7e39e05/attachment.html From jeffrey.jarman Mon Mar 10 05:00:24 2003 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 05:00:24 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Exec Sect, amendments Message-ID: <006901c2e6f4$4341ce30$6601a8c0@gatewaycompute> 2002 - 2003 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION Executive Secretary Report March, 2003 Amendments to the constitution and by-laws AMENDMENT #1: An amendment to clarify points procedures when teams drop out of the tournament. Submitted by Jon Bruschke, CSU Fullerton. In Bylaw VI, Section 3-B: Sweepstakes Procedures. Change: Strike the period, add a comma, and add the phrase "providing they participated in more than half of the number of scheduled preliminary rounds." Rationale: There is currently no provision for what to do when a team enters but drops out early; the new language brings Section VI-3-B into compliance with Section VI-4-B. AMENDMENT #2: An amendment to clarify points procedures for hybrids and transfer student teams. Submited by Jon Bruschke, CSU Fullerton. In Bylaw VI, Section 3: Sweepstakes Procedures. Add new section H: Should a team be composed of debaters from different schools, each school receives half the points earned by the team. Should only one debater on a team be eligible for CEDA points, the school for the other debater will receive half the points earned by the team. This rule applies equally to tie-breaker points. Rationale: This is currently how points are calculated for hybrids and transfer students, but there is no language codifying it in the constitution. AMENDMENT #3: An amendment to allow CEDA point collection collaboration. In Article IV, Section 5-C: Duties of the Executive Secretary. Strike and replace with: "Insure official records of the current standings of schools in CEDA sweepstakes competition are maintained and periodically to communicate this information to the membership of the Association. The Executive Secretary need not personally calculate the points and may delegate this duty and provide resources to insure the points are maintained. Even if delegated, ultimate responsibility for the completion and accuracy of the points resides with the Executive Secretary." Rationale: This new language clarifies that the Executive Secretary can work with others when compiling the CEDA points. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030310/c7337640/attachment.htm From jeffrey.jarman Mon Mar 10 05:01:11 2003 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 05:01:11 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Exec Sect, proxy Message-ID: <007301c2e6f4$60507710$6601a8c0@gatewaycompute> 2001-2002 CROSS EXAMINATION DEBATE ASSOCIATION Executive Secretary Report March, 2003 Proxy form Article VII, Section 5. "Proxy voting at business meetings will be allowed under the following conditions: A. The Executive Secretary will distribute with the agenda for the national business meetings a proxy form for each business item that requires a vote of the membership; B. Members who do not attend the business meetings may complete, sign and send these forms to the national meetings with another voting member; C. No member institution may vote more than five proxies in addition to its own vote; D. Proxy votes are to be submitted to the Executive-Secretary at the start of each business meeting. The Executive-Secretary will count only those proxy ballots that are complete and signed. E. Proxy votes apply to main motions but not secondary motions; F. In the event that successful amendments to a main motion substantially alter its intent, the President may rule that proxies are void." Indicate your vote for or against. _____ A proposal to clarify procedures for teams that drop out of the tournament _____ A proposal to clarify procedures for counting points with hybrid/transfer students _____ A proposal to allow collaboration with collection of CEDA points NAME: _______________________________________ SCHOOL: _______________________________________ SIGNATURE: _______________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030310/a5c36336/attachment.html From hansonjb Mon Mar 10 05:19:20 2003 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 03:19:20 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] using mutual preference at a small tournament Message-ID: <001901c2e6f6$e7fb3ae0$1304070a@whitman.edu> we used a 1-8 preference system at nw ceda champs this weekend and I thought I would share some initial thoughts on our experience since preferencing has not typically been used at small tournaments. we used gary larson's program, build 9-25-2. there were 19 teams at the tournament. 6 teams were from whitman; 5 were from gonzaga. (that can make matching difficult; in order to maximize the quality of power-matching, we put all of the whitman teams on the same side of the resolution during each round--all of them switching to the other side in the next round). in addition to making good power-matching difficult, it also makes putting in gonzaga and whitman judges difficult--whitman rounds were 6 of the 9 debates; gonzaga rounds were 5 of the 9 debates happening each round. there were 17 judges at the tournament. teams ranked the judges 1-8 giving two judges a 1, two judges a 2, etc. teams ranked one additional judge between a 1 and a 7. 8's were considered a strike. here are the preference averages for each round (by average I mean the total of the rankings divided by the number of rankings): rd 1: 3.7 rd. 2: 3.27 rd. 3: 2.16 rd. 4: 2.6 rd. 5: 2.1 rd. 6 2.72 (break rounds were 1.66) quarters: 2.416 semis: 2.33 finals did not occur some notes on these averages: 1. we found after round 2, that manually adjusting some of the judges for higher preference improved what the computer offered. that accounts for the improvement in rankings for rounds 3-6 (plus round 1 we did not have one of the team's preference sheets; further, oddly, two judges given round one were a 6-1 and a 1-7--not a real good balance). 2. three of our judges wound up being used very little--part of that was a judge that was constrained against whitman teams. alternatively, one judge got used four times when he had requested to judge only one round; doing so substantially improved our ability to increase preferencing. 3. we asked people if they wanted higher prefered judges in round 6 that had already judged them or a less prefered judge that had not judged them before at the tournament. with no dissents, everyone wanted a higher prefered judge. as a result, in round six, three judges judged a team that they had judged earlier in the tournament. without this, round 6 preferencing would have been substantially lower. jim hanson :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From beth Mon Mar 10 10:18:46 2003 From: beth (Beth Skinner) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:18:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Important Towson Announcements In-Reply-To: <3E696BC6.6010703@sfsu.edu> References: <3E696BC6.6010703@sfsu.edu> Message-ID: <1047313126.3e6cbae694f7c@dalchemy.com> 1. Entries - below are entries received to date. Please check yours for accuracy. The deadline for entries is 5:00 PM eastern time tomorrow, Tuesday March 11. 2. Varsity and rookie divisions - we currently have only one varsity and two rookie teams entered. If there are not enough rookies to hold a separate division, they will debate in novice but we will hold a breakout finals round and have special awards. If there are not enough varsity teams, we will cancel the division. This decision will be made Tuesday night after the entry deadline and posted to edebate. 3. Judging - anyone available to hire out for extra judging would be appreciated. We have several new and student-run programs who lack judges but want to attend. Please let me know if you have judging available so that we can accomodate these programs. 4. Preferences - we will be doing online preferences for this tournament. Be on the look out early this week for an email from Gary Larson to edebate explaining the system. 5. Registration - early registration is at the Marriott on Thursday from 8:00- 11:00 pm. Those arriving after that time may late register at the tournament from 1:45-2:15 pm on Friday. If you will be arriving late, you MUST confirm your registration by calling me at 443.562.2269 by 2:15. If you are not confirmed your teams will not be paired for the first round. 6. Weather - looks dry with highs in the 50s. Look forward to seeing you all, Beth Skinner Towson Debate Binghamton N Jeff Klein and Ravi Gupta CSU-Longbeach N Walid Kandeel and Alexza Barajas. Judge Eric Maag Case Western N Wilson Freeman and Shu-han Zhu Judge Ian Kimbrell Catholic Cornell JV Jeff Granillo and Craig Murray JV Lisa Wang and Jeevun Sidhu N Timothy D'Auria and Justin Schoenberg Judges Beth Gardner (5 rds - not rd 1), Trond Jacobsen (4), Jethro Hayman (3 rds - not rd 2 or 3) Fordham JV Asha Cherian and Reggie Martin N Sean Jacques and Megan Tweed N Craig Konnoth and Marianne Pichuzhkina R Zebe Richards and Taneka Johnson Judge David Jacobus George Mason James Madison University JV Piero Mannino and Adam Peden R Suyoung Kim and Megan Joyce Judge Pete Bsumek John Carroll University JV Tasha Forchione and Matt Gayetsky JV Megan DeLeon and Amber Thomas N Pete Arconti and Nelson Wainwright N Kate Crimmins and Mary Kate Lundeen V Michael Grossman and Chris Zurn Judges Neil Butt, Brent Brossman Los Angeles City College N Divina Clifford and Sara Wagstaff N Brett Baker and Augustin Salinas N Alex Becheru and Suzi Robinson N Michael Survert and Khiada Autrey Judges Ken Sherwood, John Matteson Mary Washington College JV Jennifer Golladay and Joe Packer JV John Nagy and Leslie Wyatt JV Ali Samantar and Adrianne Barnett N Rebecca Sklepovich and Jennifer Rollman Judges Anand Rao, Tim O'Donnell Louisville JV Lauren Bernert and Courtney King N Ebony Floyd and Jennifer Harris Judge Ede Warner Middle Tennessee State University JV Courtney Carver and Allan Lutes N Heather Cannon and Erika Chambers Judge John Schweri New York Coalition JV NYU Jen Schramm and Kristin Feeley JV NYU/Columbia Danyaal Moin and Andy Liu JV NYU/CUNY Joseph Philip and Richard Haggwood JV CUNY Robert Matthews and Claudio Simpkins Judges Richard Garner-full-(nov, jv only), Vik Keenan (4), Will Baker 3-Friday and Sunday only Northern Illinois University N Kat Oefelein and Amy Lehuta N Elizabeth Fang and Zarine Hussain Judges Jamie Zite, Jeff Drury Pepperdine JV Andrew Hoag and Catherine Quizon N Kim Hyson and Cara Lynn Judges Greg Achten (3), Kristen Reid (4) Richmond JV Casey Seidel and Andrew Ryan N Corinne Huntington and Francis Grice N Kristen Chovanec and ____________ Judges Kevin Kuswa, Barry Hausrath Rochester Santa Clara JV Arah Rasp and Wes _______ Judge Steve Clemmons Southwest Texas JV Matt Tiffee and Kimberly Keen Judge Jason Myres USMA JV Elliot Press and Adam Scher JV Ricky Waters and Adam Karr N Allison Pan and Boon Park Judges Mike Meese, Reid Sawyer University of Massachusetts at Amherst Vanderbilt University N Kate Ryzoc and Nikhil Perumbeti N Mark Kendall and Susan Mader N Christine Parker and Leah Stephan N Sharon Yecies and Samar Shah Judges Carolyn Cusick (novice only), Nick Ellinger (any division), Meg Miedel (novice only, restricted for Middle Tennessee State University) Vermont JV Jillian Marty and Edwin Owusu JV Brian Cole and Jennifer Knops JV Lana Langsweirdt and Teresa Hill JV Nikki Muradian and Julianne Hellmuth N Carlos Varela and Colin Kern N Lindsey Melander and Eric Mates N Tim Reimer and Kayce Massey N Leonel Velez and Oliver Matthews or Michael Malone or Ryan O'Connor Judges Helen Morgan (6), Justin Parmett (6), Gordie Miller (7), Aaron Fishbone (4), Claudia Greenman (5) West Virginia JV Rebecca Evans and Douglas Squire JV Cassandra Angus and Nicolette Wilhide N Kelley Burd and Joseph Hayes N Sara Lechner and Daniel Waite Judges Joshua K. Boggs--6 rounds+outrounds, Kimberly Bandy--6 rounds+outrounds, Neil Berch--2 rounds (rounds 6 and 7), plus the first two outrounds. From aogletree Mon Mar 10 11:39:28 2003 From: aogletree (Aaron Ogletree) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:39:28 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] BUSH TO WORLD: "DROP DEAD!' Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030310/0499bf2e/attachment.htm From aogletree Mon Mar 10 11:40:41 2003 From: aogletree (Aaron Ogletree) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:40:41 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] MAKING 'REASONS' FOR WAR Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030310/c348e819/attachment.html From vrenegar Mon Mar 10 12:13:02 2003 From: vrenegar (Val Renegar) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 10:13:02 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA judging Message-ID: <001b01c2e730$b14300c0$b11abf82@gltkv> If anyone wants to pick up some extra rounds at CEDA nationals, we would love to hire you. Just let me know- Val SDSU -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030310/7b1fc74c/attachment.htm From str8turn Mon Mar 10 13:23:49 2003 From: str8turn (str8turn at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:23:49 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] re:MAKING 'REASONS' FOR WAR Message-ID: <5A4BB61E.3CC15BE7.00AAFE56@aol.com> isn't mumia that cop-killer from philly? From mmk_savant Mon Mar 10 13:54:05 2003 From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:54:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Baghdad snapshot Message-ID: http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArticle.aspx?refid=761567303&pn=2 "Iraqi architecture is best exemplified in the sprawling metropolis of Baghd?d. The city?s architecture is almost entirely new, with some islands of exquisite old buildings and compounds. There are many colonial buildings dating back to the period of British occupation and mandate (1917-1932). A few buildings date back to the 18th and 19th centuries, when the Ottomans controlled the area. Some traditional private homes built in the 18th and 19th centuries have been preserved. These buildings include the shanashil, a porch with netlike woodwork screens overlooking the street. Most of the public buildings in contemporary Baghd?d are modern. Government offices are usually far from aesthetic, but there are a few beautiful modern hotels, some of which draw their inspiration from Babylonian and classical Islamic architecture. There are modern art galleries, museums, and public libraries, their designs mostly inspired by Islamic architecture. Some old mosques in the Baghd?d area are impressive, in particular the gold-domed mosque in the suburb of Kazimayn, the burial place of two Shia imams (spiritual leaders)." Michael Korcok _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From schizotrope Mon Mar 10 13:55:59 2003 From: schizotrope (Giving You What You Like) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:55:59 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] adios dan hineyland, ultimate right wing p_____ Message-ID: Or maybe Snatchez is a jack ass _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From velcrowe66 Mon Mar 10 14:17:18 2003 From: velcrowe66 (Chris Crowe) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:17:18 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] John Rief or bust! Message-ID: Hit me back homez...gotta question. -Crowe UW _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From matt_bostick Mon Mar 10 14:19:37 2003 From: matt_bostick (Matt Bostick) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 04:19:37 +0800 Subject: [eDebate] Katsulas and Boston College Message-ID: <20030310201937.22232.qmail@graffiti.net> Two things: 1. Thanks for great hospitality last weekend. 2. I have a cite request, backchannel would be appreciated. Thanks, matt --- 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 ndhsdb8 Mon Mar 10 15:28:33 2003 From: ndhsdb8 (NDHS Debate) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 13:28:33 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Need a judge at the NDT? Message-ID: I have four rounds available if the price is right...email me back at either this address (ndhsdb8 at hotmail.com) or at jbskarb at hotmail.com Justin Skarb CSU Fullerton _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From TekUtopia Mon Mar 10 17:11:00 2003 From: TekUtopia (TekUtopia at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:11:00 EST Subject: [eDebate] Karl Rove's debate roots Message-ID: <1f0.3f7cbfa.2b9e7584@aol.com> with all due respect, they can grow up to be gordon mitchell too. just depends. one beat, aaron <<'Oh goodie, high school debaters go on to be the key amoral side-kicks of those in charge, so keep up the work-work-work, kids! For you too can grow up and spew your victory-at-any-cost Machiavellianism into the ear of the President of the United States! And who cares who you step on on your way to the top? Those people are just losers. Be a winner!' >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------- "Speech kills, poisons, mutilates, distorts, dirties." -Jean Genet, Funeral Rites -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030310/9146e9cd/attachment.html From jamesherndon3 Mon Mar 10 17:13:10 2003 From: jamesherndon3 (james herndon III) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:13:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] DSR-TKA results Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030310/8c4e1cc8/attachment.htm From jhutchin Mon Mar 10 17:47:24 2003 From: jhutchin (Jeremy Hutchins) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:47:24 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] NJDDT / JCCC Entries Update Message-ID: Entry deadline is tomorrow. I have heard rumors about several additional teams entering, so if you are thinking about it give me a shout. I also need some judge and student names from several teams. Please check below and fill in any missing information. We are hovering very close to a octafinals break in junior and a semis break in novice. I will post a final team list after 5 PM on Tuesday. Thanks, Jeremy *Augustana Novice Amanda Freel and John Siadak Brian Honeyman and Arick Sabin Judges *Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Junior Varsity Susan Piekarski and Libby Simas Judges Alan Razee 4 *Emporia State University Junior Varsity Austin Case and Tiara Naputi Dustin Rimmey and Chad Woolard Judges Sam Maurer 4 James Taylor 4 *Johnson County Community College Junior Varsity April Jones and Candice Moore Derek Crocker and Andy Myers Mandy Trood and Aaron Williams Chris Baize and Robert Smyth *Kansas City Kansas Community College Junior Varsity Danny Rundus and Richard Quijas Novice Holly Rundus and Sam Strain (ENMU) *Kansas State University Junior Varsity Dan Stout and Adam Flagg Judges Casey Arbenz 4 Pace University Junior Varsity 2 Teams Novice 1 Team Judges *Southeastern Louisiana University Junior Varsity Amy Hadid and Emily Ritchey Novice Zack Wagner and Erdin Guma Caine Ritchey and Holly Bissonette Sabah Ahmed and Ryan McCin Judges Terri Miller 8 (novice) Eric Marlow 4 *Southern Utah University Junior Varsity Amanda Cornelius and Kayce Rose Judges Kara Dillard 4 *Southwest Missouri State University Junior Varsity Scott Pierson and Sarah Wilson Adam Caine and Micheal Thomas Simon Mahan and Britton Jobe Tara Andre and Wendy Pennington Judges Heather Walters 8 Looking to hire someone *University of Central Oklahoma Junior Varsity Adam Adkisson and James Davis Drew Lawson and Justin Schuffert Geneva Murray and Lindsey Shook Novice Ishmael Kissinger and Hannan Shahid Stevie Lorrance and Tracy from Western IL Judges Jason Stone 4 (No 4 or 8) Bryan Gaston 4 (No 4 or 8) Brain Campbell 8 *University of Denver Junior Varsity Jared Adams and Lee Morehead Judges Stephani Gerali 4 University of Kansas *University of Northern Iowa Junior Varsity Melanie Johnson and Michelle Kelsey Nate Fredericks -- Looking for a hybrid partner Novice Kelsey Harr and Kim Adams Judges Cate Palczewski Melissa Peterson Cori Kuhn (maybe) *University of Wisconsin Oshkosh Junior Varsity Rachel Raskin and Scott Coulson Judges Doug Roubidoux 4 *Western Illinois University Junior Varsity Mark Hlavacik and Chris Wood Novice Stevie Lorrance (UCO) and Tracy ? (Western Illinois) Judges Ilon Lauer 4-6 *Wichita State University Junior Varsity Erica Johnson and Zach Wiggins Kathleen Doris and Martha Moon Phil Bouska and Amanda Wasson Judges: Chris Kenyon 6 (No Macalester) Jessica Perkins 6 From 03strait Mon Mar 10 17:59:51 2003 From: 03strait (Paul Strait) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 18:59:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] lenin on terrorism Message-ID: "lastly, i resent the idea that only the lives of working people are important - every being of infinite worth." and, "i fucking despise this romanticism of lenin that marxists get brainwashed into believing - he was an evil fuck with no redeeming value." Both statements can't be true, and I hope you don't believe the latter. Everyone has redeeming value. People should be less quick to call people evil (is Karl Rove evil? Even if you disagree with everything he works for, I imagine he is passionate about it because he thinks its for the good). I am not saying that there is no evil in the world but its important to look for the good in people. It doesn't help that you are defending Terrorism Good but you would probably be more persuasive if you sought to amplify the best in the world rather than destroying the worst. Paul Strait Catholic From paulj567 Mon Mar 10 18:31:40 2003 From: paulj567 (Paul Johnson) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 16:31:40 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Karl Rove's debate roots In-Reply-To: <1f0.3f7cbfa.2b9e7584@aol.com> Message-ID: <20030311003140.23800.qmail@web11206.mail.yahoo.com> yea, clown. --- TekUtopia at aol.com wrote: > with all due respect, they can grow up to be gordon > mitchell too. > > just depends. > > one beat, > > aaron > > <<'Oh goodie, high school debaters go on to be the > key amoral side-kicks of > those in charge, so keep up the work-work-work, > kids! For you too can grow > up and spew your victory-at-any-cost > Machiavellianism into the ear of the > President of the United States! And who cares who > you step on on your way to > the top? Those people are just losers. Be a winner!' > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -------- > "Speech kills, poisons, mutilates, distorts, > dirties." > > -Jean Genet, Funeral Rites > > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ From mdh48+ Mon Mar 10 19:44:44 2003 From: mdh48+ (Michael Hughes) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:44:44 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Rachel Raskin from UW-Oshkosh Message-ID: <000801c2e76f$ce64e4e0$5254100a@cowface> Please backchannel me, yo. -Michael Hughes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030310/f6e97ff7/attachment.html From aogletree Mon Mar 10 18:52:24 2003 From: aogletree (Aaron Ogletree) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:52:24 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Wrongful Convictions Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030311/7fcbcd94/attachment.htm From KrausAK Mon Mar 10 20:19:28 2003 From: KrausAK (Alyse Kraus) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 21:19:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] someone from georgetown Message-ID: Hey, Can I get the cites for the cloning disad you ran at districts? Thanks in advance. Alyse Kraus Liberty University Box 22307 Lynchburg, VA 24506 krausak at hotmail.com (434) 582-4348 From lexdevil Mon Mar 10 21:28:10 2003 From: lexdevil (lexy green) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:28:10 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] SF Bay Area Judges Needed This Weekend Message-ID: <410-22003321132810928@mindspring.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030310/efcc6f10/attachment.html From jtedebate Mon Mar 10 21:29:05 2003 From: jtedebate (J T) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:29:05 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] nw ceda champs thanks In-Reply-To: <000901c2e69f$20263a80$e3010b0a@whitman.edu> Message-ID: <20030311032905.22787.qmail@web20108.mail.yahoo.com> Let me just say...NW CEDA Champs was the most hospitable tournament I have EVER attended. I consider it the model. Jim Hanson, you run a great show! Thanks to Jim and the entire Whitman team for their gracious hospitality and competition. Excellent food, tape, flow paper, pens, T-shirts and awards (except the T-shirts had a picture of Frappier). The annual honoring of the seniors returned, with Sean Harris and Glen Frappier giving awards. I thought this was a particularly nice aspect of the tournament...not only because Sean & Frap made me laugh so hard I cried (oh the "International Pip" stories...), but because it felt like a real example of what we casually call a "debate community." I'll be back every chance I get. Extra special thanks to Brian Danielson of Whitman. Brian played taxi driver & tour guide for us and was amazing. He definitely went out of his way to take us anywhere we needed, at any time. Thanks again. Sincerely, W. James Taylor, "JT" Emporia State Debate --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030310/ee2b00fe/attachment.htm From vandy.debate Mon Mar 10 22:22:14 2003 From: vandy.debate (ML Sandoz) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 22:22:14 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 2003 CEDA Awards Message-ID: <20030310.222215.2556.127.vandy.debate@juno.com> I have collected all the award nominations, compiled them, and will be sending them to the committee today and tomorrow. I have also sent each person who nominated a candidate an official notice that I have received and processed the nomination. I sent these out tonight. If you sent me a nomination but did not receive a confirmation note from me tonight, please email me right away. I received a lot of messages in the past three weeks and I want to make sure that nothing slips through the cracks. Thanks M. L. Sandoz Director of Debate Vanderbilt University 615-322-3784 (O), 615-322-2307 (O), 615-343-7918 (F), 615-673-7340 (H) ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com From SSbauschard2 Mon Mar 10 22:27:48 2003 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 23:27:48 EST Subject: [eDebate] Policy RR Results Message-ID: <144.c955aee.2b9ebfc4@aol.com> 1. WAKE ES 9-1 2. GA PR -- 6-4 3. MI FO -- 6-4 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030310/a8699a7c/attachment.html From gordonm+ Mon Mar 10 22:50:14 2003 From: gordonm+ (Gordon Mitchell) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 23:50:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Karl Rove's debate roots Message-ID: <393582.3256329014@127.20.20-22.142.136.in-addr.arpa> Who sees similarities between the brand of Bush steamroller diplomacy being showcased currently on the world stage and Karl Rove's training as a an academic high school debater? According to James Moore and Wayne Slater: "Rove didn't just want to win, he wanted the opponents destroyed. His worldview was clear even then: There was his team and the other team, and he would make the other team pay. He would defeat them, slaughter them, and humiliate them. He would win by any means, but he would win" (119). This is a poor approach to debating, one that sacrifices long-term gain for short-term rewards. It unravels the fabric of dialogic cooperation that is essential for the long-term viability of any constructive communicative interchange. It sets a very bad precedent that the ends of winning justify the means of deliberate deception and intimidation, enabling these bankrupt deliberative practices to gain currency. The story about Rove's 4 X 6 evidence card high school debate arms race puts in perspective the Bush administration's current argumentative strategies being deployed in its campaign to secure UN sanction for a preventive military intervention against Iraq. Rove and high school debate partner Emil Langeland kept building up their arsenal of 4 X 6 evidence card boxes as the season went on, trying to intimidate the opposition. Yet as Langland fessed up later about the index cards, "There wasn't a thing on 99 percent of them." Many of the cards being used by the United States to make its case for war against Iraq have also turned out to be blanks: 1) Iraq's aluminum tube imports - Blix ruled they were NOT capable of being used as centrifuges for uranium enrichment; 2) Iraq's alleged nuclear fuel transfer with Niger - Blix ruled that U.S. claims here were based on FORGED DOCUMENTS; 3) Britain's "concealment" dossier - Exposed as a plagiarism of a previously published graduate student paper, even though Secretary Powell leaned on it heavily for proof; 4) Satellite images of chemical weapons activity in northern Iraq presented during Secretary Powell's presentation to the United Nations - Blix ruled this took place in a declared site in northern Iraq and DID NOT prove Iraqi noncompliance. Regardless of whether the United States leads a "coalition of the billing" into Iraq, these argumentative practices deserve careful scrutiny, since their replication in future episodes of world public deliberation on proposed preventive military intervention is a recipe for policy disaster. From phallusjerkins Mon Mar 10 22:52:43 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 23:52:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] koza memo on ABC lateline Message-ID: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/s800897.htm quote "TONY JONES: One of the very intriguing things about this story is it seems to have got very little coverage in the US. You'd think it would have been huge coverage there. Is it true that a number of US television networks which scheduled interviews with you cancelled them at the last minute? MARTIN BRIGHT: Yes. It's as well not to get too paranoid about these things and too conspiratorial. I'm sure on your own show from time to time you bump people at the last minute for perfectly innocent reasons. And I have to believe that this was why this was happening with the American broadcasters. However, it did happen three times within the period of about 24 hours. It happened with NBC, Fox TV and CNN, who appeared very excited about the story to the extent of sending cars to my house to get me into the studio, and at the last minute, were told by their American desks to drop the story."unquote _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From phallusjerkins Mon Mar 10 23:02:07 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:02:07 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] the text of the memo Message-ID: Sunday March 2, 2003 To: [Recipients withheld] From: FRANK KOZA, DEF Chief of Staff (Regional Targets) CIV/NSA Sent on Jan 31 2003 0:16 Subject: Reflections of Iraq Debate/Votes at UN-RT Actions + Potential for Related Contributions Importance: HIGH Top Secret//COMINT//XI All, As you've likely heard by now, the Agency is mounting a surge particularly directed at the UN Security Council (UNSC) members (minus US and GBR of course) for insights as to how to membership is reacting to the on-going debate RE: Iraq, plans to vote on any related resolutions, what related policies/ negotiating positions they may be considering, alliances/ dependencies, etc - the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to US goals or to head off surprises. In RT, that means a QRC surge effort to revive/ create efforts against UNSC members Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea, as well as extra focus on Pakistan UN matters. We've also asked ALL RT topi's to emphasize and make sure they pay attention to existing non-UNSC member UN-related and domestic comms for anything useful related to the UNSC deliberations/ debates/ votes. We have a lot of special UN-related diplomatic coverage (various UN delegations) from countries not sitting on the UNSC right now that could contribute related perspectives/ insights/ whatever. We recognize that we can't afford to ignore this possible source. We'd appreciate your support in getting the word to your analysts who might have similar, more in-direct access to valuable information from accesses in your product lines. I suspect that you'll be hearing more along these lines in formal channels - especially as this effort will probably peak (at least for this specific focus) in the middle of next week, following the SecState's presentation to the UNSC. Thanks for your help" _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From phallusjerkins Mon Mar 10 23:11:20 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:11:20 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] think tank "cooked" war Message-ID: http://smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/07/1046826528748.html#top quote "Saddam's fall was planned in 1998 In this liberal climate there came, nearly unnoticed, a 1997 proposal of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) that forcefully mapped out "America's global leadership". On 28 Jan 1998 the PNAC project team wrote to President Clinton demanding a radical change in dealings with the UN and the end of Saddam. While it was not clear whether Saddam was developing WMD, he was, they said, a threat to the US, Israel, the Arab States and "a meaningful part of the world's oil reserves". They put their case as follows: "In the short term this means being ready to lead military action, without regard for diplomacy. In the long term it means disarming Saddam and his regime. We believe that the US has the right under existing Security Council resolutions to take the necessary steps, including war, to secure our vital interests in the Gulf. In no circumstances should America's politics be crippled by the misguided insistence of the Security Council on unanimity." (clintonletter) Blueprint for an offensive This letter might have remained yellowing in the White House archives if it did not read like a blue-print for a long-desired war, and still might have been forgotten if ten PNAC members had not signed it. These signatories are today all part of the Bush Administration. They are Dick Cheney - Vice President, Lewis Libby - Cheney's Chief of Staff, Donald Rumsfeld - Defence Minister, Paul Wolfowitz - Rumsfeld's deputy, Peter Rodman - in charge of 'Matters of Global Security', John Bolton - State Secretary for Arms Control, Richard Armitage - Deputy Foreign Minister, Richard Perle - former Deputy Defence Minister under Reagan, now head of the Defense Policy Board, William Kristol - head of the PNAC and adviser to Bush, known as the brains of the President, Zalmay Khalilzad - fresh from being special ambassador and kingmaker in Afghanistan, now Bush's special ambassador to the Iraqi opposition. But even before that - over ten years ago - two hardliners from this group had developed a defence proposal that created a global scandal when it was leaked to the US press. The suggestion that was revealed in 1992 in The New York Times was developed by two men who today are Cabinet members - Wolfowitz and Libby. It essentially argued that the doctrine of deterrence used in the Cold War should be replaced by a new global strategy. Its goal was the enduring preservation of the superpower status of the US - over Europe, Russia and China. Various means were proposed to deter potential rivals from questioning America's leadership or playing a larger regional or global role. The paper caused major concerns in the capitals of Europe and Asia. But the critical thing, according to the Wolfowitz-Libby paper, was complete American dominance of Eurasia. Any nation there that threatened the USA by acquiring WMD should face pre-emptive attack, they said. Traditional alliances should be replaced by ad-hoc coalitions. This 1992 masterplan then formed the basis of a PNAC paper that was concluded in September 2000, just months before the start of the Bush Administration. That September 2000 paper (Rebuilding America's Defences) was developed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Libby, and is devoted to matters of "maintaining US pre-eminence, thwarting rival powers and shaping the global security system according to US interests". (RAD)" unquote _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From phallusjerkins Mon Mar 10 23:18:35 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:18:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] memo not forged--arrest made Message-ID: http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?emx=x&pid=473 if you are a lawyer, intelligence or have a conscience or all of the above contact Tony Blair as per request @ bottom of email quoth here for you... quote "The leaked document was completely ignored by the media here in the United States for two days, until Ari Fleischer at a news conference was asked about it and provided a non-denial. Then it was written about sparsely at best, not at all in the New York Times, and generally with a ho-hum, no-big-deal, didn't-even-bother-the-delegations-concerned tone in places like the Washington Post and LA Times. Elsewhere, including in letters to me, it was denounced as a forgery. Now, the Observer reports, an arrest has been made in England. (SO MUCH FOR THE FORGERY THEORY. At least the British government believes the document real enough to pursue a possible leakee.) Here then is part of an email just sent out by Observer correspondent Ed Vulliamy on the subject: "This is to inform you that there has just been an arrest at the British Government's Communications Headquarters (GCHQ - equivalent of the NSA) in connection with the leak of the memo. If charges are made, they will be serious - Britain is far more severe in these matters than the US (so far!). They could result in a major trial and a long prison sentence for the alleged mole. It it is also a criminal offence to receive such information in Britain (some of you may recall the 'ABC' trial of the 1970s), and this may also become an issue of press freedom. The authors of the piece will defy any attempt by the government to discuss our sources. "IT IS IMPORTANT THAT MAXIMUM INTERNATIONAL - as well as domestic British - PRESSURE BE BROUGHT TO BEAR ON THE BLAIR GOVERNMENT over this impending case, the prosecution of which will inevitably have a political agenda, and to protect this prospective defendant all we can. Pleading motive will be impossible because there is no defence of justification in Britain. "It would be a great help if you would very kindly put your minds to the issue during a spare moment, and think of appropriate people - individuals, concerned organisations, politicians, academics and student or grass roots groups - who might consider making representations to the British government in a letter to the Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street, London, SW1. And secondly, whether any of you may even want to make such a communication yourselves." unquote _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From GatorDebate Mon Mar 10 23:27:37 2003 From: GatorDebate (GatorDebate at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:27:37 EST Subject: [eDebate] No Free Speech in the Speech class! Message-ID: <14c.1ce1d59b.2b9ecdc9@aol.com> Nothing like a liberal protecting free speech! This one made me laugh! ______________________________________________________________________ INSTRUCTOR PLACED ON LEAVE OVER LETTERS LA Times, March 8, 2003 A speech instructor at Citrus College has been placed on administrative leave after students complained that she told them they could earn extra credit by writing to President Bush to protest a possible war with Iraq, a college official said Friday. Rosalyn Kahn, a part-time instructor at the two-year college in Glendora, told students in January that they would not receive extra credit if they used their letters to express other political views, including support for the war, said Samuel T. Lee, associate dean for language arts and foreign languages at the college. In a separate extra-credit assignment, Kahn also asked her students to write to their state Senate representatives, discussing the state's budget crisis and cuts that have been proposed for community colleges. In particular, Lee said, Kahn asked her students to "protest the cuts on the grounds that adjunct faculty would lose their jobs and students would suffer." Kahn is an adjunct faculty member. Late Friday, Lee said Kahn, who is in her first semester at Citrus, has been placed on paid administrative leave beginning next week. He said another instructor will take over her classes while administrators investigate the allegations. "Obviously, from everything we can tell at this point, this was not appropriate," Lee said. "Teachers and students should be free to express their political views in an atmosphere of respect and tolerance. But where students are beholden to the views of the instructor, we need to be especially careful." Kahn declined to comment Friday night, other than to describe the allegations as "100% lies." Lee said that several students in Kahn's Speech 106 course approached him on Feb. 27 with concerns about the assignments and that after meeting with Kahn, he visited the class on Thursday. The students confirmed the specifics of the assignments, Lee said, and told him "they all understood that if they did not write a protest letter [to Bush], they would not receive credit." Lee said he apologized on behalf of the college, and he assured the students that they would be allowed to complete alternative assignments expressing their own beliefs on the issues. The college also is sending letters of apology to Bush and to state Sen. Jack Scott (D-Altadena) explaining the circumstances, Lee said. He said Kahn apparently collected the letters for Scott and told students she would deliver them to the senator herself at a political event. Chris Stevens, a first-year student who was among those who complained, said he "wrote the letter to Bush but asked her not to mail it because it wasn't my political viewpoint. She refused, so I didn't turn it in and couldn't get credit." Stevens, 20, said Kahn also asked students to sign postcards that were not addressed to anyone but "talked about how essential part-time instructors are." The college's decision to place Kahn on leave followed a letter to administrators from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a Philadelphia-based civil rights group. Kahn's students had written to the group to request its intervention, said Thor Halvorssen, the group's executive director. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030311/6aff789e/attachment.htm From a-brovero Mon Mar 10 23:37:27 2003 From: a-brovero (Adrienne F. Brovero) Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 23:37:27 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Chicago Novice Nationals Results Message-ID: <009501c2e790$4db61280$2401000a@AdriSony> Speakers: 10. Tucker-USC 9. Hartmann -- Ky 8. Johnson - Texas 7. Allen - Emory 6. Long - Texas 5. Ghavi - Emory 4. Thiele - Ky 3. Schy - Ky 2. Chadouin - Emory 1. Avery Dale - NU Octas Emory CG (1) neg over UMKC CG (16) Wake HL (14) aff over Emory LT (3) Ky HS (4) neg over Rich MS (13) MSU BD (9) aff over Ky ST (8) MSU GH (7) neg over Texas HP (10) NU DJ (2) neg over KU CS (15) Emory AK (12) neg over Texas JL SIU HK (11) aff over Wake CG Quarters Emory CG aff over MSU BD 3-0 NU DJ neg over MSU GH 3-0 Wake HL neg over SIU HK 2-1 Ky HS neg over Emory AK 3-0 Semis NU DJ aff over Wake HL 3-0 Ky HS aff over Emory CG 2-1 Finals NU DJ neg over Ky HS 3-0 Congrats to all, and a safe trip home. -adri NU -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030310/a51d0880/attachment.html From phallusjerkins Mon Mar 10 23:45:06 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:45:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] short+sweet--"BLAIR RECKLESS" -- support in shambles Message-ID: bush, fucked incompetently wabbling between Powell and the Rumsfeld doctrine of "NO DABAIT", keeps laying his balls on the table saying that we will go to war w/o the UN w our own "international coalition", BUT FUCKING COME ON folks we are not going to war w/o Britain and britain ain't goin 2 war w/o the UN...read the writing on the wall, YEAH STUPID FUCKS WHO KEEP PARADING FALSE VICTORIES, blair will push the case and even vote for it in the UN, but when the US gets FACECRUSHED on a vote for a resolution authorizing military force, then blair will be fucked and not have the popular support facing collapse of his government...it's NOT that difficult...i wish the DABAIT INCOMPETENT right-wing crackpots would stop FABRICATING a "coalition of the willing" which does not hold to scrutiny... http://www.rense.com/general35/supp.htm quote "Other government ministers closed ranks around Blair after International Development Secretary Clare Short threatened late on Sunday to resign if Britain went to war without United Nations backing. ? Short attacked Blair for being politically, diplomatically and personally "reckless." ? Blair warned of the need to show Iraq a united front but his refusal to sack Short showed just how carefully he knows he must tread over an issue that has sparked the worst parliamentary revolt of his premiership and cut his popularity. Short went much further than just voicing dissent over Iraq. ? "I will not uphold a breach of international law or this undermining of the U.N. and I will resign from the government," Short said. "The current situation is deeply reckless; reckless for the world, reckless for the undermining of the U.N. in this disorderly world...reckless with our government, reckless with his own future, position and place in history." unquote _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From phallusjerkins Tue Mar 11 00:34:45 2003 From: phallusjerkins (Phallus Jerkins) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 01:34:45 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] karl rove tactics--"SHOOT THE MESSENGER" Message-ID: Phallus Jerkins is extremely concerned about the official decline of dabaiting tactics by the bush administration and its resort to "dirty tricks" to influence the outcome of the iraq dabait in the UN security council including the egregious fabrication of evidence. It seems that Karl Rove has inspired a whole generation of right-wing crackpots who resort to psychological warfare when faced with evidence to their disliking. martin bright, a british reporter on the koza memo, provides just one example in the quote below this longish paragraph which is a direct challenge to the readers of edabait. people on the list are in dismay at the low levels of discourse into which Phallus Jerkins has drug them. this is merely a reflection in the shittin' hole miroir of the kinds of thinking into which the bush administration is dragging millions of its supporters. NOT UNIQUE. easy to pinpoint jerkins and assuage your conscience even though it looks like the entire Republican Party is backsliding into INTIMIDATION tactics. in kritik, shamaham early on quoted heidegger, "follow the movement (bewegung) of the showing". without coming to grips w the kritical movement of parody and reflection in the posts of phallus jerkins, all readers will remain too linear and unable to think for themselves in the gap provided. if phallus jerkins really pisses you off and makes you want to UNSUBSCRIBE, then given the much grander scale that the BUSH TEAM is disseminating these tactics, you really need to contact bush. Phallus Jerkins is shocked and amazed that the dabait community has not risen up with at least a MULTIPARTISAN petition calling on the President to retract his official attack on dabaiting societies otherwise the president has clarified his position as ENEMY of dabaiting societies and completely untrustworthy. Phallus Jerkins really is piddly stix compared to what is going on in the White House if you know how to think and not just kneejerk. ALL OF YOU WHO REPRIMAND PHALLUS JERKINS AND REMAIN COMPLACENT ABOUT THE RHETORICAL DIRTY TRICKS OF THE BUSH ADMIN ARE LIVING IN LALALALAND. Back to Martin Bright w the following revelations http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,910727,00.html quote: "I woke up on Sunday morning to discover that I was not popular in America. Not popular at all. On opening my emails I found that a lot of people actually seemed to hate me. "Liberal Eurotrash'; 'Chickenshit' and 'Fucking homo' are not greetings I am used to receiving over my morning cuppa. But when I'd waded through 500 messages saying things like 'You're a lying piece of shit' or, in one bizarre case, 'My wife says you're a lying piece of shit,' it was clear that people were really upset. I felt like going back to bed. Along with Observer colleagues Ed Vulliamy and Peter Beaumont I had written what I thought was a relatively straightforward piece of reporting about a secret memo that had been passed to the paper. Security analysts in the United States talk of a 'shoot the messenger' culture in the Bush administration when experts give them information not to their liking. This clearly applied to sections of the wider community as well. To use a footballing metaphor, my correspondents had decided to go for the man rather than the ball, which, come to think of it, is precisely what happens in the American version of the game." unquote we close with a proposition to the edabait community concerned about the tactics of phallus jerkins. PRODUCE A SIGNIFICANT PETITION W DEMANDS THAT BUSH RETRACT THE STATEMENT and we will forever SHIFT OUT OF OUR REPLICATION OF THOSE TACTICS AS A MOVEMENT OF KRITICAL DIS-CLOSURE. we have repeatedly given those who HATE us the opportunity to address their double standards and complacency regarding the institutionalization of these tactics but repeatedly they remain "ho hum" w scapegoating Phallus Jerkins. _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From let_the_american_empire_burn Tue Mar 11 06:55:16 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 06:55:16 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] lenin & rove & debate & terror Message-ID: excuse me, paul, i meant to add the word 'social' before the word 'value' in the phrase no redeeming value - in context i was criticizing those who try to salvage lenin's political philosophy from the butchery of his Soviet rule, not implying that lenin should be remorselessly brutalized (like he did to so many). nor was i calling Rove 'evil' because of his beliefs - i think neo-conservatism is a very important political paradigm. what i call evil is lying about one's opponents and his win-at-any-cost ruthlessness. nor was i offering a total rejection of debate - to the extent that debate furthers those like Rove, we have cause for concern (not 'inspiration'!), and to the extent that debate furthers those like Gordon Mitchell, we have reason for hope. all i've written about debate, here and elsewhere, has been an attempt to re-think what it means to play this game, whether competition's only worth is in extrinsic rewards, or whether one can instead value the instrinsic experience of playing for the sake of play (not for the sake of winning-no-matter-what). finally, on terrorism, there are three geo-political options right now as i see them, and feel free to correct me: imperialism, internationalism, and terrorism. what we'll witness in coming weeks is yet another example of how international legal conventions must either bend to the will of the empire or suffer near-total irrelevance. millions of muslims and arabs have been murdered in mass, by cluster bombs, by land-mines, by tanks and rockets, by sanctions, and on and on, and perhaps tens of thousands more are about to be added to that pile of dead bodies. seeing that there's no chance of an international redress of grievances (the USA, alongside Iraq, refused to sign the ICC, for instance), what other alternative is there except the law of self-defense? i use the word terrorism because that's what most people here refer to militant Islam and other forms of political resistance as, but there's little chance non-state-actors will ever be able to truly compete with the incalculatable destructiveness of state-terror. that's why their/our only hope is to so enrage the imperial bull that it accidentally gets its horns stuck in a tree - this worked in vietnam, though at tremdendous cost to the lives of civilians. but assuredly, the lenins and the hitlers and the bushes and the goebbels and the roves are their own worst enemies - their ultimate vulnerability has historically been that they self-destruct. if there's one good thing about this world it is that no dictator, no oppression, no lie can last forever .k _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From kkuswa Tue Mar 11 07:47:32 2003 From: kkuswa (Kevin Kuswa) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:47:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Chicago Novice Nationals Results References: <009501c2e790$4db61280$2401000a@AdriSony> Message-ID: <011201c2e7d4$c3a8d560$2774a68d@richmond.edu> The spiders would like to thanks NWU (esp. Judd, Adrienne, and Duck) for a great tournament with lots of good competition and judging. Gracias. Kevin ----- Original Message ----- From: Adrienne F. Brovero To: Edebate Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 12:37 AM Subject: [eDebate] Chicago Novice Nationals Results Speakers: 10. Tucker-USC 9. Hartmann -- Ky 8. Johnson - Texas 7. Allen - Emory 6. Long - Texas 5. Ghavi - Emory 4. Thiele - Ky 3. Schy - Ky 2. Chadouin - Emory 1. Avery Dale - NU Octas Emory CG (1) neg over UMKC CG (16) Wake HL (14) aff over Emory LT (3) Ky HS (4) neg over Rich MS (13) MSU BD (9) aff over Ky ST (8) MSU GH (7) neg over Texas HP (10) NU DJ (2) neg over KU CS (15) Emory AK (12) neg over Texas JL SIU HK (11) aff over Wake CG Quarters Emory CG aff over MSU BD 3-0 NU DJ neg over MSU GH 3-0 Wake HL neg over SIU HK 2-1 Ky HS neg over Emory AK 3-0 Semis NU DJ aff over Wake HL 3-0 Ky HS aff over Emory CG 2-1 Finals NU DJ neg over Ky HS 3-0 Congrats to all, and a safe trip home. -adri NU -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030311/6b5ecb25/attachment.htm From Maxwell.Schnurer Tue Mar 11 11:11:16 2003 From: Maxwell.Schnurer (Maxwell Schnurer) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:11:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] seeking swing partner for ceda nationals Message-ID: Marist college is seeking a swing for ceda nationals. We have: coaching, fees paid, and judging all taken care of. If you can find a student who wants to go to ceda nationals, provide an eligibility form for ceda, and can help get them to the tournament, then we can have a deal! please drop me an email and or a phone call: 845-575-3000 x 2075 thanks, maxwell/marist From Maxwell.Schnurer Tue Mar 11 11:12:08 2003 From: Maxwell.Schnurer (Maxwell Schnurer) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:12:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] seeking jv swing for towson Message-ID: Hey folks -- marist is seeking a JV swing debater for towson. If you are interested, give me an email or call. 845-575-3000 x 2075 maxwell From govnt_man Tue Mar 11 11:22:46 2003 From: govnt_man (The Drake) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:22:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NDT Judge Available Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030311/40197a0f/attachment.html From stables Tue Mar 11 11:53:31 2003 From: stables (gordon stables) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 09:53:31 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Lost Black Suitcase From Novice Nationals Message-ID: <1dc0681d9dbf.1d9dbf1dc068@usc.edu> One of our students lost a bag. The details are forwarded below: ------ Hey all, I lost my black suitcase with an armpull (not sure of brand) at the Novice Nationals Tournament @ Northwestern in the Orrington Hotel. It was placed along with the rest of everyone's baggage in the 2nd floor lobby area. When I came back to pick it up (5:30pm on Monday) it was gone. My guess is that someone else accidentally took it by mistake. The black suitcase is about 3-4 ft tall and has a Spirit Airline and LAX barcode sticker on it. It just has some clothes in it. If you have any information, please contact me. My e-mail address is: asad at usc.edu. My phone number is: 213-764-6771. Thank you. sameer From privethedge Tue Mar 11 12:11:32 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:11:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Wrongful Convictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030311181132.93501.qmail@web10002.mail.yahoo.com> << The film, The Hurricane, is another film depicting what actually goes ! on in the legal system. >> For a mutch better picture of the circumstances surrounding Rubin "Hurricane" Carter, don't watch the film - it gets a lot of the details wrong. However, if you read either his books "Hurricane: The Miraculous Journey of Rubin Carter," "Lazarus and the Hurricane: The Freeing of Rubin "Hurricane" Carter, yout get a much better, more accurate story about him. Both cover the good about Mr. Carter, and the bad, and the ugly. The movie makes him look, generally, like a saint, and is generally un-critical. Both books show him to be far less than a saint, but still not guilty of the crimes he was alledged to have admitted, and deserving of the decision made in his favor. 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! Web Hosting - establish your business online -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030311/f2eff5fb/attachment.htm From Damus Tue Mar 11 12:48:30 2003 From: Damus (Damus at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:48:30 EST Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: LOST BLACK SUITCASE FROM NOVICE NATIONALS Message-ID: <1a5.10f653f1.2b9f897e@aol.com> FYI -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: sameer asad Subject: LOST BLACK SUITCASE FROM NOVICE NATIONALS Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:36:05 -0800 Size: 2906 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030311/7d93ea6c/attachment.mht From SSbauschard2 Tue Mar 11 13:26:53 2003 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:26:53 EST Subject: [eDebate] NDT & CEDA Judge Philosophies Reminder Message-ID: <1ea.3f4717a.2b9f927d@aol.com> Hi all, Just a reminder that you can upgrade your judge philosophy on Planet Debate to indicate the number of tournaments you have judged and the # of years you have judged. Also, if you indicate what national tournaments (s) you are judging in, people can download the philosophies by tournament right to their laptops and navigate them before debates through hyperlinks. Please take a minute to make these adhjustments to your philosophy. __ 1. When you add or edit your judge philosphy, click on the "My Account" area. Then CLICK THE BUTTON "Edit My Judge Philosophy." 2. When you get to this page, there is a new section where you can enter the number of rounds you've judged for the year, the number of tournaments you have judged at during the year, and the number of years you have been judging. This will now appear on downloaded judge philosophy. 3. Please check which national tournaments you plan on judgging at (HS and College). 4. Once people have done #3, you can download the philosophies by tournament at http://www.planetdebate.com/scripts/user_listing.asp Click on the "Judge Philosophies" links. 5. The pholosophies can now be downloaded in one of two formats: html or text. If you download them as html and open them with a web browser (save it to your hard drive and then open Iexplore with file, open, browse -- and find the file. A table of contents will display and you can click on the name and go right to the philosophy. If you want, you can open the .html file in MICROSOFT WORD and print and indexed and paginated document. PLEASE SIGN ON AND INDICATE WHAT NATIONAL TOURNAMENTS YOU ARE JUDGING IN SO PEOPLE CAN DOWNLOAD BY TOURNAMENT! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030311/233b4f3a/attachment.htm From schizotrope Tue Mar 11 13:39:36 2003 From: schizotrope (Giving You What You Like) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:39:36 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Open wishes to Presidne George Bush Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030311/6f723a1e/attachment.html From GQDB8R Tue Mar 11 13:59:48 2003 From: GQDB8R (GQDB8R at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:59:48 EST Subject: [eDebate] PROGRAMS THAT WELCOME TRANSFERS Message-ID: <129.25269664.2b9f9a34@aol.com> If any program out there is welcoming of transfers please get back to me, I am looking for a new home, have been coaching High School the past 3 years. Debated nationally, Lost Nationally in Highschool. Have done some college have about 2.9-3.0 GPa and 30 credits. Not looking for a free ride(if I could earn one down the road good) just an oppurtunity. Thanks Alex Acosta -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030311/e06f1406/attachment.htm From dromane Tue Mar 11 14:17:32 2003 From: dromane (David Romanelli) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:17:32 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] u of c chuck or andrew Message-ID: please back channel me From arsenalgunners2 Tue Mar 11 14:26:43 2003 From: arsenalgunners2 (Mick Souders) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:26:43 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Question about ADI 1998 Message-ID: Does anyone remember the exact dates from the 1998 Arizona Debate Institute or where to find them? Just the beginning and end dates, please. Thank you. Mick ENMU _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From dig Tue Mar 11 14:39:50 2003 From: dig (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:39:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The US Military will use slave labor to invade iraq Message-ID: <200303112039.h2BKdoT29424@fiat.cross-x.com> Let slip the sea lions of war By Verity Murphy BBC News Online With the military build-up in the Persian Gulf showing no sign of abating the US Navy has unveiled its secret weapon - a crack troupe of sea lions. The specially trained mammals have been deployed to the region to protect US and British warships against attacks from underwater saboteurs and mines. These whiskered warriors are even capable of clamping a floating marker to the legs of an intruder, alerting troops to his position, who can then move in and haul the attacker out of the water. The British naval commander in the Gulf, Rear Admiral David Snelson, warned on Monday that possible al-Qaeda attacks on warships in the region was the biggest security threat facing his forces as they prepare for a possible war with Iraq. Three years ago 17 US servicemen were killed when the USS Cole was attacked in the Yemeni port of Aden by al-Qaeda operatives using an inflatable boat packed with explosives. They never enlisted, they know nothing of Iraq or Saddam Hussein and will probably not survive Dawn Carr, Peta Now as an armada of more than 130 US and British Navy warships and support vessels is crowded into the Gulf, the sea lions have been pressed into action. Sea lions were chosen for the task of patrolling the harbours because not only are they extremely intelligent, but they have acute directional underwater hearing and work well in low light visibility. "They have very sophisticated sonar systems that can detect movement," said Rear Admiral Snelson. Press ganged In addition they can swim at 40 kilometres per hour (25 miles per hour) and carry out repeated dives of up to 300 metres (1000 feet). "For thousands of years of his history, man has made use of the capabilities of animals, their strength, extraordinary senses, swimming or flying ability," Tom LaPuzza, public affairs spokesman for the US Navy Marine Mammal Programme said. But animal rights groups object to the use of animals in combat. "It is simply not ethical to put animals in harm's way. War is a human endeavour and while people and political parties may decide war is necessary, animals cannot," Dawn Carr, a spokeswoman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) told BBC News Online. "They never enlisted, they know nothing of Iraq or Saddam Hussein and will probably not survive," she added. The US Navy says it has about 20 of these sea lions, who can be rapidly deployed by land, sea or air. They regularly take part in major naval exercises, but this will be the first time they have taken on a real combat role. Cuffing intruders The sea lions in the Gulf are all graduates of the US Navy's Marine Mammal Programme in San Diego, California. There they are trained in mine recovery - diving down, locating a mine and if possible attaching a grabber device which can be used to recover it. They also learn how to alert humans when they detect an intruding diver and even attach a restraint device - a c-shaped clamp which locks onto the diver's leg like a handcuff - before deploying a floating buoy attached to the cuff and swimming away to safety. Sea lions can even pursue a suspect onto dry land - alerting all in the vicinity with their loud honks. Also based in San Diego are three groups of dolphins, also trained to detect mines and humans. Dolphins are no strangers to combat, having been used by the US Navy to patrol the water of Vietnam during the 1970s as well as the Persian Gulf in the Iran-Iraq war. But this time the Navy opted to use sea lions because they are more manoeuvrable than their cetacean counterparts and better able to handle the higher temperatures in the region. Proud history Since the days of Hannibal crossing the Alps with his elephants an exotic array of animals have been pressed into military action. Perhaps the most bizarre plan was when the US launched Project X-Ray in World War II - an attempt to attack Japan with bats carrying tiny satchels bearing incendiary devices. The plan backfired when on a practice run the bats attacked the wrong target, and set fire to a military airfield in New Mexico. In the recent Afghan conflict troops were on alert for attacks by kamikaze camels strapped with explosives, a tactic the mujahideen used against Soviet troops. And in the event of a US-led attack on Iraq the US army plans to ride chickens into battle in cages atop Humvees, used as early warning gas detectors. The US Army calls the strategy Operation Kuwaiti Field Chicken - or KFC - but the plan has been put on hold after 41 of the 43 chickens deployed to the Gulf died within a week of arrival. Still, headed into the fray will be some of the 1,400 dogs who work in the US military - carrying out tasks ranging from mine detection to the rescue and recovery of dead and wounded personnel. Story from BBC NEWS: -- Debate Information Group http://dig.ndtceda.com/ From ccooper Tue Mar 11 14:53:10 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:53:10 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] The US Military will use slave labor to invade iraq Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A733707114258C@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Where is PETA when the army serves chicken? Or veggies for that matter? Suffer the carrots? COOP -----Original Message----- From: Andy Ellis [mailto:dig at ndtceda.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 3:40 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] The US Military will use slave labor to invade iraq Let slip the sea lions of war By Verity Murphy BBC News Online With the military build-up in the Persian Gulf showing no sign of abating the US Navy has unveiled its secret weapon - a crack troupe of sea lions. The specially trained mammals have been deployed to the region to protect US and British warships against attacks from underwater saboteurs and mines. These whiskered warriors are even capable of clamping a floating marker to the legs of an intruder, alerting troops to his position, who can then move in and haul the attacker out of the water. The British naval commander in the Gulf, Rear Admiral David Snelson, warned on Monday that possible al-Qaeda attacks on warships in the region was the biggest security threat facing his forces as they prepare for a possible war with Iraq. Three years ago 17 US servicemen were killed when the USS Cole was attacked in the Yemeni port of Aden by al-Qaeda operatives using an inflatable boat packed with explosives. They never enlisted, they know nothing of Iraq or Saddam Hussein and will probably not survive Dawn Carr, Peta Now as an armada of more than 130 US and British Navy warships and support vessels is crowded into the Gulf, the sea lions have been pressed into action. Sea lions were chosen for the task of patrolling the harbours because not only are they extremely intelligent, but they have acute directional underwater hearing and work well in low light visibility. "They have very sophisticated sonar systems that can detect movement," said Rear Admiral Snelson. Press ganged In addition they can swim at 40 kilometres per hour (25 miles per hour) and carry out repeated dives of up to 300 metres (1000 feet). "For thousands of years of his history, man has made use of the capabilities of animals, their strength, extraordinary senses, swimming or flying ability," Tom LaPuzza, public affairs spokesman for the US Navy Marine Mammal Programme said. But animal rights groups object to the use of animals in combat. "It is simply not ethical to put animals in harm's way. War is a human endeavour and while people and political parties may decide war is necessary, animals cannot," Dawn Carr, a spokeswoman for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) told BBC News Online. "They never enlisted, they know nothing of Iraq or Saddam Hussein and will probably not survive," she added. The US Navy says it has about 20 of these sea lions, who can be rapidly deployed by land, sea or air. They regularly take part in major naval exercises, but this will be the first time they have taken on a real combat role. Cuffing intruders The sea lions in the Gulf are all graduates of the US Navy's Marine Mammal Programme in San Diego, California. There they are trained in mine recovery - diving down, locating a mine and if possible attaching a grabber device which can be used to recover it. They also learn how to alert humans when they detect an intruding diver and even attach a restraint device - a c-shaped clamp which locks onto the diver's leg like a handcuff - before deploying a floating buoy attached to the cuff and swimming away to safety. Sea lions can even pursue a suspect onto dry land - alerting all in the vicinity with their loud honks. Also based in San Diego are three groups of dolphins, also trained to detect mines and humans. Dolphins are no strangers to combat, having been used by the US Navy to patrol the water of Vietnam during the 1970s as well as the Persian Gulf in the Iran-Iraq war. But this time the Navy opted to use sea lions because they are more manoeuvrable than their cetacean counterparts and better able to handle the higher temperatures in the region. Proud history Since the days of Hannibal crossing the Alps with his elephants an exotic array of animals have been pressed into military action. Perhaps the most bizarre plan was when the US launched Project X-Ray in World War II - an attempt to attack Japan with bats carrying tiny satchels bearing incendiary devices. The plan backfired when on a practice run the bats attacked the wrong target, and set fire to a military airfield in New Mexico. In the recent Afghan conflict troops were on alert for attacks by kamikaze camels strapped with explosives, a tactic the mujahideen used against Soviet troops. And in the event of a US-led attack on Iraq the US army plans to ride chickens into battle in cages atop Humvees, used as early warning gas detectors. The US Army calls the strategy Operation Kuwaiti Field Chicken - or KFC - but the plan has been put on hold after 41 of the 43 chickens deployed to the Gulf died within a week of arrival. Still, headed into the fray will be some of the 1,400 dogs who work in the US military - carrying out tasks ranging from mine detection to the rescue and recovery of dead and wounded personnel. Story from BBC NEWS: -- Debate Information Group http://dig.ndtceda.com/ _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030311/bded1d94/attachment.html From dig Tue Mar 11 14:54:17 2003 From: dig (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:54:17 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The US Military will use slave labor to invade iraq Message-ID: <200303112054.h2BKsHb32083@fiat.cross-x.com> Haha, still though i guess you agree that the military will be utilizing slave labor in a most dangerous front line operation,and that these enslaved soldiers lives are entirely reduced to war machines in the process of security... > > Where is PETA when the army serves chicken? > > Or veggies for that matter? > > Suffer the carrots? > > COOP > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Ellis [mailto:dig at ndtceda.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 3:40 PM > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] The US Military will use slave labor to invade iraq > > > Let slip the sea lions of war > By Verity Murphy > BBC News Online > > With the military build-up in the Persian Gulf showing no sign of > abating the US Navy has unveiled its secret weapon - a crack troupe of > sea lions. > > > The specially trained mammals have been deployed to the region to > protect US and British warships against attacks from underwater > saboteurs and mines. > These whiskered warriors are even capable of clamping a floating marker > to the legs of an intruder, alerting troops to his position, who can > then move in and haul the attacker out of the water. > > The British naval commander in the Gulf, Rear Admiral David Snelson, > warned on Monday that possible al-Qaeda attacks on warships in the > region was the biggest security threat facing his forces as they > prepare for a possible war with Iraq. > > Three years ago 17 US servicemen were killed when the USS Cole was > attacked in the Yemeni port of Aden by al-Qaeda operatives using an > inflatable boat packed with explosives. > > > They never enlisted, they know nothing of Iraq or Saddam Hussein and > will probably not survive > Dawn Carr, Peta > Now as an armada of more than 130 US and British Navy warships and > support vessels is crowded into the Gulf, the sea lions have been > pressed into action. > > Sea lions were chosen for the task of patrolling the harbours because > not only are they extremely intelligent, but they have acute > directional underwater hearing and work well in low light visibility. > > "They have very sophisticated sonar systems that can detect movement," > said Rear Admiral Snelson. > > Press ganged > > In addition they can swim at 40 kilometres per hour (25 miles per hour) > and carry out repeated dives of up to 300 metres (1000 feet). > > "For thousands of years of his history, man has made use of the > capabilities of animals, their strength, extraordinary senses, swimming > or flying ability," Tom LaPuzza, public affairs spokesman for the US > Navy Marine Mammal Programme said. > > But animal rights groups object to the use of animals in combat. > > > "It is simply not ethical to put animals in harm's way. War is a human > endeavour and while people and political parties may decide war is > necessary, animals cannot," Dawn Carr, a spokeswoman for People for the > Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) told BBC News Online. > > "They never enlisted, they know nothing of Iraq or Saddam Hussein and > will probably not survive," she added. > > The US Navy says it has about 20 of these sea lions, who can be rapidly > deployed by land, sea or air. > > They regularly take part in major naval exercises, but this will be the > first time they have taken on a real combat role. > > Cuffing intruders > > The sea lions in the Gulf are all graduates of the US Navy's Marine > Mammal Programme in San Diego, California. > > There they are trained in mine recovery - diving down, locating a mine > and if possible attaching a grabber device which can be used to recover > it. > > > They also learn how to alert humans when they detect an intruding diver > and even attach a restraint device - a c-shaped clamp which locks onto > the diver's leg like a handcuff - before deploying a floating buoy > attached to the cuff and swimming away to safety. > > Sea lions can even pursue a suspect onto dry land - alerting all in the > vicinity with their loud honks. > > Also based in San Diego are three groups of dolphins, also trained to > detect mines and humans. > > Dolphins are no strangers to combat, having been used by the US Navy to > patrol the water of Vietnam during the 1970s as well as the Persian > Gulf in the Iran-Iraq war. > > But this time the Navy opted to use sea lions because they are more > manoeuvrable than their cetacean counterparts and better able to handle > the higher temperatures in the region. > > Proud history > > Since the days of Hannibal crossing the Alps with his elephants an > exotic array of animals have been pressed into military action. > > > Perhaps the most bizarre plan was when the US launched Project X-Ray in > World War II - an attempt to attack Japan with bats carrying tiny > satchels bearing incendiary devices. > > The plan backfired when on a practice run the bats attacked the wrong > target, and set fire to a military airfield in New Mexico. > > In the recent Afghan conflict troops were on alert for attacks by > kamikaze camels strapped with explosives, a tactic the mujahideen used > against Soviet troops. > > And in the event of a US-led attack on Iraq the US army plans to ride > chickens into battle in cages atop Humvees, used as early warning gas > detectors. > > The US Army calls the strategy Operation Kuwaiti Field Chicken - or > KFC - but the plan has been put on hold after 41 of the 43 chickens > deployed to the Gulf died within a week of arrival. > > Still, headed into the fray will be some of the 1,400 dogs who work in > the US military - carrying out tasks ranging from mine detection to the > rescue and recovery of dead and wounded personnel. > > > Story from BBC NEWS: > > -- > Debate Information Group > http://dig.ndtceda.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > -- Debate Information Group http://dig.ndtceda.com/ From ccooper Tue Mar 11 15:05:10 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:05:10 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] The US Military will use slave labor to invade iraq Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A7337071142590@exm01w.apac.planning.org> I take issue with the speciest definition of sentience PETA uses to distinguish plants from animals, but, if you want an indication of what I beleive, you can find it here: http://ogb.wfu.edu/back_issues/1995_Spring/4-20-95/Editorials/col.cooper.htm l COOP -----Original Message----- From: Andy Ellis [mailto:dig at ndtceda.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 3:54 PM To: Christopher Cooper; 'Andy Ellis'; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: RE: [eDebate] The US Military will use slave labor to invade iraq Haha, still though i guess you agree that the military will be utilizing slave labor in a most dangerous front line operation,and that these enslaved soldiers lives are entirely reduced to war machines in the process of security... > > Where is PETA when the army serves chicken? > > Or veggies for that matter? > > Suffer the carrots? > > COOP > > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Ellis [mailto:dig at ndtceda.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 3:40 PM > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] The US Military will use slave labor to invade iraq > > > Let slip the sea lions of war > By Verity Murphy > BBC News Online > > With the military build-up in the Persian Gulf showing no sign of > abating the US Navy has unveiled its secret weapon - a crack troupe of > sea lions. > > > The specially trained mammals have been deployed to the region to > protect US and British warships against attacks from underwater > saboteurs and mines. > These whiskered warriors are even capable of clamping a floating marker > to the legs of an intruder, alerting troops to his position, who can > then move in and haul the attacker out of the water. > > The British naval commander in the Gulf, Rear Admiral David Snelson, > warned on Monday that possible al-Qaeda attacks on warships in the > region was the biggest security threat facing his forces as they > prepare for a possible war with Iraq. > > Three years ago 17 US servicemen were killed when the USS Cole was > attacked in the Yemeni port of Aden by al-Qaeda operatives using an > inflatable boat packed with explosives. > > > They never enlisted, they know nothing of Iraq or Saddam Hussein and > will probably not survive > Dawn Carr, Peta > Now as an armada of more than 130 US and British Navy warships and > support vessels is crowded into the Gulf, the sea lions have been > pressed into action. > > Sea lions were chosen for the task of patrolling the harbours because > not only are they extremely intelligent, but they have acute > directional underwater hearing and work well in low light visibility. > > "They have very sophisticated sonar systems that can detect movement," > said Rear Admiral Snelson. > > Press ganged > > In addition they can swim at 40 kilometres per hour (25 miles per hour) > and carry out repeated dives of up to 300 metres (1000 feet). > > "For thousands of years of his history, man has made use of the > capabilities of animals, their strength, extraordinary senses, swimming > or flying ability," Tom LaPuzza, public affairs spokesman for the US > Navy Marine Mammal Programme said. > > But animal rights groups object to the use of animals in combat. > > > "It is simply not ethical to put animals in harm's way. War is a human > endeavour and while people and political parties may decide war is > necessary, animals cannot," Dawn Carr, a spokeswoman for People for the > Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) told BBC News Online. > > "They never enlisted, they know nothing of Iraq or Saddam Hussein and > will probably not survive," she added. > > The US Navy says it has about 20 of these sea lions, who can be rapidly > deployed by land, sea or air. > > They regularly take part in major naval exercises, but this will be the > first time they have taken on a real combat role. > > Cuffing intruders > > The sea lions in the Gulf are all graduates of the US Navy's Marine > Mammal Programme in San Diego, California. > > There they are trained in mine recovery - diving down, locating a mine > and if possible attaching a grabber device which can be used to recover > it. > > > They also learn how to alert humans when they detect an intruding diver > and even attach a restraint device - a c-shaped clamp which locks onto > the diver's leg like a handcuff - before deploying a floating buoy > attached to the cuff and swimming away to safety. > > Sea lions can even pursue a suspect onto dry land - alerting all in the > vicinity with their loud honks. > > Also based in San Diego are three groups of dolphins, also trained to > detect mines and humans. > > Dolphins are no strangers to combat, having been used by the US Navy to > patrol the water of Vietnam during the 1970s as well as the Persian > Gulf in the Iran-Iraq war. > > But this time the Navy opted to use sea lions because they are more > manoeuvrable than their cetacean counterparts and better able to handle > the higher temperatures in the region. > > Proud history > > Since the days of Hannibal crossing the Alps with his elephants an > exotic array of animals have been pressed into military action. > > > Perhaps the most bizarre plan was when the US launched Project X-Ray in > World War II - an attempt to attack Japan with bats carrying tiny > satchels bearing incendiary devices. > > The plan backfired when on a practice run the bats attacked the wrong > target, and set fire to a military airfield in New Mexico. > > In the recent Afghan conflict troops were on alert for attacks by > kamikaze camels strapped with explosives, a tactic the mujahideen used > against Soviet troops. > > And in the event of a US-led attack on Iraq the US army plans to ride > chickens into battle in cages atop Humvees, used as early warning gas > detectors. > > The US Army calls the strategy Operation Kuwaiti Field Chicken - or > KFC - but the plan has been put on hold after 41 of the 43 chickens > deployed to the Gulf died within a week of arrival. > > Still, headed into the fray will be some of the 1,400 dogs who work in > the US military - carrying out tasks ranging from mine detection to the > rescue and recovery of dead and wounded personnel. > > > Story from BBC NEWS: > > -- > Debate Information Group > http://dig.ndtceda.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > -- Debate Information Group http://dig.ndtceda.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030311/29f8475d/attachment.htm From dig Tue Mar 11 15:15:54 2003 From: dig (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:15:54 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The US Military will use slave labor to invade iraq Message-ID: <200303112115.h2BLFsB03689@fiat.cross-x.com> i share some problems with peta however i join them in their opposition to the use of animals as warriors, this does not mean that i dont alo object to the military serving meat, destroying the ecology with du and its mere existence, nor does itmean i dont object to human sloaves being sent to die in an imperial war, but ultimatly i object to the sea lions being used in a war From bodonnel Tue Mar 11 15:16:23 2003 From: bodonnel (O'Donnell, Brett M.) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:16:23 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for Judging for Towson Message-ID: Liberty needs judging for the Towson Tournament this weekend. I can pay, house and feed you well. Please respond ASAP. Brett O'Donnell From Martlno4 Tue Mar 11 15:39:22 2003 From: Martlno4 (Martlno4 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:39:22 EST Subject: [eDebate] The US Military will use slave labor to invade iraq Message-ID: <142.c9f65d4.2b9fb18a@aol.com> This is a complete hoax. Very funny though. NM -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030311/8bf4c6df/attachment.html From Gary.N.Larson Tue Mar 11 16:08:19 2003 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary N. Larson) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:08:19 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Towson Debate tournament PREFS Message-ID: <000e01c2e81a$b95bf380$100c18ac@bl2471> If you are attending the Towson debate tournament this weekend, please send me an e-mail message from the address that you would like me to send the URL, username and password to for the online preference system. GARY -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030311/c392e535/attachment.htm From sherwokg Tue Mar 11 16:21:53 2003 From: sherwokg (Sherwood, Kenneth G) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:21:53 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] No Free Speech in the Speech class! Message-ID: For anyone who is interested in hearing the whole story on this one, here are the things that haven't been covered in the paper...The student who filed the grievance and contacted FIRE arrived significantly late to class and did not hear the entire explanation of the assignment. His claim that students would not be given credit if they did not write to Bush in protest of the war is false according to the instructor. The so called "investigation" conducted by the college president and the dean was a sham. They did not even allow the instructor to tell her side of the story. If the LA Times learns (for the first time) to be honest in their journalism, they will run her response in an upcoming issue, but that is a big "if." Ken Sherwood Director of Forensics Los Angeles City College -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030311/9c531d28/attachment.html From pem6751 Tue Mar 11 16:55:40 2003 From: pem6751 (Paul Mabrey III) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:55:40 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] ndt judging Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030311/1758b4a2/attachment.htm From arsenalgunners2 Tue Mar 11 18:59:05 2003 From: arsenalgunners2 (Mick Souders) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:59:05 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] John Rief and Brian Schrader Message-ID: Yo boys, Wanted to mention something to you, so drop me a line. Mick _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From dig Tue Mar 11 19:29:37 2003 From: dig (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:29:37 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Im so proud of the house of represenatatives Message-ID: <200303120129.h2C1Tbh23107@fiat.cross-x.com> House cafeterias change names for 'french fries' and 'french toast' Move reflects anger over France's stance on Iraq By Sean Loughlin CNN Washington Bureau WASHINGTON (CNN) --The cafeteria menus in the three House office buildings changed the name of "french fries" to "freedom fries," in a culinary rebuke of France stemming from anger over the country's refusal to support the U.S. position on Iraq. Ditto for "french toast," which will be known as "freedom toast." The name changes were spearheaded by two Republican lawmakers who held a news conference Tuesday to make the name changes official on the menus. Across the country, some private restaurants have done the same. "This action today is a small, but symbolic effort to show the strong displeasure of many on Capitol Hill with the actions of our so-called ally, France," said Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, the chairman of the Committee on House Administration. Ney, whose committee has authority over the House cafeterias, directed the change, after colleague Walter Jones, R-North Carolina, circulated a letter suggesting such a move. Jones said he was following the example of a local restaurant owner in his North Carolina district. "I represent a district with multiple military bases that have deployed thousands of troops," Jones said in a statement. "As I've watched these men and women wave good-bye to their loved ones, I am reminded of the deep love they have for the freedom of this nation and their desire to fight for the freedom of those who are oppressed overseas. Watching France's self -serving politics of passive aggression in this effort has discouraged me more than I can say." The name change was criticized by one young man in a House cafeteria. "That's completely ludicrous to me," he said. France has pressed the United Nations to give weapons inspectors more time in Iraq, saying the U.S. and British-led move to war is premature. Its stance has angered some U.S. lawmakers. Rep. Jim Saxton, R-New Jersey, has introduced legislation in the House that would block any French company from receiving U.S. government aid or financing in any reconstruction of Iraq. Another measure discourages American tourists, businesses and the government from participating in the 2003 Paris Air show. But House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said he didn't think Congress needed to take any formal steps to signal its disapproval of France. "I don't think we have to retaliate against France," he said. "They have isolated themselves. They have resigned from any responsibility for the war on terror." Asked why he was focusing on France when other nations, including Germany and Russia, oppose the U.S. position on Iraq, Jones said it was because France had taken the lead in challenging the United States. Officials with the French Embassy in Washington could not be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon. -- CNN Congressional Correspondent Jonathan Karl contributed to this report. Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/sprj.irq.fries/index.html -- Debate Information Group http://dig.ndtceda.com/ From mdh48+ Tue Mar 11 19:38:22 2003 From: mdh48+ (Michael Hughes) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:38:22 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Im so proud of the house of represenatatives Message-ID: <000601c2e838$15637f50$5254100a@cowface> What happens when they finish their meals, and realized that there is no more freedom left to consume? -Michael -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030311/28b437b4/attachment.html From delliott Tue Mar 11 19:52:41 2003 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:52:41 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Im so proud of the house of represenatatives In-Reply-To: <000601c2e838$15637f50$5254100a@cowface> Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.20030311195241.00c42bf8@kckcc.toto.net> Go eat someone else'e meal of course! ; ) Chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate Kansas City Kansas Community College At 07:38 PM 3/11/2003 -0600, Michael Hughes wrote: > What happens when they finish their meals, and realized that there is >no more freedom left to consume? -Michael From vrenegar Tue Mar 11 21:01:15 2003 From: vrenegar (Valerie R. Renegar) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:01:15 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Todd Graham, Glen Frappier Message-ID: <00df01c2e843$a58b0700$a8ddf492@sdsu.edu> Hey there- Can Todd Graham and Glen Frappier please drop me a line? Thanks- Val -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030311/52a23ed5/attachment.htm From miamidebate Tue Mar 11 21:39:19 2003 From: miamidebate (Miami Debate Team) Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 19:39:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] DM or Jay from Wayne Message-ID: <20030312033919.34703.qmail@web13806.mail.yahoo.com> Could one of ya'll write me back? Thanks Sarah --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030311/2d54ca06/attachment.html From gordonm+ Tue Mar 11 23:38:10 2003 From: gordonm+ (Gordon Mitchell) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 00:38:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] the text of the memo Message-ID: <718321.3256418290@82.20.20-22.142.136.in-addr.arpa> Last week a 28-year-old employee of Britain's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) was arrested for leaking the Koza memo, an event that appears to confirm the authenticity of the document. The United Nations is conducting a "top level investigation" of the memo, which calls for a "surge" of U.S. surveillance activity against UN delegates sitting on the fence in the Iraq vote. According to London Observer reporters Martin Bright, Ed Vulliamy and Peter Beaumont, leak of the Koza memo "caused a political furore in Chile, where President Ricardo Lagos demanded an immediate explanation of the spying operation. The Chilean public is extremely sensitive to reports of US 'dirty tricks' after decades of American secret service involvement in the country's internal affairs." What is puzzling about this uproar is the fact that the surveillance described in the Koza memo is actually par for the diplomatic course in New York and has been for years. It is legal under the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Services Act for U.S. intelligence agencies to eavesdrop on UN delegates. In fact, many delegates are aware of this and hence have little expectation of privacy when they speak on unsecured cellular phone lines. The real shocker is not necessarily what was in the memo, but the fact that it was leaked by British GCHQ officers who exposed themselves to prosecution under the draconian Official Secrets Act. Why would British spies take such a risk? There is tremendous discontent now in the ranks of British intelligence, where many analysts feel that their work product is being exploited by Tony Blair to score pro-war debating points in his campaign to legitimize an American-led preventive strike on Iraq. The roots of this discontent can be traced to fallout over the infamous "dodgy dossier," a British government report that US Secretary Powell lauded in his February 5 speech to the UN as "a fine paper." This dossier, entitled "Iraq: Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation," turned out to be a mosaic of old open source material previously published. It plagiarized long stretches of a paper by Ibrahim al-Marashi, a postgraduate student at the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California. When this not-so-small blemish was revealed, British intelligence agents at MI5, MI6 and GCHQ expressed outrage at Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's director of communications, who had wrested control of the editing process and accented the dossier's politically incendiary findings, rather than presenting the intelligence data "straight." From debatekorea Wed Mar 12 00:52:28 2003 From: debatekorea (Jason Jarvis) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 01:52:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Im so proud of the house of represenatatives Message-ID: But House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said he didn't think Congress needed to take any formal steps to signal its disapproval of France. "I don't think we have to retaliate against France," he said. "They have isolated themselves. They have resigned from any responsibility for the war on terror." >This quote would make more sense if DeLay were describing the US. The war >on terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with attacking Iraq, and will >make terrorism more likely by both pissing off Muslims and diverting >attention from the growing civil war in Afghanistan...........Americans who >believe this nonsense are leading us down the road to hell, god(s) help us. Well, at least Americans have a new target for their racism. Frog legs for dinner anyone?? 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: "Andy Ellis" To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Im so proud of the house of represenatatives Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 20:29:37 -0500 House cafeterias change names for 'french fries' and 'french toast' Move reflects anger over France's stance on Iraq By Sean Loughlin CNN Washington Bureau WASHINGTON (CNN) --The cafeteria menus in the three House office buildings changed the name of "french fries" to "freedom fries," in a culinary rebuke of France stemming from anger over the country's refusal to support the U.S. position on Iraq. Ditto for "french toast," which will be known as "freedom toast." The name changes were spearheaded by two Republican lawmakers who held a news conference Tuesday to make the name changes official on the menus. Across the country, some private restaurants have done the same. "This action today is a small, but symbolic effort to show the strong displeasure of many on Capitol Hill with the actions of our so-called ally, France," said Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, the chairman of the Committee on House Administration. Ney, whose committee has authority over the House cafeterias, directed the change, after colleague Walter Jones, R-North Carolina, circulated a letter suggesting such a move. Jones said he was following the example of a local restaurant owner in his North Carolina district. "I represent a district with multiple military bases that have deployed thousands of troops," Jones said in a statement. "As I've watched these men and women wave good-bye to their loved ones, I am reminded of the deep love they have for the freedom of this nation and their desire to fight for the freedom of those who are oppressed overseas. Watching France's self -serving politics of passive aggression in this effort has discouraged me more than I can say." The name change was criticized by one young man in a House cafeteria. "That's completely ludicrous to me," he said. France has pressed the United Nations to give weapons inspectors more time in Iraq, saying the U.S. and British-led move to war is premature. Its stance has angered some U.S. lawmakers. Rep. Jim Saxton, R-New Jersey, has introduced legislation in the House that would block any French company from receiving U.S. government aid or financing in any reconstruction of Iraq. Another measure discourages American tourists, businesses and the government from participating in the 2003 Paris Air show. But House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said he didn't think Congress needed to take any formal steps to signal its disapproval of France. "I don't think we have to retaliate against France," he said. "They have isolated themselves. They have resigned from any responsibility for the war on terror." Asked why he was focusing on France when other nations, including Germany and Russia, oppose the U.S. position on Iraq, Jones said it was because France had taken the lead in challenging the United States. Officials with the French Embassy in Washington could not be reached for comment Tuesday afternoon. -- CNN Congressional Correspondent Jonathan Karl contributed to this report. Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/sprj.irq.fries/index.html -- Debate Information Group http://dig.ndtceda.com/ _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From let_the_american_empire_burn Wed Mar 12 04:54:34 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 04:54:34 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] history repeating : "empire on the cheap" Message-ID: LONDON March 6 Bombing, invasion and regime change by a superpower Iraq has seen it all before in its recent history. For 40 years after World War I, Britain tried to control Iraq, pioneering aerial bombing as a way of enforcing its power. One British general urged using poison gas. Now, as Washington and London warn that Saddam Hussein must be removed and talk of building democracy in Iraq, U.S. and British troops may soon be retracing routes followed during one of the darker episodes of British colonial history. Britain took over Iraq during World War I, chasing out the Turks, who occupied the region for centuries. British officials divided up the collapsed Turkish empire, creating several new nations, including Iraq. The British commander who captured Baghdad in 1917, Lt. Gen. Stanley Maude, told the people his troops had come to free them. "Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators," he said in a proclamation. It was not an easy victory. A British army had been surrounded and forced to surrender in 1916 at Kut on the Tigris River, south of Baghdad. Of 10,000 British and Indian soldiers taken captive, some 4,000 died in terrible conditions in Turkish prison camps. Wanting to hold on to the region for its oil and strategic position on the route to India, the jewel of the British Empire, London sent officials to run Iraq as an outpost of their vast dominion. It ignored criticism from the United States, which opposed colonialism. The Arabs, who had helped the British fight the Turks, did not want to change one set of foreign rulers for another. In 1920, anti-British riots turned into a bloody revolt. Faced with threats in many colonies, British commanders came up with "air control" using the newly developed warplane to bomb opponents and avoid expensive and bloody ground engagements. Critics dubbed it "empire on the cheap." Iraq became a testing ground for the new imperial big stick. British Bristol and Wapiti bombers hammered rebel tribesmen, destroying their villages. The British commander, Gen. Sir Aylmer Haldane, demanded London send poison gas, but the Iraqis were defeated before any action was taken. Delayed action bombs were used on Iraqi villages to catch residents who returned after bombing raids. British officials, including Winston Churchill, then the colonial minister, hailed air control as the perfect method of policing the empire. Some British commanders denounced the new techniques as unsporting. Administrators said the army was just upset at being upstaged by the air force, whose officers it considered socially inferior. "Much needless cruelty is necessarily inflicted, which in many cases will not cower the tribesmen, but implant in them undying hatred and a desire for revenge. The policy weakens the tribesman's faith in British fair play," wrote Col. Francis Humphries, a critic of bombing. London was convinced the bombing had pacified Iraq. The British military presence was cut from 23 battalions in 1923 to two in 1928. Air Marshall Sir John Salmon, in a lecture on the merits of air control in Iraq, said it transformed the country. "A heterogeneous collection of wild and inarticulate tribes has emerged in an ordered system of representative government by the vote," he said after the revolt was crushed. A pro-British Arab monarch from the Sunni Muslim minority was imposed on the Shia Muslim majority, and Iraq became independent in 1932. British officials stayed to advise the king along with squadrons of British air force bombers to quell internal opposition. Britain again invaded Iraq during World War II, when a pro-German regime seized power in 1941. British air force units, based in Iraq, bombed the Iraqi forces until British troops occupied Baghdad. Some 3,000 Iraqi troops were killed in the fighting. London sought to retain influence in Iraq, but the monarchy was ousted in 1958, ushering in a series of coups that culminated with Saddam Hussein coming to power. Thus ended what historians have described as Britain's "moment in the Middle East." _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From privethedge Wed Mar 12 07:44:03 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 05:44:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Im so proud of the house of represenatatives In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030312134403.84229.qmail@web10010.mail.yahoo.com> Uhmm..how is not liking France, racist? I think what the House did was extremely silly, and stupid, a waste of time, and resources, but how is not liking France a manifestation of racism? Aren't people allowed to dislike anyone, anymore? And, while we are speaking about racism and the House, what about Moran's (D-VA) comments about Jews and the war? What next? Is he going to accuse them of polluting the wells of Christians, or using Christian babies in their religious ceremonies? God - the House renames French Fries and the list howls in anguish. A Congressman basically says "the impending war is the fault of the Jews" (where have we heard that before) and the list is silent. 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! Web Hosting - establish your business online -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030312/7a18e6be/attachment.htm From jhutchin Wed Mar 12 08:56:50 2003 From: jhutchin (Jeremy Hutchins) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 08:56:50 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Final NJDDT/JCCC Team List Message-ID: 32 teams in Junior. 9 Teams in Novice. *Augustana Junior Varsity Amanda Freel and John Siadak Judges Matt Moore 4 *Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Junior Varsity Susan Piekarski and Libby Simas Judges Alan Razee 4 *Eastern New Mexico University Novice Mark Hendley and Matt Hayes Judges Doug Dennis 4 Mickolus Saulders 4 *Emporia State University Junior Varsity Austin Case and Tiara Naputi Dustin Rimmey and Chad Woolard Judges Sam Maurer 4 James Taylor 4 *Johnson County Community College Junior Varsity April Jones and Candice Moore Derek Crocker and Andy Myers Mandy Trood and Aaron Williams Chris Baize and Robert Smyth *Kansas City Kansas Community College Junior Varsity Danny Rundus and Richard Quijas Novice Holly Rundus and Sam Strain (ENMU) *Kansas State University Junior Varsity Dan Stout and Adam Flagg Judges Casey Arbenz 4 Pace University Junior Varsity 2 Teams Novice 1 Team Judges *Southeastern Louisiana University Junior Varsity Amy Hadid and Emily Ritchey Novice Zack Wagner and Erdin Guma Caine Ritchey and Holly Bissonette Sabah Ahmed and Ryan McCin Judges Terri Miller 8 (novice) Eric Marlow 4 *Southern Utah University Junior Varsity Amanda Cornelius and Kayce Rose Judges Kara Dillard 4 *Southwest Missouri State University Junior Varsity Scott Pierson and Sarah Wilson Adam Caine and Micheal Thomas Simon Mahan and Britton Jobe Tara Andre and Wendy Pennington Judges Heather Walters 6 (No 7 and 8) Jackie Massey 8 *University of Central Oklahoma Junior Varsity Adam Adkisson and James Davis Drew Lawson and Justin Schuffert Geneva Murray and Lindsey Shook Novice Ishmael Kissinger and Hannan Shahid Judges Jason Stone 4 (No 4 or 8) Bryan Gaston 4 (No 4 or 8) Brain Campbell 8 *University of Denver Junior Varsity Jared Adams and Lee Morehead Judges Stephani Gerali 4 *University of Kansas Junior Varsity Jared Zuckerman and Greg Holmquist Kevin Garner and Wade Thomas Judges Eric Morris 4 (No 1,2 or 7) Matt Gerber 6 *University of Missouri Kansas City Junior Varsity Chris Logry and Andy Culp Judge Monte Stevens 2 Chris Cushman 2 (6-8 only) *University of Northern Iowa Junior Varsity Melanie Johnson and Michelle Kelsey Nate Fredericks and Dan Dahl (KU) Novice Kelsey Harr and Kim Adams Judges Cate Palczewski Melissa Peterson Cori Kuhn (maybe) *University of Wisconsin Oshkosh Junior Varsity Rachel Raskin and Scott Coulson Judges Doug Roubidoux 4 *Western Illinois University Junior Varsity Mark Hlavacik and Chris Wood Novice Stevie Lorrance (UCO) and Tracy Alexander (WIU) Judges Ilon Lauer 4 *Wichita State University Junior Varsity Erica Johnson and Zach Wiggins Kathleen Doris and Martha Moon Phil Bouska and Amanda Wasson Judges: Chris Kenyon 6 (No Macalester) Jessica Perkins 6 From Gary.N.Larson Wed Mar 12 10:02:38 2003 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary N. Larson) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:02:38 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Towson pref sheet Message-ID: <003d01c2e8b0$cdc6ef50$100c18ac@bl2471> I still need to contact the following to give you passwords and the URL for the Towson pref sheet: Binghamton CSU Chico CUNY Capital Case Western Catholic Cornell John Carroll Mary Washington NYU Columbia Northern Illinois Rochester Santa Clara Southwest Texas U of Mass Amherst USMA Vanderbilt Preferences are due by NOON on Friday EST in order to go into effect for the first round. Since I am doing this remotely from Wheaton - there are NO exceptions. There are 65 judges in the pool. You should assign a minimum of 8 judges per category for categories 1-2 and a minimum of 7 judges for each of the rest. You may include more judges in higher categories as long as the sum of all judges ranked by the end of a particular category equals the minimum number required. For instance, if you rank 12 judges as "1" you only need to rank 4 as "2" (16 in the first two categories). The judges are as follows. If you absolutely can not enter the judges online, this form can be used for e-mail entry. /3 Maag, Eric - CSU Longbeach 4+0+0 /4 Kimbrell, Ian - Case Western 4+0+0 /5 Gardner, Beth - Cornell 5+0+0 /6 Jacobsen, Trond - Cornell 4+0+0 /7 Hayman, Jethro - Cornell 3+0+0 /8 Hess, Aaron - CSU Chico 7+0+0 /9 Jacobus, David - Fordham 7+0+0 /10 Jenkins, Tiyonna - West Virginia 7+0+0 /11 Bsumek, Pete - James Madison 7+0+0 /12 Butt, Neil - John Carroll 7+0+0 /13 Brossman, Brent - John Carroll 7+0+0 /14 Sherwood, Ken - LA City College 7+0+0 /15 Matteson, John - LA City College 7+0+0 /16 Rao, Anand - Mary Washington 7+0+0 /17 O'Donnell, Tim - Mary Washington 7+0+0 /18 Warner, Ede - Louisville 7+0+0 /19 Schweri, John - MTSU 7+0+0 /20 Garner, Richard - NYU 7+0+0 /21 Keenan, Vik - NYU 4+0+0 /22 Baker, Will - NYU 3+0+0 /23 Zite, Jamie - Northern Illinois 4+0+0 /24 Drury, Jeff - Northern Illinois 3+0+0 /25 Achten, Greg - Pepperdine 3+0+0 /26 Reid, Kristen - Pepperdine 4+0+3 /27 Kuswa, Kevin - Richmond 5+0+0 /28 Hausrath, Barry - Richmond 6+0+0 /29 Clemmons, Steve - Santa Clara 4+0+0 /30 Myres, Jason - Southwest Texas 4+0+0 /31 Meese, Mike - USMA 6+0+0 /32 Sawyer,Reid - USMA 5+0+0 /33 Steinberg, David - Miami FL 7+0+0 /34 Grindy, Matt - Miami FL 7+0+0 /35 Cusick, Carolyn - Vanderbilt 5+0+0 /36 Ellinger, Nick - Vanderbilt 5+0+0 /37 Miedel, Meg - Vanderbilt 4+0+0 /38 Morgan, Helen - Vermont 4+0+0 /39 Parmett, Justin - Vermont 4+0+0 /40 Miller, Gordie - Vermont 7+0+0 /41 Fishbone, Aaron - Vermont 4+0+0 /42 Greenman, Claudia - Vermont 5+0+0 /43 Parmett, Meredith - Vermont 4+0+0 /44 Boggs, Joshua K. - West Virginia 6+0+0 /45 Bandy, Kimberly - West Virginia 6+0+0 /46 Berch, Neil - West Virginia 2+0+0 /47 Heidt, Stephen - Hired 2+0+0 /48 Sampson, Richard - Catholic 7+0+0 /49 O'Gorman, Tom - Catholic 7+0+0 /50 Kerr, Paul - Catholic 3+0+0 /51 Lohr, Jeff - Capital 7+0+0 /52 Gagnon, Brian - Capital 7+0+0 /53 Hansen, John - Eastern New Mexic 4+0+0 /54 Schnurer, Maxwell - Marist 3+0+0 /55 Ellis, Andy - Marist 4+0+0 /56 Prabhu, Anoop - Marist 7+0+0 /57 Maritato, Jimbo - Marist 7+0+0 /58 Schatz, Joe - Binghamton 4+0+0 /59 Gautier, Zach - Liberty 7+0+0 /60 Verney, Daisy - Liberty 7+0+0 /61 Hall, Heather - Liberty 7+0+0 /62 Lawrence, Bill - Liberty 7+0+0 /63 Entel, Mark - Rochester 7+0+0 /64 Lee, Adam - Rochester 7+0+0 /65 Myers, Jessica - Rochester 7+0+0 /66 Ketsdever, Nathan - Rochester 7+0+0 /67 O'Donnell, Brett - Liberty 4+0+0 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030312/3134eb42/attachment.html From Gary.N.Larson Wed Mar 12 10:41:41 2003 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary N. Larson) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:41:41 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Towson pref sheet Message-ID: <004f01c2e8b6$421f3ab0$100c18ac@bl2471> Two judges have been added to the online pref sheet. As a result, you should have 8 judges in category 1-4 (not categories 1-2 as originally). Thanks for your assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030312/5506be73/attachment.htm From jeff139 Wed Mar 12 11:33:04 2003 From: jeff139 (jeff139 at excite.com) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:33:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: [eDebate] JV swing needed for Towson Message-ID: <20030312173304.D4B103E2C@xmxpita.excite.com> I am looking for a JV swing partner for Townson. Please contact me if you have a swing. Jeff Lohr Capital University (614) 236-6326 --- On Wed 03/12, Gary N. Larson < Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu > wrote: From: Gary N. Larson [mailto: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu] To: edebate at ndtceda.com Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:41:41 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Towson pref sheet -->

Two judges have been added to the online pref sheet.? As a result, you should have 8 judges in category 1-4 (not categories 1-2 as originally).

?

Thanks for your assistance.

_______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! From SSbauschard2 Wed Mar 12 12:23:07 2003 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 13:23:07 EST Subject: [eDebate] Full ADA Results Available Message-ID: <1ed.41ed404.2ba0d50b@aol.com> Full packet results from the ADA tournament, including the elim brackets, are available at Planetdebate.com If you have ADOBE WRITER on your computer, you can print your packet results to ADOBE and email them to me if you wish for inclusion. Stefan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030312/5a251f23/attachment.html From frigg11 Wed Mar 12 12:45:03 2003 From: frigg11 (Thomas O'Toole) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:45:03 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Matt Gerber Message-ID: Gerber, Could you backchannel me? Thanks, Tom Thomas M. O'Toole Kansas State University _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From blackdebateguy Wed Mar 12 13:13:36 2003 From: blackdebateguy (doug dennis) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 11:13:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] matt gerber or delete Message-ID: <20030312191336.73251.qmail@web40414.mail.yahoo.com> can you backchannel a brotha? thanks a ton. doug dennis --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030312/129a7e6c/attachment.htm From paulj567 Wed Mar 12 14:17:04 2003 From: paulj567 (Paul Johnson) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:17:04 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] SHCROEK Message-ID: <20030312201704.37357.qmail@web11202.mail.yahoo.com> hit me up schroek. -pj pitt __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com From aafoste Wed Mar 12 14:36:13 2003 From: aafoste (Alexander A. Foster) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:36:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Redlands AT Please Message-ID: Hey Nathan or Teddy, could one of you please backchannel me, i need a cite you read against us at GSU (Yeah, a little late I know) Alex Emory 2005 From Gary.N.Larson Wed Mar 12 14:57:12 2003 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary N. Larson) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 14:57:12 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Towson pref sheets Message-ID: <001b01c2e8d9$f4358290$100c18ac@bl2471> Progress is being made but I still need representatives from the following to get password info from me for the online prefs at Towson: Cornell Rochester Southwest Texas U of Mass Amherst USMA Vanderbilt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030312/6c2d258f/attachment.html From kendog_3 Wed Mar 12 15:01:02 2003 From: kendog_3 (kenny hanson) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 21:01:02 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Sarah from West Georgia Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030312/a3b60c00/attachment.htm From beth Wed Mar 12 15:37:38 2003 From: beth (Beth Skinner) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:37:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Towson Announcements Message-ID: <1047505058.3e6fa8a28eef6@dalchemy.com> Please check the following team entries for accuracy. If you have changes, please send them to eskinner at towson.edu. Due to lack of entries (2 total) there will be no varsity division. Hope to see you all next year when we?re not so close to ADA and CEDA Nationals. Rookie teams will compete in the novice division and be eligible for special breakout awards. To clarify a question several people have posed, this is NOT an ADA sanctioned tournament and the novice and JV divisions are governed by CEDA, not ADA definitions. Beth Binghamton N Jeff Klein and Ravi Gupta CSU-Chico N Elizabeth Gourley and Victoria Riordan N Clayton Cornell and Chekechea Pryor CSU-Longbeach N Walid Kandeel and Alexza Barajas Capital University JV John Koch and John Swords JV Chris Piazza and Mike Jones JV Lauren Raymer and Angie Naugle N Jen Mooney and Elycia Taylor Case Western Reserve University N Wilson Freeman and Shu-han Zhu Catholic University of America JV Suzie Catania and Steve Sawyer JV Lauren Baillie and Hunter Beaton JV Zach Johnson and Nicole Rementer N Dori Leonard and Kerri Allen N Steve Martano and Jeff Pope N Carly Shoupe and Meghan O?Brien Cornell JV Jeff Granillo and Craig Murray JV Lisa Wang and Jeevun Sidhu N Timothy D'Auria and Justin Schoenberg Eastern New Mexico JV Lawrence Williams and Darrick Matthews Fordham JV Asha Cherian and Reggie Martin N Sean Jacques and Megan Tweed James Madison University JV Piero Mannino and Adam Peden R Suyoung Kim and Megan Joyce John Carroll University JV Tasha Forchione and Matt Gayetsky JV Megan DeLeon and Amber Thomas N Pete Arconti and Nelson Wainwright N Kate Crimmins and Mary Kate Lundeen Liberty University JV Alyse Kraus and Stephen Lind JV Jonathan Day and Elisha Nix JV Josh Autry and Justin Dewberry JV Andrew Burnham and David Klinedinst JV Brian Aurelio and Jess Surratt N Lindsey Hoban and Melissa Hurter N Kelly Azevedo and Grace Burns N Jared Isham and Andrew Lindblom N Matt Case and Dana Foglesong N Cindy Hurt and Jessica Wright Los Angeles City College N Divina Clifford and Sara Wagstaff N Brett Baker and Augustin Salinas N Alex Becheru and Suzi Robinson N Michael Survert and Khiada Autrey Louisville JV Lauren Bernert and Courtney King N Ebony Floyd and Jennifer Harris Marist N Matt Hannon and Robin Westlund N Diedre Greeley and Owen Daly Mary Washington College JV Jennifer Golladay and Joe Packer JV John Nagy and Leslie Wyatt JV Ali Samantar and Adrianne Barnett N Rebecca Sklepovich and Jennifer Rollman Middle Tennessee State University JV Courtney Carver and Allan Lutes N Heather Cannon and Erika Chambers New York Coalition JV NYU/Columbia Danyaal Moin and Andy Liu JV NYU/CUNY Joseph Philip and Richard Haggwood JV CUNY Robert Matthews and Claudio Simpkins Northern Illinois University N Kat Oefelein and Amy Lehuta N Elizabeth Fang and Zarine Hussain Pepperdine JV Andrew Hoag and Catherine Quizon N Kim Hyson and Cara Lynn Richmond JV Casey Seidel and Andrew Ryan N Corinne Huntington and Francis Grice Rochester JV Nafess Nuruddin and Karim Oussayef JV Ilana Kaplan-Shain and Anna Czapla JV Cedric Logan and Liz Gaskell JV Steve D'Amico and Tom Marples N Kristin Martin and Vlad Vanykov N Theresa Spaulding and Emily Desmond N Chris Lavin and Eric Miller Santa Clara JV Arah Rasp and Wes _______ Southwest Texas JV Matt Tiffee and Kimberly Keen United States Military Academy JV Elliot Press and Adam Scher JV Ricky Waters and Adam Karr N Allison Pan and Boon Park University of Massachusetts at Amherst JV Dennis Gove and Christopher Yu JV David Ryan and Jessica Mencer University of Miami (Florida) JV Stephanie Torre and Nate Radius JV Melissa Pelaez and Crystal Foster N Skylar Zwick and Aubrie Campbell N Christina Guzman and Tiffany Yelder Vanderbilt University N Kate Ryzoc and Nikhil Perumbeti N Mark Kendall and Susan Mader N Christine Parker and Leah Stephan N Sharon Yecies and Samar Shah Vermont JV Jillian Marty and Edwin Owusu JV Brian Cole and Jennifer Knops JV Lana Langsweirdt and Teresa Hill JV Nikki Muradian and Julianne Hellmuth N Carlos Varela and Colin Kern N Lindsey Melander and Eric Mates N Tim Reimer and Kayce Massey N Leonel Velez and Ryan O'Connor West Virginia JV Rebecca Evans and Douglas Squire JV Cassandra Angus and Nicolette Wilhide N Kelley Burd and Joseph Hayes N Sara Lechner and Daniel Waite 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 montestevens Wed Mar 12 16:05:18 2003 From: montestevens (montestevens at earthlink.net) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:05:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: [eDebate] UMKC Coaching Position(s) Message-ID: <5401253.1047513921158.JavaMail.nobody@waldorf.psp.pas.earthlink.net> UMKC is looking for one or two assistant coaches for the 2003-04 school year. Primary duties would include research, tournament travel (including pre-round coaching and judging) and working with debaters during practice rounds and squad meetings. There is NO teaching required, and no connection to participating in a graduate program. The UMKC Debate Program also provides assistance to DEBATE-Kansas City, the urban debate educational partnership that serves 13 schools in three districts and two states. UMKC STRONGLY encourages applications from women and minorities. To apply, express interest, or for additional information, please contact Linda M. Collier, Director of Debate by emailing by emailing her at collierl at umkc.edu. From swhalen Wed Mar 12 18:44:26 2003 From: swhalen (Shawn Whalen) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:44:26 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Important CEDA Judging Issues - Please READ! Message-ID: <3E6FD46A.2030209@sfsu.edu> Four issues in this email: 1) You must verify that your judges are entered online; 2) We need some more rounds of judging - please volunteer; 3) Judges who still need to send philosophies; 4) Online philosophies Item 1) Verifying your judges It is imperative that everyone planning to judge at CEDA Nationals make sure that your name appears in the online entry at www.debateresults.com. Click on "Use online tournament entry system" then click on "View entries to a tournament". Select 2003 CEDA National Tournament and you will get a list of every team and judge currently entered in the tournament. If you are not on this list, you will not appear on the preference sheet and consequently will not be able to judge to cover your team's commitment or to be hired by the tournament. If your name does not appear on this list and you want to judge, you must contact me immediately. Item 2) Gary tells me that the mutual preference system works optimally with 24 extra rounds of judging. We don't need to use all of those rounds, but the system works best with the flexibility. Please, if you have not already done so, please send me a note indicating your judges' willingness to donate an extra round to the tournament. Item 3) Missing Philosophies We still do not have judging philosophies from: Clemmons, Steve - Santa Clara Cramer, Jason - Fullerton Cushman, Chris - UMKC Dennis, Doug - UPS Foy, John - ENMU Hansen, John - ENMU Magariel, David - Kansas Wenzlaff, Sue - Univ. of Michigan, Dearborn Zahorcak, Owen - Lewis & Clark If you're on this list you need to send emailed philosophies to both Jeff Jarman at jeffrey.jarman at wichita.edu and Kelly McDonald at kelly.mcdonald at asu.edu. Item 4) Philosophies online Philosophies can be found online at: Two pdf files: http://escweb.wichita.edu/ceda/ceda a-l.pdf http://escweb.wichita.edu/ceda/ceda m-z.pdf From jmarty Wed Mar 12 18:53:56 2003 From: jmarty (Jillian A. Marty) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:53:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NADAR AND DP FROM LONG BEACH PLEASE RESPOND Message-ID: <1047516836.3e6fd6a4cb27c@webmail.uvm.edu> -- HEY NADAR OR DP PLEASE BACK CHANNEL ME. JILLIAN- UVM From sykesjason Wed Mar 12 19:45:02 2003 From: sykesjason (Jason Sykes) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 19:45:02 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] NDT rounds for hire Message-ID: <001301c2e902$2a3ad3e0$46d1a942@computer> we have 8 total rounds to sell: jason-3, travis-3, john-2 thanks jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030312/a496b1d7/attachment.html From gordonm+ Wed Mar 12 21:09:56 2003 From: gordonm+ (Gordon Mitchell) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:09:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Rove petition drive Message-ID: <245502.3256495796@198.20.20-22.142.136.in-addr.arpa> Dear debaters far and wide: Debate coaches and debaters here at the University of Pittsburgh have been working on a petition to Karl Rove, chief advisor to President George W. Bush and former Olympus High School (Salt Lake City, UT) interscholastic debater. We plan to circulate the petition at CEDA Nationals and the NDT, in hopes of of gathering at least 500 signatures of current and former debaters, debate coaches and debate judges. We have polished the current draft of the petition text through several edits, and are now seeking wider input on wording, emphasis and/or style. In addition, strategy suggestions would be very useful - the current idea is that sometime after the NDT, a group of debaters make an appointment in D.C. to deliver the petition directly to Rove - this could become a media event where the points of the petition could be elucidated and amplified. The current plan is to finalize the text of the petition by this Sunday, then distribute a copy of it online so that debate teams could begin gathering signatures before leaving for CEDA Nationals if they were so moved. So here is the current draft: * * * We object to the distortion of political deliberation in the execution of the Bush Administration's foreign policy. World-wide political legitimacy for that policy can be forged only through a process of fair and honest public argument. Heavy-handed techniques of persuasion, such as utilization of financial leverage to coerce agreement, political manipulation of the intelligence classification system and reliance on deceptive evidence, are part of the Bush administration's 'win at all costs' approach to public diplomacy. This debating strategy must be reconsidered immediately, because the alienation and mistrust sown worldwide by its implementation bankrupts the world-wide political legitimacy of U.S. foreign policy, polarizes conflicts, stimulates terrorist recruitment, chills diplomacy, squanders precious tax dollars and undermines cooperative security ventures ranging from allied intelligence sharing to international peacekeeping and post-war reconstruction. * * * Clarification: this petition drive is not necessarily endorsed by individual members of the William Pitt Debating Union (WPDU), the WPDU as a whole, or the University of Pittsburgh. It is an independent project of pedagogical action research conducted by like-minded individuals. Best, Gordon From gordonm+ Wed Mar 12 21:56:26 2003 From: gordonm+ (Gordon Mitchell) Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:56:26 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Controversia congratulations In-Reply-To: <245502.3256495796@198.20.20-22.142.136.in-addr.arpa> Message-ID: <413415.3256498586@198.20.20-22.142.136.in-addr.arpa> Kudos to Eli Brennan, Neil Berch, Kevin Kuswa, and Geoff Klinger for having excellent book reviews accepted for publication in +Controversia: An International Journal of Debate and Democratic Renewal+. Their reviews are slated to appear in the following lineup of book reviews for vol. 2 no. 1, due out soon: * The Indigenous Public Sphere: The Reporting of Indigenous Issues in the Australian Media, 1994-1997. By John Hartley & Alan McKee. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000; pp. 384. $85.00. Reviewed by Linda Briskman, RMIT University, Australia. * Rebellious Civil Society: Popular Protest and Democratic Consolidation in Poland, 1989-1993. By Grzegorz Ekiert & Jan Kubik. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 2001; pp. 296. Paper $22.95. Reviewed by Cezar M. Ornatowski, San Diego State University. * Gifted Tongues: High School Debate and Adolescent Culture. By Gary Alan Fine. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001; pp. 301. Paper $21.95. Reviewed by Eli Brennan, University of Pittsburgh. * In Search of Civil Society. By Nicholas Deakin. New York: Palgrave, 2001; pp. 233. $69.95. Reviewed by Kevin D. Kuswa, University of Richmond. * Selling the Free Market: The Rhetoric of Economic Correctness. By James Arnt Aune. New York: Guilford Press, 2001; pp. 217. Paper $18.95. Reviewed by Geoffrey D. Klinger, University of Utah. * Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial. By Donald R. Wolfensberger. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2001; pp. 328. Paper $19.95. Reviewed by Neil Berch, West Virginia University. Individual Subscriptions to Controversia are $35 per year Library Subsctions are $90 per year Subscription requests should be sent to Nina Watkins @ nwatkins at sorosny.org Best, Gordon From matt_bostick Wed Mar 12 22:08:04 2003 From: matt_bostick (Matt Bostick) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 12:08:04 +0800 Subject: [eDebate] Parcher, Sofia, or Andrew from Georgetown Message-ID: <20030313040804.14907.qmail@graffiti.net> I need some 1AC cites. Backchannel would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. -matt --- John Kerry for president in 2004. Matthias S. Bostick George Mason University Morally Repugnant since 1976 -- _______________________________________________ Get your free email from http://www.graffiti.net Powered by Outblaze From SSbauschard2 Wed Mar 12 23:09:32 2003 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:09:32 EST Subject: [eDebate] Europe and Middle East Topic Papers Available Message-ID: <176.17080e04.2ba16c8c@aol.com> These are available under the "Research" section on the home page of Planet Debate. Stefan www.planetdebate.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030313/c166cdaf/attachment.htm From adbarnes Wed Mar 12 23:21:37 2003 From: adbarnes (Andrew Barnes) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 05:21:37 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Rove petition drive Message-ID: Gordon, I would sign the petition as is but I think it is also fundamentally important to include some language that references how the administrations tactics have undermined domestic debate and public understanding of foreign policy actions. Because the administration controls relevant security information to certain debates, the average citizen cannot fully participate in democratic practices or public debates. This is particularly true with Iraq, Iran, North Korea and other security related issues such as the NPR. I will leave the particular language up to you. I also have some questions for you to ponder; does the media contribute to the "win at all cost strategy" (I think the answer is an obvious yes) and if so, should we criticize them at this juncture as well, and if so how, when and where? On a side note, I think this is a great idea, and I'll help in whatever manner possible. By the way, in terms of specific political action, there will be a demonstration against our impending conquest of Iraq on Sunday near Carnegie Mellon University at Shenway (sp?) Park, if you or likeminded individuals for Pittsburg University are interested. Hope to see you there! sincerely, Andrew Barnes Clarion Debate From: Gordon Mitchell To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Rove petition drive Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 22:09:56 -0500 Dear debaters far and wide: Debate coaches and debaters here at the University of Pittsburgh have been working on a petition to Karl Rove, chief advisor to President George W. Bush and former Olympus High School (Salt Lake City, UT) interscholastic debater. We plan to circulate the petition at CEDA Nationals and the NDT, in hopes of of gathering at least 500 signatures of current and former debaters, debate coaches and debate judges. We have polished the current draft of the petition text through several edits, and are now seeking wider input on wording, emphasis and/or style. In addition, strategy suggestions would be very useful - the current idea is that sometime after the NDT, a group of debaters make an appointment in D.C. to deliver the petition directly to Rove - this could become a media event where the points of the petition could be elucidated and amplified. The current plan is to finalize the text of the petition by this Sunday, then distribute a copy of it online so that debate teams could begin gathering signatures before leaving for CEDA Nationals if they were so moved. So here is the current draft: * * * We object to the distortion of political deliberation in the execution of the Bush Administration's foreign policy. World-wide political legitimacy for that policy can be forged only through a process of fair and honest public argument. Heavy-handed techniques of persuasion, such as utilization of financial leverage to coerce agreement, political manipulation of the intelligence classification system and reliance on deceptive evidence, are part of the Bush administration's 'win at all costs' approach to public diplomacy. This debating strategy must be reconsidered immediately, because the alienation and mistrust sown worldwide by its implementation bankrupts the world-wide political legitimacy of U.S. foreign policy, polarizes conflicts, stimulates terrorist recruitment, chills diplomacy, squanders precious tax dollars and undermines cooperative security ventures ranging from allied intelligence sharing to international peacekeeping and post-war reconstruction. * * * Clarification: this petition drive is not necessarily endorsed by individual members of the William Pitt Debating Union (WPDU), the WPDU as a whole, or the University of Pittsburgh. It is an independent project of pedagogical action research conducted by like-minded individuals. Best, Gordon _______________________________________________ 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 christopherburk Thu Mar 13 00:46:27 2003 From: christopherburk (Christopher Burk) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:46:27 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Seeking Brad Drummond Message-ID: Oh where can that charming man be? Austin? New York? If anyone knows, please have him backchannel me. Most thankful, Chris Burk UT-Dallas _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From let_the_american_empire_burn Thu Mar 13 04:12:19 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 04:12:19 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Rove petition drive Message-ID: hi gordon, i'd add to that petition, whereas in the uk, tony blair will not stop taling about his elaborate reasoning for using military force, no top-level white house officials have engaged the american people in a thorough deliberation regarding their stance on iraq. blair went on mtv, has to go before the house of commons regularly (often a mosh pit of loud-mouth criticism), got asked very difficult and elaborate questions by the house of lords committee (for like four damn hours), has answered questions from englanders of every racial and ethnic background and every creed, including iraqis and palestinians and muslims and pacificist christians and conserative isolationists and proponents of containment and anti-imperialists and so forth, and yet all we hear out of president bush are a couple nationally-televised public addresses and one quite scripted press-conference with soft-ball questions like 'do you pray that everything turns out alright?' i know you'd probably phrase this in a more rational manner than i, gordon, but it seems that if other democratic leaders have to engage in comprehendsive discussions with their people, the usa as the self-proclaimed leader of the free world should make an extra effort to make the president available to questions and to show other countries what a deliberative process looks like. instead the president calls the UN a debating society as if war were a simple knee-jerk decision that can be made with one's gut. now, poll-numbers may very well reveal majoritarian public support for military action against iraq (and that is very debatable), but one thing is certain, the American people are filled with anxiety about what's going to happen. there are massive risks of conflict-escalation considering that the coalition forces are set to invade and occupy a country that supposedly has huge stockpiles of wmds. and don't forget bush turned down an opportunity to debate saddam hussien and reach out directly to the iraqi people as to why they should see the coming war as one of liberation from a tyrant. so he sent the press secretary out to say, 'there's no debate about what saddam must do.' well then why did rumseld say that debate was crucial to getting these decisions right? and why the hell is the security council so divided? under the congressional resolution authorizing force the administration promised to consult representatives, and it just seems to me that consultation is a two-way street. bush needs to stop hiding behind all his power-talking secretaries and address some of the fears - why the double-standards regarding israeli un-violations, and will israel launch nukes against iraq if saddam hits them with chems? why aren't the kurds entitled to a state of their own, and what will be done to prevent a conflict between the turks and the kurds? why not militarize the inspections regime first? why not fund/arm opposition forces before all-out war? wasn't saddam just as evil in 1990 as he is today - why was he an ally then and an immanent threat now? why are enormous air strikes called for if the usa is serious about minimizing the deaths of innocent civilians? i could go on, but i haven't heard full answers to any of these important questions, and i'm not even a journalist whose job it is to ask these questions. i haven't even heard a wit about the usa spying on un delegates, and that's the reason chile is questioning its support (because those folks know what its like to live under dictatorial surviellance). anyway, i've go on too long, but i guess my question for the petition is why is bush not following blair's example of outspoken, straight-up debate? and don't anyone tell me its because bush is a moron and can't speak well - i'm not asking for anything erudite (he doesn't even have to know the meaning of the word erudite), i'm just asking for some honest answers to simple questions that should be dealt with before american forces are sent into harms way. good luck with the petition. .k _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From alfred.snider Thu Mar 13 09:17:16 2003 From: alfred.snider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:17:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Why change eligibility at the last minute? Message-ID: The Towson tournament originally said in their invitation that "Novice and Junior Varsity teams must meet the current ADA definition." Yesterday at 4:37 PM Beth Skinner wrote: "To clarify a question several people have posed, this is NOT an ADA sanctioned tournament and the novice and JV divisions are governed by CEDA, not ADA definitions." Why? Why change eligibility in a tournament like this at the last minute? I don't want to jump to any rash conclusions (like, somebody complained that their 4-year high school LD debaters couldn't go novice), and an explanation would certainly stop me from thinking such thoughts. Towson is always one of my favorite tournaments, and I am just left confused by this as I put eight teams into vans to drive there. 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 jwpatt00 Thu Mar 13 09:10:59 2003 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:10:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] TOC: EMORY, STANFORD, CARROLLTON, AND MONTICELLO Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 6138 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030313/3cbb57c3/attachment.bin From les_phillips98 Thu Mar 13 09:22:48 2003 From: les_phillips98 (Les Phillips) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 07:22:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] TOC: EMORY, STANFORD, CARROLLTON, AND MONTICELLO In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030313152248.18999.qmail@web10005.mail.yahoo.com> Did y'all get my certification for Lexington? Les --- "J.W. Patterson" wrote: > > >

THE ROAD TO THE THIRD TOC OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY > > > DATES: SATURDAY, SUNDAY, MONDAY > > MAY 3,4, and 5, 2003 > > >
TOURNAMENT HOTEL: RAMADA INN (FORMERLY THE HARLEY) > > >
[Visit our website at: > www.uky.edu/studentaffairs/deanofstudents/debate > >
> > IMPORTANT TOC CHANGES FOR 2003 > > > FIVE ROUNDS OF JUDGING PER TEAM OR LD ENTRY: This year we are asking > you to provide five rounds of judging for each team or LD debater. This > new practice is being done to preserve the judge preference system > without increasing the costs for guest judges or entry fees. > > > JUDGING PHILOSOPHIES MUST BE ENTERED ONLINE. We're are switching from > the old system of distributing the philosophies at the tournament to > having each judge to post their philosophy online. If a school hires a > judge, the director of debate for that school is responsible for > ensuring that this occurs. PLEASE NOTE: A one hundred dollar fine will > be levied on each school that does not comply with the posting of judge > philosophies. > > > INSTRUCTIONS FOR POSTING JUDGE PHILOSOPHIES ONLINE. > > 1. Open your web browser and visit http://www.thendca.com > > > 2. On the left hand panel, colored light green, navigate through the > Judge Philosophies link. > > > 3. In the main window, choose which division you wish to submit your > philosophy for (CX and/or LD) and navigate through the appropriate > link. > > > 4. Fill out the form on the page that appears. If you already have a > philosophy in Microsoft Word, or some other format, you can cut and > paste it into the box. Please, avoid using hard returns when typing > your philosophy, unless you are planning to separate sections as the > wrapping in the box is automatic. > > > Raaid Ahmad, Co-Webmaster of the NDCA, requests that you start sending > these immedaitalty. He says "I have finals around the weekend of TOC, > and posting/formatting these philosophies is a large time commitment > and with a huge influx of philosophies I am expecting the week before > the TOC, I believe that I may be overwhelmed. So please, for my sake, > I would appreciate it if you would submit your philosophies sooner > rather than later if you plan on judging at the TOC." > > > DISCLAIMER: THE RESULTS POSTED FROM EACH TOURNAMENT ARE ALWAYS SUBJECT > TO CHANGE IF THE TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR REPORTS THAT A MISTAKE WAS MADE IN > THE ORIGINAL CERTIFICATION. IT SHOULD ALSO BE NOTED THAT THE NAMES ARE > SPELLED AS REPORTED BY THE TOURNAMENT DIRECTOR AND ARE SUBJECT TO > CORRECTION IF A MISSPELLING HAS APPEARED. > > > 1) TOURNAMENT DIRECTORS PLEASE NOTE: WHEN CERTIFYING THE TOC QUALIFIERS > PLEASE INCLUDE FULL NAME, SCHOOL, AND STATE OF THE DEBATERS. > > > 2) COACHES AND DEBATERS PLEASE NOTE: EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY A DEBATER IN > LD OR A TEAM IN POLICY MUST ACTUALLY PARTICIPATE IN A QUALIFYING ROUND > TO RECEIVE A TOC 'BID.' IN OTHER WORDS, IF A DEBATER OR TEAM DOES NOT > DEBATE THE ROUND FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY CANNOT RECEIVE A TOC 'BID' > FOR THAT ROUND. THIS REQUIREMENT WAS OVERWHELMINGLY RECOMMENDED BY THE > TOC ADVISORY COMMITTEE . THIS RULE HAS ALREADY BEEN ENFORCED THIS > YEAR. > > > > EMORY UNIVERSITY > > > Kamal Ghali, Spokesperson for Bill Newnam and Mellissa Wade OF EMORY > UNIVERSITY,, has certified the TOC qualifiers for 2002-2003. The Emory > Barkeley Forum is an octo finals qualifing tournament for both Policy > and Lincoln Douglas. > > > LINCOLN DOUGLAS > > > David Denton Regis, NY > > Samantha Waters Cantonsville, MD > > Tyler Bexley Churchill, TX > > Bryce Adams RL Turner, TX > > Rob Weisenberger Hawken, OH > > David Liebowitz Scarsdale, NY > > Daniel Howell Hillsborough, FL > > Booth Wilson St James, AL > > Louie Sloven Valley, IA > > John McKay Menlo-Atherton, CA > > Josh Fulwiler New Orleans Jesuit, LA > > Chris Bentley Apple Valley, MN > > Kendra Oyer Wooster, OH > > Michael Collins Grapevine, TX > > Merve Emre Schreiber, TX > > Craig Stokes Valley, IA > > > POLICY > > > Elise Borochoff and Craig Kunkes Woodward,GA > > Tony Dimattio and Chirs Seddelmyer Cathedral Prep, PA > > Noel La Toure and Matt Wallace Dowling, IA > > Darren Patrick and Chris Zwick St Edwards, OH > > Michael Rosecrans and Adam Stern Glenbrook North, IL > > Nikhil Mirchandani and Geoff Miller Dupont Manual, KY > > Srivinas Akella and Jordan Pomeranz Valley, IA > > Mike Krantz and Allison McCarthy Dowling, IA > > Jonathan Zwieg and Jalan Larey Caddo Magnet, LA > > Justin Joque and Rocky Walter Portage Central, MI > > Noah Chestnut and Ed Stein Tampa Prep, FL > > Mike Gentile and Dan Luxembourg Georgetown Day, D.C. > > Jule Hoehn and Sama Barday Chattahoochee, GA > > Maggie Ahn and Saad Hussain Greenhill, TX > > Michael Burshteyn and Daniel Richards College Prep, CA > > Genna Cohen and Lauen Tanis Woodward, GA > > > CARROLLTON > > > > Chris Wheatley, spokesperson for the Peach state Classic in Carrolton, > GA., has certified the following as having qualified for one leg of the > 2002-2003 TOC. Carrollton is a finals level quaifier in Policy debate. > > > POLICY > > > Naomi Dale & Andrew Shah Woodward Academy, GA > > Blake Coram & Kevin Rabinowitz Fayette County, GA > > > > MONTICELLO > > > Rose Joyce-Turner, tournament director of the Monticello tournament, > has certified the following qualifiers for 2002-2003. Monticello is a > semifinals level qualifier in Lincoln Douglas. > > > LINCOLN DOUGLAS > > > Matt Johnston Lexington, MA > > Doug Lieb Scarsdale, NY > > David Lebowitz Scarsdale, NY > > Alexander McCobin Central York, NY > > > > STANFORD UNIVERSITY > > > Matt Frazer, tournament director , has certified the following as > having qualified for one leg of the 2002-2003 TOC. Stanford University > is a semi finals qualifier in Policy debate and a quarterfinals level > in Lincoln Douglas. > > > POLICY > > > Daniel Richards / Cameron Kistler College Prep, CA > > Chris Sun / Marat Massen College Prep, CA > > Alex Iftimie / Catherine Kim Harker, CA > > Aparna Goel / Jacob Helle Homestead, CA > > > LINCOLN DOUGLAS > > > Vikrum Alyer Mission San Jose, CA > > David Cohen La Jolla, CA > > Adam Berger College Prep, CA > > Matt Thompson Hopkins, MN > > Stephanie Bell Valley, IA > > Ben Tseng Mission San Jose, CA > > Yash Choksi Battle Ground, TN > > Fabian Thayamballi Mission San Jose, CA > > > > JW Patterson > > Tournament Director and Founder > > _______________________________________________ > 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! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com From mmk_savant Thu Mar 13 10:00:12 2003 From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:00:12 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] don't forget, don't ignore... Message-ID: http://www.msnbc.com/news/884576.asp?0cl=c3 "(Democratic Representative from Virginia Jim) Moran remarked in a church forum in Reston earlier this month, ?If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this.? His comments were more ammunition for the GOP?s contention that Democrats who oppose a war in Iraq are insufficiently concerned about Israel?s security. For the past three days, Democrats have put on a full-court press to try to limit the damage from Moran?s comments, with a parade of Democratic congressional leaders and presidential candidates denouncing the his comments. Six Jewish Democrats in the House, including Henry Waxman (Calif.), Benjamin L. Cardin (Md.) and Sander M. Levin (Mich.), yesterday called on Moran to retire in 2004, and if he runs again, ?we cannot and will not support his candidacy.? They warned that Moran?s ?inflammatory? comments ?can unleash unintended and dangerous consequences.? thanks for reading, Michael Korcok _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From jwpatt00 Thu Mar 13 09:57:00 2003 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:57:00 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] TOC: GEORGIA, LEXINGTON, WESTSIDE, AND FEDERAL WAY Message-ID: A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 5872 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030313/df85329a/attachment.bin From kendog_3 Thu Mar 13 10:24:37 2003 From: kendog_3 (kenny hanson) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:24:37 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] UNT PP or delete Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030313/d0ae199e/attachment.html From jwarlick10 Mon Mar 3 21:17:28 2003 From: jwarlick10 (Jesse W) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 22:17:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] judges needed for wacfl metrofinals Message-ID: Hi, TJHSST needs qualified judges for wacfl (in northern virginia) metrofinals on March 14th and 15th. We'd pay of course. If you can help please email me back (write to jwarlick10 at hotmail.com and not to the list) or AIM me at jwarlick10. Thanks, Jesse -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030303/3bbae79a/attachment.htm From hollands Tue Mar 4 18:48:10 2003 From: hollands (shannon holland) Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 19:48:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] sj from emporia Message-ID: <1046825290.smmsdV1.1.2@mail.arches.uga.edu> hey you-- got a question for you. . . shannon uga From edlee3 Wed Mar 5 10:21:10 2003 From: edlee3 (edward lee) Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:21:10 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] University of Alabama's Crimson Classic Oct. 17-19 Message-ID: <7A2147FE-4F26-11D7-805D-000393C43B8A@mac.com> > > As per the recommendation made at the most recent > D6/SE-SEC Regional meeting, Alabama will host the > Crimson Classic on Oct. 17-19. > > edlee > UA Debate -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 259 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030305/e0396a9f/attachment.bin From ncheesewright Wed Mar 5 13:56:16 2003 From: ncheesewright (Neil Cheesewright) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 12:56:16 -0700 Subject: [edebate] Matt Plush Rules Message-ID: In my understanding of the situation, Jonathan and Brian agreed to apologize for offending the other team, and to forfeit the round. They were denied this, and told that they had to apologize for their advocacy, and agree not to run that argument again in any chsaa tournament. Neil Cheesewright From privethedge Thu Mar 13 11:29:00 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 09:29:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] don't forget, don't ignore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030313172900.36572.qmail@web10005.mail.yahoo.com> I hear for an encore, that Moran will soon accuse members of the Jewish faith of polluting the wells of Christians, and that they use the blood Christian babies in their worship. How anyone can get up and make such an insenstive remark, like Moran, or Lott, is beyond me. But I note the abscense of criticism of those remarks from this list. However, I know if Bush said such a thing - oh boy..... Why Alexandrian Democrats keep electing the idiot is beyond me. I mean, this is guy whose engaged now in anti-semitism, has beat up an 8 year old child because he was "Going to steal my car," and has taken bribes. 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." "France said this week they need more evidence to convince them Saddam is a threat. Yeah, last time France asked for more evidence it came rolling thru Paris with a German Flag on it." David Letterman --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030313/2987c3a3/attachment.htm From wnewnam Thu Mar 13 11:34:12 2003 From: wnewnam (Bill Newnam) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 12:34:12 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NDT "registrations" References: <3E65027D.1ADC19F@emory.edu> <3E6650A8.1A1BC51B@emory.edu> <3E680E97.AAE98588@emory.edu> Message-ID: <3E70C114.5E35B81A@emory.edu> Sorry I have not posted an update recently. Just recovered from novie nats, I am catching up on email now. Here is the updated list of entries received: (If you are not on here, please reply and send me your "team-coach data form." Thanks, bill n emory Bill Newnam wrote: > And counting: > > Bill Newnam wrote: > > >Boston College (BS&SS) California State University-Long Beach (HP_ > > > >Concordia College Cornell University (DK) > > > > Dartmouth (LT/ST) > Eastern New Mexico University (SW) Emporia State University (RC,MS) George Washington University (BB_ > > > Georgetown University (VN) > Gonzaga University (HW & LS) > > > Harvard University > Idaho State University (DH) > > James Madison University (LM) > Kansas State University (NS) > Mercer University (TW,BC) > Miami University-OH (SB) > > > Michigan (OF) Michigan State University (SS,MS,HV) New York University (GG) > Northwestern University (GM, GL, BC) > > > Pepperdine (OH) Regis University (CG) > > > > Samford University (PR) Southern Illinois > > State University of West Georgia (ET) > > University of Alabama University of Florida (BW) University of Iowa (LN) University of Kentucky (BW & SH) > > > > University of Northern Iowa (JL:) > > University of > > > University of Pittsburgh (JT) > > > University of Redlands (AS) > > > University of Richmond (MS) University of Rochester (VW) University of Southern California (WS & FT) > > > University of Texas > Weber State University (SR) > Whitman College > > > > > > > Look forward to seeing your smiling faces in Atlanta, > > > > > > bill n > > > emory > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 aogletree Thu Mar 13 12:25:29 2003 From: aogletree (Aaron Ogletree) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 18:25:29 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Rove petition drive Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030313/17de97b5/attachment.html From jrollins Thu Mar 13 12:39:44 2003 From: jrollins (Joel D. Rollins) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 12:39:44 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] becca or patrick from wfu or delete Message-ID: hey, can you send me the outline of your 1ac, your plan and the cites (including page numbers)? thanks, joel From stephenheidt Thu Mar 13 12:50:16 2003 From: stephenheidt (Stephen Heidt) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:50:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] don't forget, don't ignore... Message-ID: You said: How anyone can get up and make such an insenstive remark, like Moran, or Lott, is beyond me. But I note the abscense of criticism of those remarks from this list. However, I know if Bush said such a thing - oh boy..... Why Alexandrian Democrats keep electing the idiot is beyond me. I mean, this is guy whose engaged now in anti-semitism, has beat up an 8 year old child because he was "Going to steal my car," and has taken bribes. Duane I say: It's Arlington, not Alexandria. And this isn't really a national story because Moran isn't a national figure (i.e. Not the President or the Speaker of the House or anything) and most people on the list are just hearing about this story, if at all. You can't for 1 second think that the "liberals" on this list are ignoring this because they're biases are so strong that they will always support the Democrats (especially since most, if not all of the so called "liberals" support the Greens, not the Donkeys). He keeps getting elected because it's a Democratic District, the Democrats usually don't put up significant "in-party" challenges, and the GOP is notorious for putting on "show" challenges. For evidence of that, see last election. GOPer was a 40ish businessman (multi-millionare) who really had no political experience aside from a short term position on a county board (which was really just a resume builder) and had no platform to oppose Moran on. Moran's staff is also exceptionally adept at dealing with Constituent issues in a timely fashion, which keeps people happy. That being said, it's being reported in the Post today that the Dems will put up a huge fight in his District next time around, and with luck, the guy will be gone. Maybe he can join Bob Barr down in Georgia and they can have a sing-a-long about all of the vast conspiracies that run our nation because if it's not the Jews, it sho' is the liberals. I did live in his District during the last election and chose not to vote because: A) he was going to win anyway and B) there were no candidates that I wanted to see elected. Oh - and it wasn't a "bribe". Bribes are illegal. It was a "loan" from a person who was lobbying him at the time. Definately unethical, but not illegal. Don't know anything about the 8-year old thing. And if you want to see Anti-Semitism, check out Pat Buchanan's article on this in his new journal Conservative America. He makes Moran look like a card carrying member AIPAC. Stephen PS - None of this should be sign of support for Moran or the Bushies or the coming unjustified war against Iraq, and especially not of Karl Rove who i would like to get into a debate round with his 10 boxes of blank notecards and my Containment Good 1NC and Smart Sanctions CP. Cover this, yo. (Hey, everybody else gets disclaimers, so should I?) _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From wnewnam Thu Mar 13 13:04:24 2003 From: wnewnam (Bill Newnam) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:04:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NDT "registrations" References: <3E65027D.1ADC19F@emory.edu> <3E6650A8.1A1BC51B@emory.edu> <3E680E97.AAE98588@emory.edu> <3E70C114.5E35B81A@emory.edu> Message-ID: <3E70D638.E209F995@emory.edu> I added Catholic and Georgia since the last post. My rough count tells me 53 of 78. Thats pretty good, but keep those cards and letters coming folks! bill n emory Bill Newnam wrote: > Sorry I have not posted an update recently. > > Just recovered from novie nats, I am catching up on email now. > > Here is the updated list of entries received: > > (If you are not on here, please reply and send me your "team-coach data > form.") > > Thanks, > > bill n > emory > > Bill Newnam wrote: > > > And counting: > > > > Bill Newnam wrote: > > > > >Boston College (BS&SS) > > California State University-Long Beach (HP_ > Catholic University of America (PD & SW) > > > > > >Concordia College > > Cornell University (DK) > > > > > > > Dartmouth (LT/ST) > > Eastern New Mexico University (SW) > > Emporia State University (RC,MS) > George Washington University (BB_ > > > > > Georgetown University (VN) > > > > Gonzaga University (HW & LS) > > > > > > Harvard University > > Idaho State University (DH) > > > James Madison University (LM) > > Kansas State University (NS) > > > Mercer University (TW,BC) > > > Miami University-OH (SB) > > > > Michigan (OF) > > Michigan State University (SS,MS,HV) > New York University (GG) > > > Northwestern University (GM, GL, BC) > > > > Pepperdine (OH) > > Regis University (CG) > > > > > > > Samford University (PR) > > Southern Illinois > > > > State University of West Georgia (ET) > > > University of Alabama > > University of Florida (BW) > University of Georgia (CK, KW,NP)* (unless Adams withdraws them at the > last minute--but since he had nothing to do with hiring Panetta or > enrolling Naveen, maybe not) > University of Iowa (LN) > University of Kentucky (BW & SH) > > > > > > > University of Northern Iowa (JL:) > > > > > University of Pittsburgh (JT) > > > > University of Redlands (AS) > > > > University of Richmond (MS) > > University of Rochester (VW) > University of Southern California (WS & FT) > > > > > > University of Texas > > Weber State University (SR) > > Whitman College > > > > > > > > > > Look forward to seeing your smiling faces in Atlanta, > > > > > > > > bill n > > > > emory > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From privethedge Thu Mar 13 13:05:48 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:05:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] don't forget, don't ignore... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030313190548.77077.qmail@web10002.mail.yahoo.com> HI, Actually, the Virginia 8th covers Arlington and Alexandria...Moran's office is in Alexandria, and I believe that's where he lives as well. That said - your points are well taken.....I was just surprised not to see a howl and cry against his words..that's all. 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." "France said this week they need more evidence to convince them Saddam is a threat. Yeah, last time France asked for more evidence it came rolling thru Paris with a German Flag on it." David Letterman --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030313/9b87a7fd/attachment.htm From privethedge Thu Mar 13 13:07:38 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 11:07:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] don't forget, don't ignore... In-Reply-To: <20030313190548.77077.qmail@web10002.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20030313190738.18597.qmail@web10006.mail.yahoo.com> This is the incident I was referring to when Moran bravely stopped an 8 year old from jacking his car....Boy's mother files physical assault complaint against Moran Boy's mother challenges Moran By IVAN SCIUPAC Journal staff writer The mother of an 8-year-old Alexandria boy yesterday challenged U.S. Rep. James Moran to take a lie-detector test to back up his charge that her son tried to carjack him last Friday outside a city recreation center. Melanie Gaitwood, at a news conference in the Washington, D.C., office of her lawyer, insisted the child is telling the truth and accused Moran, D-8th, of assaulting her son without provocation when the boy told the congressman he admired the legislator's auto. Gaitwood's attorney, Ted J. Williams, said Moran displayed ``a plantation mentality" in his handling of the incident, in which the boy's parents contend Moran grabbed the boy by the neck and cursed at him. The boy, a second-grade honor pupil at Alexandria's Cora Kelly Magnet School, is telling the truth, they said. ``There are people who are afraid of a young black kid when they approach him,'' Williams said. ``It is terribly unreasonable [to allege] that this child was attempting to rob this congressman.'' Gaitwood, 29, filed an official complaint with an Alexandria magistrate Monday, accusing Moran of physically assaulting her son. Yesterday, she said her son, Michael Green, loves cars and merely was admiring Moran's black 1999 Toyota Avalon when he approached the congressman in the parking lot of the Cora Kelly Recreation Center. ``[Moran] had no reason whatsoever to ever put his hands on Michael,'' she said. According to police, Moran told them he was in the center's parking lot last Friday afternoon to pick up his two children when Michael approached him and said he wanted the keys to his car. Moran said the boy pointed to his hand inside his pants pocket and claimed he had a gun, according to police. Moran told police held his keys out and, as the boy reached for them, he grabbed his arm, picked him up and took him into the center, where police were called. No weapon was found. Moran told The Journal Wednesday that, while he was in the center, Michael told him he learned to act like a thief from his stepfather and then began to sob uncontrollably. Gaitwood then arrived at the center, Moran said, and began to yell obscenities at him. Williams yesterday did not dispute Gaitwood had used profanity, but he insisted she did so only after Moran noticed her boyfriend, who had accompanied her to the center, is white and then said, ``No wonder the child is messed up. Look at his parents." Moran, 54, is in his fifth term on Capitol Hill after serving as Alexandria mayor. His congressional district covers Alexandria, Arlington and a part of southeastern Fairfax County. Initially, Moran said he did not intend to press charges against the boy, but he reconsidered this week after he learned the boy's parents had filed the complaint. The magistrate has yet to issue a finding in the case. Paul Reagan, Moran's Capitol Hill chief of staff, said yesterday the congressman would not take the lie-detector test because he refused ``to do anything that could contribute to a circus atmosphere." In a prepared statement, Moran said the ``whole situation was sad and not something I was angry about," but the ``circus-like atmosphere" had been created by Williams and the boy's parents. ``Sadly, their actions are contrary to the child's interests,'' Moran's statement reads. On Wednesday, Moran said that, when Michael approached him last Friday, the boy said he had a gun and wanted his car keys. Moran said he asked the boy if he was serious, and Michael insisted he wanted the keys and knew how to use the gun. But Williams said yesterday that Gaitwood asked her son about the incident and he told her he had noticed Moran's car and said, ``That's a nice car you have there." At the time, Williams said, Michael had a baby bottle-shaped candy container protruding from his pocket. Williams said Moran then asked the boy, ``What did you say, what did you say?" before picking him up and, cursing, carrying him into the center. ``We believe this was an assault, battery, and certainly false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress,'' Williams said, adding that a lawsuit might be brought against Moran. Williams also said his office received two anonymous telephone calls from persons saying Moran had been drinking before the incident. Moran called the charge false and said he had taped MSNBC's ``Hardball" interview program immediately before the incident and had ``opened a Little League [game]" shortly afterward. During yesterday's 45-minute press conference, Gaitwood said her son is a shy boy who excels in his classes. She presented his report card and certificates he has received at the school. When asked about Green's emotional condition, Gaitwood said: ``Michael's doing OK. He's asking a lot of questions but he's a smart kid. I tell him, `You didn't do anything wrong,' and he has no problem with telling the truth." Alexandria police said yesterday the investigation is continuing and that they want to interview Michael but have been denied access by his parents. Gaitwood said yesterday that police already had questioned Michael for 45 minutes right after the incident. She said Michael later told her ``they grilled him very hard." ``It was like they were trying to make him say he had something in his pocket or he had a gun," she said. Williams accused the police department of giving Moran preferential treatment. ``It is clear something is wrong here, and we are concerned about the power of the congressman and what effect it can have on this child's future,'' he said. Amy Bertsch, an Alexandria police spokeswoman, said she could only provide information about the case and would not address the allegations. Bertsch said police still want to speak with Michael. ``He can tell us, in his own words, what happened, especially if his parents are saying he was the victim,'' she said. ``Based on the information we have, we have one person who has come to the police and said, `I'm the victim of a robbery.''' Arnold Green, Michael's grandfather, said yesterday that the boy has not changed his story since the incident occurred and that he would never do what has been alleged for fear of punishment. ``He's scared of his mother spanking his butt, so Michael definitely didn't tell him he wanted his car,'' Green said. ``How can an 8-year-old intimidate [Moran]?'' Green said Michael has liked cars since he was 2 years old, when he could tell the make and model of any car he saw on the road. Michael is a good student who likes to play basketball and with his train set, he said. When asked if it were possible Michael was pretending to rob Moran when he approached him, Green said: ``The guy's kind of shy, so why would he walk up and play with someone he didn't know?" --------------------------------- "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." "France said this week they need more evidence to convince them Saddam is a threat. Yeah, last time France asked for more evidence it came rolling thru Paris with a German Flag on it." David Letterman --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030313/85bb4ae3/attachment.html From gedmem2 Thu Mar 13 13:33:22 2003 From: gedmem2 (elizabeth gedmark) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:33:22 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] nov nats lost workbook Message-ID: <3E70DD01.E04B6DF5@wfu.edu> Did anyone find a Bio lab workbook at Novice Nats? It was in the room where Northwestern was debating Wake in semis, finals might have happened there too. It was white and had the word "biology" somewhere on its cover. Elizabeth Gedmark Wake debate 06 From wnewnam Thu Mar 13 13:46:07 2003 From: wnewnam (Bill Newnam) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 14:46:07 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Bill's BAD LIST Message-ID: <3E70DFFE.A040EB3C@emory.edu> Hi folks, Just received Fort Hays, But I have not received team coach data forms from the following: District One CalStateChico CalStae Fullerton UC Berkeley District Two is Complete-go TWO District Three Southwest Missouri State University of Kansas (sonder if Parson got his copy yet) University of Missouri Kansas City University of North Texas District Four is Complete TOO District Five Loyola Chicago Wayne State University District Six Emory University (HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN?) Wake Forest University District Seven George Mason District Eight Dartmouth BS District Nine Complete I think. I never saw a list of qualifiers from this district, but I have received the following: Idaho State, ENMU, Regis, WEBER. Help me out here, folks. I Love you, bill n emory From gvinedebate Thu Mar 13 16:15:29 2003 From: gvinedebate (Jane Boyd) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 16:15:29 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Tommy Lindsey on Oprah Message-ID: <000a01c2e9ae$0ebf6200$65169384@scott> I was just watching the Oprah "Angel Network" Show. The very first angel that she featured was Tommy Lindsey from James Logan HS. She does a great job honoring him and talking about the benefits of Forensics. If you are west of here you might be able to catch it this afternoon. She also gave him a check for $100,000 for his program! Dallas area - this shows again at midnight. Congratulations to Tommy Lindsey for the great PR he gets and does for the PR he gives US> Jane Boyd Vice President - NDCA -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030313/44f7559d/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson Thu Mar 13 17:00:46 2003 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary N. Larson) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 17:00:46 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Towson prefs Message-ID: <002301c2e9b4$61f05280$100c18ac@bl2471> WARNING! The deadline for submitting online prefs is NOON tomorrow EST - if you want prefs to count Rds 1-2. After noon, you will have to submit them manually at Towson. We still need prefs from: CSU Long Beach Case Western Cornell (partial) John Carroll Louisville NY Coalition (partial) Santa Clara Southwest Texas (no one has requested password) USMA Miami FL Vanderbilt (no one has requested password) Catholic Capital (partial) Marist Rochester (partial) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030313/69e5567b/attachment.html From cchampa Thu Mar 13 18:08:59 2003 From: cchampa (Clayton S. Champagne) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 18:08:59 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Chuck from SIU or delete Message-ID: <01a201c2e9bd$e9f0d340$2c2a7e93@clay> Hey Chuck... Was wondering if I could get the cite for the little object A argument that you were talking about in Round 6 at Novi Nats. Thanks. Clayton Champagne Loyola Debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030313/67841ad7/attachment.htm From Ceda2vp Thu Mar 13 18:13:34 2003 From: Ceda2vp (Ceda2vp at cs.com) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 19:13:34 EST Subject: [eDebate] One Last Chance to Share Your Debate Passion Message-ID: **Tie CEDA points to regional participation **Add a novice and jv division to CEDA Nationals **Hold more parties or outside activities during tournament weekends **Ban CEDA points altogether **Make CEDA Memberships Meaningful to those who don't attend CEDA Nationals or care about Sweepstakes points. **Add Interactive Polls to the CEDA Website **Present a weekly e-newsletter More than 100 surveys have already been submitted from debate alumni, students, college coaches, assistant coaches, interested high school parties and others! The energy and ideas would be enough to excite the biggest cynic about what we can do when we focus on change. Don't just whine. This is your chance to make a real difference. Be honest. Be brief. We've gotten an interesting cross-section of controversial, sometimes visionary ideas but we probably don't have yours. Some have been stated before in other contexts, while others are being voiced for the first time. If you are a new novice, seasoned director or embittered advocate of change who perceives the organization to be in stagnation, take five minutes and respond. IT'S ONLY SEVEN QUESTIONS and we've made it possible to respond by e-mail, fax or toll-free phone call. There is no excuse for not being involved if you care about the direction of debate. The deadline for new survey submissions is March 18th. If you are directing a tournament this weekend, please provide copies of the surveys (shown below) at your registration and ballot table. If you have collected surveys and will be attending Towson, CEDA Nationals, or the NDT please return them directly to Will Baker on Friday or Sunday. If you are not, please make them to CEDA Surveys c/o IMPACT Coalition 330 West 42nd Street Suite 2420 NY, NY 10036. CEDA PASSION SURVEY 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 tshuman Thu Mar 13 21:01:25 2003 From: tshuman (Terrance Shuman) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 21:01:25 -0600 Subject: [edebate] Matt Plush Rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030313203710.00a230e0@mail.magiccablepc.com> At 12:56 PM 3/5/2003 -0700, Neil Cheesewright wrote: >In my understanding of the situation, Jonathan and Brian agreed to >apologize for offending the other team, and to forfeit the round. That is correct. According to Plush's own account of the events, they offered to apologize for offending the Skyline debaters and for delaying the tournament. At least one member of the ad hoc committee described that as "a workable solution." This person went on to tell me that "The team would have been allowed to continue in the tournament, and given their prowess as debaters, probably would have qualified for State." It is worth bearing in mind, however, that by the time this compromise was suggested, the Poudre debaters had already refused to apologize at least twice. >They were denied this, and told that they had to apologize for their >advocacy, and agree not to run that argument again in any chsaa tournament. This is NOT correct. The condition was that they agree not to engage in the BEHAVIOR they exhibited in the round vs. Skyline (including, presumably, the "performative" aspects of their presentation). It was this stipulation to which they refused to agree. They were never told at any point that they couldn't run those ARGUMENTS anymore. In other words, the compromise failed because they didn't just want to run their Nietzsche cards; it failed because they wanted to be able to sing, dance, scream, and play-act the Sisyphus thing. 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 sstopp Thu Mar 13 22:52:05 2003 From: sstopp (Sarah Suzanne Topp) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 22:52:05 -0600 (CST) Subject: [eDebate] Cord RT Needs Your Help at CEDA! In-Reply-To: <176.17080e04.2ba16c8c@aol.com> Message-ID: 1) Is any one flying into the Phoenix airport Thursday March 20 around 10AM or really any time before 2 or 3? If so, could Nikki and I hitch a ride to the tournament hotel? 2) We also need a rides between the tournament hotel and campus. If you can help with either, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE let me know. Thanks, Sarah Suzanne Topp Concordia College Moorhead, MN 56562 218.287.0171 `~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~ Happiness isn't happiness without a violin-playing goat. William Thacker on Notting Hill ~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~` From sstopp Thu Mar 13 23:01:56 2003 From: sstopp (Sarah Suzanne Topp) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 23:01:56 -0600 (CST) Subject: [eDebate] Hire Harry Niska for the NDT Message-ID: Harry Niska is available to be hired for 4 rounds of NDT judging. If you are interested, e-mail him at hnniska at hotmail.com. I think he is looking for best offer. Sarah Suzanne Topp Concordia College Moorhead, MN 56562 218.287.0171 `~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~ Happiness isn't happiness without a violin-playing goat. William Thacker on Notting Hill ~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~`~` From let_the_american_empire_burn Thu Mar 13 23:50:15 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 23:50:15 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Rove petition drive Message-ID: i must respectfully disagree with ogletree's analysis of the media in this context. i've read 'manufacturing consent' too and i understand the inherent limitations of a corporate dominated media-system, but i still don't think the jobs of reporters would be threatened if they asked those difficult questions in my last post. i don't think one can blame 'censorship' when the real issue is just a lack of focus/vision - the reasons that difficult questions, including elementary historical matters, aren't asked/resolved is much more subtle than the simplistic threat of being canned. (i keep mentioning her name, but Pamela Hess over at UPI always asks tough questions, and i think that's precisely the reason there's not a pentagon press briefing that goes by where she isn't called on - because Rumsfeld knows it helps *his* credibility if he faces the music. she's asked things like (paraphrasing), will the kurds who fight for their own state be considered traitors? (which Donny responded to with a definite yes), and why should americans trust that their government has intelligence reports that they're unwilling to disclose?, and why hasn't anything been found if usa intelligence is valid, and why haven't european allies concurred if they've seen this alleged intelligence (which if i'm not mistaken, elicited the 'old europe' Rumsfeld-ism), and so on. she can be contacted directly through united press international, and she's even responded to e-mails i've sent her about double-standards in regards to israel with a polite, 'i'll see what i can do'. her job is not under threat, and although she's hardly a house-hold name, her credibility is in fact strengthened because of the rigor she takes in asking her questions. (i also like the guy who works for Bloomberg news in the pentagon press conferences.)) anyway, i'd just say that there are more naunced discrusive factors that go into making the media so abysmal in this country. if fucking Dan fucking Rather can't even grill a fucking dictator when given the fucking opportunity, its no wonder that this administration has such an easy time selling a war ('uh, yes, Mr. Hussien, is there anything you would like to tell the American people? ... actually, i don't even have to ask questions, you just go ahead and talk about whatever you like for a couple hours, okay? ... yeah, we'll just insert the questions later, along with an arabic-sounding translator from hollywood'). if European news-junkies had to live under the American propaganda-system for a week, they'd kicked their habit, go on Prozac, and never miss an episode of American Idol. .k _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Aaron Ogletree" Subject: Re: [eDebate] Rove petition drive Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 18:25:29 +0000 Size: 9417 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030313/93d5153b/attachment.mht From Gary.N.Larson Fri Mar 14 07:46:30 2003 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary N. Larson) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 07:46:30 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] RE: Towson prefs Message-ID: <000001c2ea30$1e37ac10$100c18ac@bl2471> WARNING! Last Call The deadline for submitting online prefs is NOON today EST - if you want prefs to count Rds 1-2. After noon, you will have to submit them manually at Towson. We still need prefs from: CSU Long Beach Case Western Cornell (partial) John Carroll Santa Clara Southwest Texas (no one has requested password) USMA Vanderbilt (no one has requested password) Capital (partial) Rochester NO -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030314/50c0e69c/attachment.htm From Debater351 Fri Mar 14 10:03:58 2003 From: Debater351 (Debater351 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:03:58 EST Subject: [eDebate] NDT Judge for hire Message-ID: <10d.215c94d2.2ba3576e@aol.com> anybody who needs four rounds of judging at the NDT covered can email me about potential arrangements. I don't require transportation or housing. Christopher DeVault From aogletree Fri Mar 14 11:09:29 2003 From: aogletree (Aaron Ogletree) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:09:29 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Home Grown Terrorism Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030314/dbd86991/attachment.html From wnewnam Fri Mar 14 11:59:06 2003 From: wnewnam (Bill Newnam) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:59:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Bill's BAD LIST References: <3E70DFFE.A040EB3C@emory.edu> Message-ID: <3E72186A.8A8850FC@emory.edu> I am very close to having all of your information and I truly appreciate the prompt replies that I have received. I am still missing information from the following programs and I know you and your students and judges would love to see their names printed as participants at the NDT. So please, please, help me out here folks. We are close really close. We are only missing 14 out of 78 teams. That is pretty darn good, I figure, but lets finish this off. My printer is waiting FOR YOU: > CalStateChico > > CalState Fullerton (Go Jon Brushke, or is it John Bruschke, or Brush Key, > see, I need accurate information or y'all are going to get mad at me for > misspelling your names) > > UC Berkeley (Come on Arnett, great judge that you are, I don't think you > can cover 36 rounds by yourself.) > > Southwest Missouri State (Last year's host should Know better!) > > University of Kansas (I know its big twelve tournament time, but really > how far can KU go just because Harris is watching?) > > University of Missouri Kansas City (alright, I'll cut the second rounds > some slack) > > University of North Texas (Brian Lain, my dear friend, help me out > here--we are excited to see you back in Hotlanta, and I would love to > announce it to the world!) > > Loyola Chicago(only missing judges-but I understand) > > Wayne State University (Another prior host knows this is important) > > George Mason (Another Second round but I expect more out of rule-bound > D7!) Dartmouth BS--(A third team second round bid. Please send me student names and your addditional judges.) Looking forward to seeing you all soon. bill n emory > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From jwpatt00 Fri Mar 14 12:26:06 2003 From: jwpatt00 (J.W. Patterson) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:26:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] TOC: Houston Memorial Message-ID: HOUSTON MEMORIAL (All complete except Princeton and part of Harvard Policy) Michael Scates, director of the Houston Memorial tournament, has certified the TOC quals for 2003. Memorial is a TOC qualifier in both policy and LD at the finals level. POLICY Clemens- Chris Thiele / Rex Douglas (TX) Clear Lake- Kuntal Cholera / David Qaio (TX) LD Churchill- Paul Shiano (TX) Dulles- Jim Varguese (TX) Chris Kiniry**(TX) Sincerely, JW Patterson From let_the_american_empire_burn Fri Mar 14 12:33:47 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 12:33:47 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] don't forget, don't ignore... Message-ID: ah, Korcok plays the anti-semitism card again, how original and refreshing. Moran apologized for his comments, of course, as they were misdirected at the entire Jewish community (many of whom are quite anti-war) instead of the Israeli lobby proper. and i don't think he's correct either: Syria/Lebanon and Iran would probably be first on the Israeli target-list - but we can expect the Irsaeli military forces operating in the occupied territories to utilize the fog of an war on Iraq to do some brutal shit, i.e. 'population transfers'/'ethnic cleansing'. nice to see conservatives have gotten so skilled at playing the P.C. game - exhibit A: 'Trent Lott said what? Well, then he ain't Senate Majority leader no more!'; exhibit B: 'A show about Hillbillies? Why that's bigotry!' still, MOABs speak louder than politically-correct language. and the scheduled ariel bombardment of major population-centers indicates (yet again) that this country hasn't learned the moral lessons of WWII and its holocausts on Dresden and Hiroshima. .k _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From govnt_man Fri Mar 14 12:55:09 2003 From: govnt_man (The Drake) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:55:09 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] SHAWN WHALEN Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030314/609a5c7c/attachment.htm From SSbauschard2 Fri Mar 14 14:02:25 2003 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 15:02:25 EST Subject: [eDebate] Energy Policy Topic Paper Online Message-ID: <190.172ea0a3.2ba38f51@aol.com> JP Lacy's Energy Policy topic paper is now online at the home page of Planet Debate. This is, I believe, the final topic paper. Stefan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030314/972321a3/attachment.html From GQDB8R Fri Mar 14 18:11:49 2003 From: GQDB8R (GQDB8R at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:11:49 EST Subject: [eDebate] HIGHSCHOOL JOB OPENING IN MIAMI FLORIDA Message-ID: Carrollton Sacred Heart in Miami is looking for someone interested in taking over its program. No teaching certificate required. You will have to teach. Pay isnt bad. We travel Nationally and have always had teams in contention for the TOC. We have a few apps in now, would like some more. WOMYN ENCOURAGED TO APPLY. Men you suck, all girl school looking to keep it that way. thanks Alex Acosta Asst.Coach Carrollton Sacred Heart -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030314/752c1809/attachment.htm From pem6751 Fri Mar 14 22:35:41 2003 From: pem6751 (Paul Mabrey III) Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 22:35:41 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] chirs burk Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030314/437877bd/attachment.html From tmor103178 Sat Mar 15 01:29:37 2003 From: tmor103178 (Tristan Morales) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 01:29:37 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] The best argument against war? Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030315/a4990de0/attachment.htm From debatekorea Sat Mar 15 07:51:42 2003 From: debatekorea (Jason Jarvis) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 08:51:42 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The best argument against war? Message-ID: Actually, the best argument I have seen against war was the visual argument I saw today. At the anti Iraq war protests in Seoul today were an extremely large number of young children. I managed to get a photo (black and white) that captured the moment: a young korean girl, maybe 5 years old, waving a paper dove with the words "no war" on it. Another was the 3 year old at the candlelite vigil sitting on his/her fathers shoulders waving a candle. if anyone is interested in pictures from the protest here backchannel me, OH, and I have a question: how much has the US press covered the Koza memo and the fabricated evidence that Powell used to make the claim that Iraq had a nuclear program? Is this information considered too "unpatriotic" to be a headline, or is there balance enough in the US press to be honest about the pr disasters that have crushed any hope for european support of the war? 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: "Tristan Morales" To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] The best argument against war? Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 01:29:37 -0600 _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Tristan Morales" Subject: [eDebate] The best argument against war? Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 01:29:37 -0600 Size: 10614 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030315/208392f3/attachment.mht From spmancuso Sat Mar 15 09:10:06 2003 From: spmancuso (Steve Mancuso) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 10:10:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Topic Ballot 2003-2004 Message-ID: <3E73424E.1010405@aol.com> The topic committee has completed its work on the 2003-2004 topic area ballot. The five topic areas are: Energy Policy Health Care Immigration Middle East US-European Relations The relevant area and wording papers are posted at Planet Debate. The ballot will be mailed out this week. Schools have 30 days to vote their preferences from this list. Members of the committee will conduct open meetings (students and coaches) at CEDA nationals and the NDT. If you have any questions, suggestions or other input regarding these five areas, or the process itself we hope you attend. I want to thank those people who have helped us to this stage. Eric Slusher, Biza Repko, Colin Kahl, Heather Walters, and Martin Harris wrote lengthy topic area papers. JP Lacy composed a short-notice wording paper for Energy Policy. Andrew Barnes helped me with aspects of the US-Europe topic paper. The committee could not function effectively without volunteers such as these. Stefan Bauschard and Will Repko, committee members, also wrote topic papers. If you wish to contact a member of the committee directly the list of members is: Stefan Bauschard, Dave Hingstman, Chris Losenegard, Will Repko, ML Sandoz, Kristina Schriver, Ross Smith, Shawn Whalen and myself. Steve Mancuso Chair From dbteam Sun Mar 16 10:39:20 2003 From: dbteam (dbteam) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 11:39:20 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Adrienne Brovero please Message-ID: <3E71C985@cliff.westga.edu> UWG needs a receipt from Novi Nats. please fax us another copy. 770-836-4666. just send it Michael Hester thanks From swhalen Sat Mar 15 11:10:44 2003 From: swhalen (Shawn Whalen) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 09:10:44 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Nationals Contact Info Message-ID: <3E735E94.5070401@sfsu.edu> Just a heads up that I am leaving for Tempe today and will not be reachable at the San Francisco numbers. If you have entry changes or need to contact me for another reason you can reach me at the Sheraton Phoenix Airport Hotel at (480) 967-6600. You can also try my cell at (415) 794-6145. Wishing you all safe and pleasant travel and I look forward to seeing you all in Tempe, Shawn From gsudebate Sat Mar 15 13:58:55 2003 From: gsudebate (Joe Bellon) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 14:58:55 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] We need to hire 4 rounds for CEDA Message-ID: <8D9C2CEB-5720-11D7-9132-00039364CA48@mindspring.com> GSU would like to hire someone to take 4 rounds of our judging commitment at CEDA. Please contact me at this address. -Joe Bellon From chrisschroeck Sat Mar 15 17:06:18 2003 From: chrisschroeck (Chris Schroeck) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 23:06:18 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] The best argument against war? Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030315/58aa41bd/attachment.htm From jmartin Sat Mar 15 17:32:07 2003 From: jmartin (Josh Martin) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 15:32:07 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] New LPW Message-ID: <20030315233207.WGDD28779.imta02a2.registeredsite.com@smtp.registeredsite.com> Hey -- a new edition of Low Point Win is up at: http://www.lowpointwin.com Note that's a new address, so you might have to change your bookmarks or something. Thanks to all the folks who helped out and the staff, etc.. Have a nice week, Josh Martin From cgkst10+ Sat Mar 15 21:46:48 2003 From: cgkst10+ (Cynthia G Kinnan) Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 22:46:48 -0500 (EST) Subject: [eDebate] Richmond Please Message-ID: Hello, Could someone from Richmond who is involved with the public debate at JMU next week please backchannel me? Thank you, Cynthia Kinnan University of Pittsburgh From cheodekirk Sat Mar 15 22:48:49 2003 From: cheodekirk (Scott Odekirk) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 04:48:49 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Looking For Doug Dennis Message-ID: Hey man. Backchannel me... don't hate. Odie _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From tshuman Sun Mar 16 12:40:24 2003 From: tshuman (Terrance Shuman) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:40:24 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Job Openings Update Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030316123939.00a298d0@mail.magiccablepc.com> It has been several weeks since I posted the original 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, Florida, Georgia, Nebraska, Arkansas, Minnesota, Louisiana, Washington (state), Oregon, Indiana, and Alabama have been posted, and the thread has been viewed nearly 3,600 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030316/f4feae8f/attachment.html From gsudebate Sun Mar 16 14:43:51 2003 From: gsudebate (Joe Bellon) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 15:43:51 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] GSU Has found a judge Message-ID: Thanks to those of you who sent in offers, but James Herndon wins the first-come-first-served lottery. Again, our thanks, -Joe Bellon From GatorDebate Sun Mar 16 16:53:42 2003 From: GatorDebate (GatorDebate at aol.com) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 17:53:42 EST Subject: [eDebate] Need 2 for golf at CEDA Nats Message-ID: <147.d13723a.2ba65a76@aol.com> Greetings, Monte Stevens and I are looking for two more folks interested in playing golf at CEDA Nats. We have an 8:38 tee time on Thursday morning. Backchannel if you are interested. frank gator debate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030316/5d3c151d/attachment.htm From sharris Sun Mar 16 18:59:00 2003 From: sharris (Harris, Scott L) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 18:59:00 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Third teams at NDT Message-ID: <06EB4CB0225B3F498418311D9D6A28AA01FF1DF1@bluebird.mail.ku.edu> Its my understanding that the NDT commitee tabled the 3rd team issue to determine whether or not any schools are being denied the opportunity to attend with a first team while 6 schools get a third team. This year's second rounds seems to provide an answer. At least two schools who met the 50% requirement to apply for second rounds (both of whom recently did tremendous service to the community by hosting the NDT--Liberty and Baylor) will not be competing at the NDT while 6 schools have a third team. I think the system is broke. From kkuswa Sun Mar 16 19:04:35 2003 From: kkuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:04:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Third teams at NDT Message-ID: <3E4F5B65@webmail.richmond.edu> getting 6 more spots does not solve (much) although I support it. d7 talked about an interesting proposal to go to 1 team per school and reduce the size of the tournament to 64. the time is GONE when we were trying to fill the NDT. oh, much thanks to beth, chris, and the towson squad for a great jv/novi nats. kevin >===== Original Message From "Harris, Scott L" ===== >Its my understanding that the NDT commitee tabled the 3rd team issue to >determine whether or not any schools are being denied the opportunity to >attend with a first team while 6 schools get a third team. > >This year's second rounds seems to provide an answer. At least two schools >who met the 50% requirement to apply for second rounds (both of whom >recently did tremendous service to the community by hosting the NDT--Liberty >and Baylor) will not be competing at the NDT while 6 schools have a third >team. I think the system is broke. > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From jackattack7 Sun Mar 16 19:08:34 2003 From: jackattack7 (jackattack7) Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:08:34 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Than price of a buying some slut a drink at Message-ID: <20030317010831.ICFM28142.mta03.fuse.net@Fgvlr> This message has been processed by the Brightmail(tm) Anti-Virus Solution using Symantec's Norton AntiVirus Technology. 15 was infected with the malicious virus W32.Klez.H at mm and has been deleted because the file cannot be cleaned. For more information on anti-virus tips and technology, visit http://www.digitalriver.com/v2.0-img/operations/symantbm/desc/. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: jackattack7 Subject: Than price of a buying some slut a drink at Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 20:08:34 -0500 Size: 7992 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030316/bce3e394/attachment.mht From bdurham Mon Mar 17 05:23:19 2003 From: bdurham (bdurham at mail.utexas.edu) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 05:23:19 -0600 (CST) Subject: [eDebate] An Invitation... In-Reply-To: <107314.3249141826@37.21.20-22.142.136.in-addr.arpa> References: <107314.3249141826@37.21.20-22.142.136.in-addr.arpa> Message-ID: <1047900199.3e75b0279f63f@webmailapp1.cc.utexas.edu> To the debate community: I usually wouldn't attempt to approach such a serious issue with formality. Most who know me think that I am actually opposed to it...they can think what they want. This is a formal invitation. A formal invitation to wake up from the dream of college and competition and friends and material items, sex, drugs, rock'n'roll and politics to see that our world, and our society and quickly falling apart. This is an invitation to those who want to use what they have learned in debate. This is an invitation to (un)learn how to debate amongst people that are not affiliated with the debate community. This is an invitation to be a member of a community that is larger than e- debate, or the college debate circuit and the high school circuit combined. This is an invitation to hear yourself and others: To ponder in those moments of silence where most of us are thinking, "what does today and tomorrow really mean for the rest of the world. What does it really mean for the United States to invade Iraq? Why the specific demand for use of force? What does it mean to those that occupy the space we know as Iraq? What does it mean when we do so blatantly disregarding the opinions of many of our European allies? What is a European ally? Why does it not matter that I, as a citizen of the United States of America, am doing my best to join others in calling a stop to this war... and no citizen of the United States has control in the matter-- it all rests in the hands of a good old west texas boy. In such a case, why does it even matter that we speak aloud...no one is really listening.Or are they..." This is an invitation to listen to yourself as you listen to others. This is an invitation to take a brief break from reading lexis articles as sweet inherency takeouts, or nice uniqueness args. for an advantage. This is an invitation to join a community of those that sit, stand, stir, mingle, strategize, laugh, sing, and cry in solidarity over the future of our country and this world. This is an invitation to give something back to your immediate academic community at your own university or high school. This is the week- monday, tuesday, and wednesday for sure. These are the days that from all of our community's discussion of theory there must become some form of praxis. That all the voices of debaters who've gathered so much knowledge and ability to communicate information in the tower of babble see if its really babble, or can it make Empire's foundations rattle. Or is it a technique of the self that has its tactical importance in our drive to expose, inform, and politicize during such times driven by bureacratically constructed crises. This is an invitation to volunteer your debate skills to your local student organizations that are campaigning in opposition to Bush's drive to war. This is an invitation to volunteer your debate skills to research how your university is uniquely implicated in the war- who is in your political science department? what about engineering? do open records requests in hopes of finding funding provided by the defense industry or the federal government. This is an invitation to volunteer "hard earned" "free time" (self-valorization is such a naughty lil' Marxist concept, eh?) to help build a universal coalition in opposition to a US military invasion of Iraq. This is an invitation to volunteer experience, concepts, strategy, and advice concerning diction to other communal participants who want to spread the word of opposing whats about to come and how we should speak to those that are in favor of war, and those that still stand in the middle and unsure. This is an invitation to learn more about yourself- to learn what is really just philosophical, existentialist, selfish shit and what is real- what you are having to deal with in the now-- what you learn of others having to deal with as you listen to their stories of life, and how whats happening now implicates our everyday lives. This is an invitation to continue to feel guilty about all the amazing 2ar's you've given on why war is bad, why nuclear weapons are bad, why chemical/biological weapons are bad, why imperialism is bad. To realize that you manipulated the hearts and minds of the intellectual in the back of the room captivated by your "passion" over the issue to win a ballot. So sad you aren't willing to speak with such "passion" when there's no shiny object that can be shown to prove victory-- only a few more minutes added to the tick- tocking of the clock and sounds of inevitability. Please speak out against the war. Things are about to get seriously out of hand, and our community has the intellect- and data- to help in maintaining some sort of social order where lives aren't calculated risks. What they are isn't really important. Haven't enough philosophers lost enough sleep over their nightmares of being haunted by the subject? Please take time to speak with anyone about the social significance of today and the significance of Bush's Push to keep the Country Cush. In solidarity. Ben Durham Univ. of Texas Debate From BERCHNORTO Mon Mar 17 09:35:10 2003 From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:35:10 EST Subject: [eDebate] Towson!!! Message-ID: <1a0.121a6691.2ba7452e@aol.com> The West Virginia University Debate Team wants to thank Beth Skinner, Chris Baron, Asa Scott, and the entire Towson University Debate Team for a fantastic and well-run Novice and JV Nationals. The competition was excellent, with teams from around the country and all over the debate spectrum. With 91 teams, it was (as always), the largest JV/Novice tournament of the year. It's a tremendous way to end the year for many novice and JV debaters. The hospitality was excellent, the buildings were within a 1 minute walk of each other, and the trains ran on time. All 4 rounds on Saturday were powered without a lag, and the day still finished right on schedule. And, the Towson folks even did a good job of providing excellent weather! Thanks again for a great experience! --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030317/39969721/attachment.htm From mizzoudebate Mon Mar 17 10:51:29 2003 From: mizzoudebate (Mizzou Debate) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 10:51:29 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Mizzou Message-ID: Martin Harris wrote: "ROcckkk Challkkk JAyyyhawwkk KKKKUUUUU. 79-74 AT the Hearnes Center." Looks like you spoke too soon Martin. Mizzou defeats KU 68-63 on a nuetral court. Stop hating, Josh Mizzou Debate _________________________________________________________________ Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From wnewnam Mon Mar 17 10:52:06 2003 From: wnewnam (Bill Newnam) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:52:06 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: [eDebate] Third teams at NDT] Message-ID: <3E75FD36.AF70B8DB@emory.edu> I failed to hit reply all. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Bill Newnam Subject: Re: [eDebate] Third teams at NDT Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:37:28 -0500 Size: 6767 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030317/b53659ef/attachment.mht From wnewnam Mon Mar 17 11:34:04 2003 From: wnewnam (Bill Newnam) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:34:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Bill's evershrinking BAD list Message-ID: <3E76070C.6B694138@emory.edu> Dear Community, Thank you all for being so responsive to my repeated requests for the information necessary for getting the NDT booklet to the printers. We are down to a handful of as yet not heard from Schools: Cal State Fullerton--friends of Bruschke, help me out here. UC Berkeley--something in the California air?? Dartmouth BS--you got a third team, better take advantage of it while Harris still gives you a chance. I need names, judges and dietary information. SOOOOOOON PLEEEEEEEASE! (and judges from Loyola--at least tentative judges) bill n emory BTW If you have sent me emails with this info, you still need to send your team-coach data form to Cate Palcewski (Chair of the Committee) and Donn Parson (Tournament Director) From rob.eback Mon Mar 17 11:48:19 2003 From: rob.eback (Rob Eback) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:48:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [eDebate] Someone from Weber Message-ID: <20030317174819.141CD3D44@xmxpita.excite.com> Could someone from Weber please e-mail me. I have some questions for you that would be nice to get answers to in the near future. Thanks a lot. Rob Eback Georgia State _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! From dperkins Mon Mar 17 13:13:11 2003 From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:13:11 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Fwd: [eDebate] Third teams at NDT] In-Reply-To: <3E75FD36.AF70B8DB@emory.edu> Message-ID: To summarize and concretize what Bill says: Why should ALL of the burden of inclusion of currently excluded schools be placed on third teams? Why shouldn't second teams bear at least some of this burden? This is easily accomplished: All first teams who qualify to apply for a second round get one out of the pool. Any remaining spots are up for grabs between second teams and third teams. This year, several schools--Liberty, Baylor, Wyoming, maybe a couple more--would have gotten to go, but they would have squeezed out whoever the bottom few second rounds were, not exclusively third teams. This solves 100% of the school-inclusiveness advantage, discriminating in favor of first teams, but without discriminating AGAINST third teams so dramatically and unjustly, and without excluding a team that might win the tournament, as Lupowitz did. Vote neg, Judge. dp From jas_brar Mon Mar 17 13:18:58 2003 From: jas_brar (Jas Brar) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:18:58 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] ANYONE FROM KANSAS Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030317/77d3b893/attachment.htm From dig Mon Mar 17 13:39:28 2003 From: dig (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:39:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Please explain why you entered teams in novice Message-ID: <200303171939.h2HJdSl02949@fiat.cross-x.com> Im a little frustrated after this weekend at towson, i dont understand why certain debaters where entered in the novice divison. Its not that i have a problem with those debaters but more i wonder why directors think it to be ethical participation in the debate community to enter debaters with high school ld experience in novice nationals. I understand that the rules permit you to do so, and i applaud the several of you who have become superior manipulators of these rules. A secondary question is this, one of the reasons i love the towson tournament is because it gives programs who have devoted most of theri attention to finding debaters on their campuses a chance to compete for a novice national championship, i always liked this idea better than the northwestern novice nationals where the first year college policy debaters (most of whom had high school experience) debnated it out, i always like dthis tournamet because people who started debate this year had legitimate shots at legitimate national championships, i like that its a good thing, but my fear is that towson is becoming the ld version of the northwestern noviuce nationals and i think that this is creating tension with one of the most special tournaments the east has to offer. Community has always been one of the most important things in the ada and the ced aeast and i wonder if eligibility definitons for this touirnament are working aginst community as opposed to for. Andy Ellis Marist Debate -- Debate Information Group http://dig.ndtceda.com/ From dig Mon Mar 17 13:43:19 2003 From: dig (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:43:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Towson Thanks Message-ID: <200303171943.h2HJhJC03597@fiat.cross-x.com> Hello I want to thank The enirity of the towson tournament for a wonderfully relaxing and refreshing tournament that ran on time, provided wonderful hospitality, and made each of the red foxes feel welcome and excited about a wonderful novice nationals. Its a great place to host the show case tournament for debate on the easst coast and i cant wait to go bnack next year. Thanks to beth and chris and brian and asa and everybody else on the towson team, it was a weekend as great as the weather was. Andy Ellis -- Debate Information Group http://dig.ndtceda.com/ From katsulas Mon Mar 17 13:58:53 2003 From: katsulas (katsulas) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 14:58:53 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: [eDebate] Third teams at NDT] Message-ID: <3E7BB569@netfin6.bc.edu> While I agree with Dallas that we should not eliminate slots for third teams, I think his proposal would just about eliminate slots for second teams. If his proposal was in effect this year, only 5 teams from second schools would have qualified. Automatic second rounds would have gone to 5 schools (Liberty, Baylor, Wyoming, Idaho State, and Georgia State). That would have left 11 slots, with 6 going to third teams, leaving only 5 slots for the second teams. Moreover, if this rule were passed, I predict many schools would generate teams with 50% records by avoiding national tournaments, knowing they would automatically qualify for the NDT. So, I'm not convinced any second teams would qualify. Do we really want to eliminate second teams to enable schools to send third teams? John Katsulas >===== Original Message From Dallas Perkins ===== >To summarize and concretize what Bill says: > >Why should ALL of the burden of inclusion of currently excluded schools be >placed on third teams? Why shouldn't second teams bear at least some of >this burden? > >This is easily accomplished: All first teams who qualify to apply for a >second round get one out of the pool. Any remaining spots are up for >grabs between second teams and third teams. This year, several >schools--Liberty, Baylor, Wyoming, maybe a couple more--would have gotten >to go, but they would have squeezed out whoever the bottom few second >rounds were, not exclusively third teams. > >This solves 100% of the school-inclusiveness advantage, discriminating in >favor of first teams, but without discriminating AGAINST third teams so >dramatically and unjustly, and without excluding a team that might win the >tournament, as Lupowitz did. Vote neg, Judge. > >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 SSbauschard2 Mon Mar 17 14:28:28 2003 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:28:28 EST Subject: [Fwd: [eDebate] Third teams at NDT] Message-ID: <1d5.52d13dd.2ba789ec@aol.com> Also, how many "open" tournaments do you need to qo to to auto-qualify at 50%? 18 rounds? 6 tournaments of JV and three varsity at "weak" tournaments? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030317/178950e1/attachment.html From mizzoudebate Mon Mar 17 15:19:14 2003 From: mizzoudebate (Mizzou Debate) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:19:14 -0600 Subject: [Fwd: [eDebate] Third teams at NDT] Message-ID: In debate jargon this would be called a permutation: Automatic bids for 1st teams with 50% winning pct. provided they meet higher standards (more rounds and more tournaments than is now required). Eliminate (or limit, perhaps to 3) the number of 3rd teams that can get a bid. This prevents teams that only attend 3 (weak, 6 round) tournaments from auto-qualifying. It also helps secure multiple spots for 2nd teams (especially if you completely eliminate 3rd teams). It allows the best 3rd teams to compete (if you only limit 3rd teams). Most importantly, it would still increase the inclusiveness of the tournament allowing more schools to attend. Josh Mizzou Debate >From: SSbauschard2 at aol.com >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: RE: [Fwd: [eDebate] Third teams at NDT] >Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:28:28 EST > >Also, how many "open" tournaments do you need to qo to to auto-qualify at >50%? 18 rounds? 6 tournaments of JV and three varsity at "weak" >tournaments? _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From tara.tate Mon Mar 17 15:19:54 2003 From: tara.tate (Tara Tate CHHS) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:19:54 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] dave breshears please Message-ID: Dave -- Can you please backchannel me (or someone that knows his contact information)... Thanks, Tara Tate Colleyville Heritage ***This message has been scanned for viruses at the mail gateway by GCISD's WebShield e500 appliance.*** ***This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, disclosure, copying, alteration or other use by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender and delete all copies.*** From ccooper Mon Mar 17 15:34:29 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:34:29 -0600 Subject: [Fwd: [eDebate] Third teams at NDT] Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A7337071142655@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Maybe I am missing something... Can someone post the rationale for why more schools should get to participate at the NDT at the expense of better teams? I'll grant that the current system does not adequately represent the "best" teams, but I think the community needs to make a decision here: Should the NDT be a compeition among the best teams in the nation or should it be a competition of all the schools in the nation? Trying to reach some mythical balance between these two goals ultimately is unlikely to be fair. COOP -----Original Message----- From: Mizzou Debate [mailto:mizzoudebate at hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:19 PM To: SSbauschard2 at aol.com; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: RE: [Fwd: [eDebate] Third teams at NDT] In debate jargon this would be called a permutation: Automatic bids for 1st teams with 50% winning pct. provided they meet higher standards (more rounds and more tournaments than is now required). Eliminate (or limit, perhaps to 3) the number of 3rd teams that can get a bid. This prevents teams that only attend 3 (weak, 6 round) tournaments from auto-qualifying. It also helps secure multiple spots for 2nd teams (especially if you completely eliminate 3rd teams). It allows the best 3rd teams to compete (if you only limit 3rd teams). Most importantly, it would still increase the inclusiveness of the tournament allowing more schools to attend. Josh Mizzou Debate >From: SSbauschard2 at aol.com >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: RE: [Fwd: [eDebate] Third teams at NDT] >Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:28:28 EST > >Also, how many "open" tournaments do you need to qo to to auto-qualify at >50%? 18 rounds? 6 tournaments of JV and three varsity at "weak" >tournaments? _________________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030317/b0bdefea/attachment.htm From kkuswa Mon Mar 17 16:13:07 2003 From: kkuswa (Kevin Kuswa) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:13:07 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Please explain why you entered teams in novice References: <200303171939.h2HJdSl02949@fiat.cross-x.com> Message-ID: <01fa01c2ecd2$63934b80$2774a68d@richmond.edu> Agreed. Maybe a rule is not the way to go, but it is pathetic to stick a debater in novice that you know has a chance to clear in jv. How about this: if a debater wins a tournament, they move up. period. no exceptions. I SAW A NOVICE DEBATER AT TOWSON who should have been varsity ALL YEAR. I have told him that repeatedly. He still went novice. Oh well--he gets more victories, but it seems to me they are hollow victories. Why not have the best debates you can have? kevin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Ellis" To: Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 2:39 PM Subject: [eDebate] Please explain why you entered teams in novice > > > > Im a little frustrated after this weekend at towson, i dont understand why certain debaters where entered in the novice divison. Its not that i have a problem with those debaters but more i wonder why directors think it to be ethical participation in the debate community to enter debaters with high school ld experience in novice nationals. I understand that the rules permit you to do so, and i applaud the several of you who have become superior manipulators of these rules. A secondary question is this, one of the reasons i love the towson tournament is because it gives programs who have devoted most of theri attention to finding debaters on their campuses a chance to compete for a novice national championship, i always liked this idea better than the northwestern novice nationals where the first year college policy debaters (most of whom had high school experience) debnated it out, i always like dthis tournamet because people who started debate this year had legitimate shots! > at legitimate national championships, i like that its a good thing, but my fear is that towson is becoming the ld version of the northwestern noviuce nationals and i think that this is creating tension with one of the most special tournaments the east has to offer. Community has always been one of the most important things in the ada and the ced aeast and i wonder if eligibility definitons for this touirnament are working aginst community as opposed to for. > > > Andy Ellis > Marist Debate > > > > > -- > Debate Information Group > http://dig.ndtceda.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From kkuswa Mon Mar 17 16:16:17 2003 From: kkuswa (Kevin Kuswa) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:16:17 -0500 Subject: [Fwd: [eDebate] Third teams at NDT] References: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A7337071142655@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Message-ID: <021001c2ecd2$d4d2b060$2774a68d@richmond.edu> RE: [Fwd: [eDebate] Third teams at NDT]Why do you assume more schools = weaker teams? More schools at the NDT would improve those schools. Also, why not go 4 teams or 5th teams. Oh no, the 5th team at NWU could win the NDT!! Does that hurt the NDT's purpose? No. kevin ----- Original Message ----- From: Christopher Cooper To: edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:34 PM Subject: RE: [Fwd: [eDebate] Third teams at NDT] Maybe I am missing something... Can someone post the rationale for why more schools should get to participate at the NDT at the expense of better teams? I'll grant that the current system does not adequately represent the "best" teams, but I think the community needs to make a decision here: Should the NDT be a compeition among the best teams in the nation or should it be a competition of all the schools in the nation? Trying to reach some mythical balance between these two goals ultimately is unlikely to be fair. COOP -----Original Message----- From: Mizzou Debate [mailto:mizzoudebate at hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:19 PM To: SSbauschard2 at aol.com; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: RE: [Fwd: [eDebate] Third teams at NDT] In debate jargon this would be called a permutation: Automatic bids for 1st teams with 50% winning pct. provided they meet higher standards (more rounds and more tournaments than is now required). Eliminate (or limit, perhaps to 3) the number of 3rd teams that can get a bid. This prevents teams that only attend 3 (weak, 6 round) tournaments from auto-qualifying. It also helps secure multiple spots for 2nd teams (especially if you completely eliminate 3rd teams). It allows the best 3rd teams to compete (if you only limit 3rd teams). Most importantly, it would still increase the inclusiveness of the tournament allowing more schools to attend. Josh Mizzou Debate >From: SSbauschard2 at aol.com >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: RE: [Fwd: [eDebate] Third teams at NDT] >Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:28:28 EST > >Also, how many "open" tournaments do you need to qo to to auto-qualify at >50%? 18 rounds? 6 tournaments of JV and three varsity at "weak" >tournaments? _________________________________________________________________ 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030317/68e6870e/attachment.html From dperkins Mon Mar 17 17:03:37 2003 From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:03:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Fwd: [eDebate] Third teams at NDT] In-Reply-To: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A7337071142655@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Message-ID: I'm agnostic on the issue of quality over diversity of schools. My only point is that IF we want to have a preference for first teams from a school, it should not be at the SOLE expense of third teams. dp On Mon, 17 Mar 2003, Christopher Cooper wrote: > Maybe I am missing something... > > Can someone post the rationale for why more schools should get to > participate at the NDT at the expense of better teams? > > I'll grant that the current system does not adequately represent the "best" > teams, but I think the community needs to make a decision here: Should the > NDT be a compeition among the best teams in the nation or should it be a > competition of all the schools in the nation? Trying to reach some mythical > balance between these two goals ultimately is unlikely to be fair. > > COOP > > -----Original Message----- > From: Mizzou Debate [mailto:mizzoudebate at hotmail.com] > Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:19 PM > To: SSbauschard2 at aol.com; edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: RE: [Fwd: [eDebate] Third teams at NDT] > > > In debate jargon this would be called a permutation: > > Automatic bids for 1st teams with 50% winning pct. provided they meet higher > > standards (more rounds and more tournaments than is now required). Eliminate > > (or limit, perhaps to 3) the number of 3rd teams that can get a bid. > > This prevents teams that only attend 3 (weak, 6 round) tournaments from > auto-qualifying. It also helps secure multiple spots for 2nd teams > (especially if you completely eliminate 3rd teams). It allows the best 3rd > teams to compete (if you only limit 3rd teams). Most importantly, it would > still increase the inclusiveness of the tournament allowing more schools to > attend. > > Josh > Mizzou Debate > > > > > >From: SSbauschard2 at aol.com > >To: edebate at ndtceda.com > >Subject: RE: [Fwd: [eDebate] Third teams at NDT] > >Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:28:28 EST > > > >Also, how many "open" tournaments do you need to qo to to auto-qualify at > >50%? 18 rounds? 6 tournaments of JV and three varsity at "weak" > >tournaments? > > > _________________________________________________________________ > 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 Gary.N.Larson Mon Mar 17 18:23:15 2003 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:23:15 -0600 (CST) Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: FW: CEDA Nationals Prefs Message-ID: <1047946995.3e7666f365771@webmail.wheaton.edu> In the past hour, all coaches should have received the password and user name for the online pref sheet for CEDA Nats at the address supplied to Shawn Whalen. If you did not receive a password, please contact me at Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu This year we want to receive ALL prefs online. Beginning at noon tomorrow, we should be able to immediately confirm your prefs with an e-mail when you hit submit. You can hit submit prior to completing the entire form and then return any number of times to edit your prefs. This will prevent you from losing your work by being timed out. There are 168 judges in the pool. As a result, for categories 1-6 you must select a minimum of 19 judges with 18 in categories 7-9. Judges who are constrained can be counted as 6. You may rank any number of judges higher than required. For instance, you can rank 30 judges as 1 and 8 judges as 2. If you have any questions, contact me at Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu The absolute deadline for submitting prefs online is 6:00 PM THURSDAY MST /3 Herndon, James - Alabama 4+0+4 /4 Lee, Ed - Alabama 4+0+0 /5 Dybvig, Kristin - Arizona State 2+0+0 /6 Kearl, Ben - Arizona State 8+0+0 /7 McKeehan, Grant - Arizona State 2+0+0 /8 Wulkan, Larry - Arizona State 4+0+0 /9 Moore, Matt - Augustana 8+0+0 /10 Korcok, Mike - Bakersfield 4+0+0 /11 Lechtreck, Bob - Bakersfield 4+0+0 /12 Coppola, Joseph - Baylor 4+0+0 /13 Leeper, Karla - Baylor 4+1+0 /14 Schatz, Joe - Binghamton 4+0+4 /15 Koch, Stephen - Capital 4+0+0 /16 Dutcher, Mike - Catholic 4+0+0 /17 Mancuso, Steve - Catholic 0+0+0 /18 Campbell, Brian - Central Oklaho 6+0+0 /19 Gaston, Bryan - Central Oklahoma 2+1+0 /20 Massey, Jackie - Central Oklahom 4+0+0 /21 Stone, Jason - Central Oklahoma 0+0+2 /22 Johnson, Kristin - Claremont 8+0+0 /23 Kenyon, Chris - Concordia 4+0+0 /24 Hayman, Jethro - Cornell 4+0+0 /25 Jacobsen, Trond - Cornell 4+0+0 /26 Martin, Josh - CSU-Chico 0+0+2 /27 Willis, Kristopher Razian - CSU- 0+0+2 /28 Bruschke, Jon - CSU-Fullerton 2+0+0 /29 Cramer, Jason - CSU-Fullerton 2+0+0 /30 Skarb, Justin - CSU-Fullerton 8+0+0 /31 Symonds, Adam - CSU-Fullerton 2+0+0 /32 Maag, Eric - CSU-Long Beach 3+0+0 /33 Nielson, Toni - CSU-Long Beach 3+0+5 /34 Thomas, Nicholas - CSU-Long Beac 3+0+5 /35 Glazebrook, Kelli - CSU-Northrid 1+0+3 /36 Opsata, Becky - CSU-Northridge 1+0+0 /37 Tallungan, Christina - CSU-North 2+0+3 /38 Hamilton, Kristen - CSU-Sacramen 8+0+0 /39 Ceren, Omri - Dartmouth 5+0+0 /40 Garen, Adam - Dartmouth 4+0+0 /41 McIntosh, Chris - Dartmouth 5+0+0 /42 Strange, Ken - Dartmouth 2+0+0 /43 Foy, John - Eastern New Mexico 6+0+2 /44 Hansen, John - Eastern New Mexic 6+0+2 /45 Coffman, Josh - Emory 8+0+0 /46 Ghali, Kamal - Emory 8+0+0 /47 Heidt, David - Emory 8+0+0 /48 Lupo, Jon Paul - Emory 8+0+0 /49 Roland, James - Emory 8+0+0 /50 Wade, Melissa - Emory 0+4+0 /51 DeLaughder, Ken - Emporia State 4+0+0 /52 Maurer, Sam - Emporia State 8+0+0 /53 Taylor, James - Emporia State 8+0+0 /54 Irizarry, Frank - Florida 4+0+0 /55 Weston, Marna - Florida State 4+0+4 /56 Shanahan, Bill - Fort Hays 8+0+0 /57 Fletcher, Eric - Fresno City 8+0+0 /58 Finch, Jay - George Washington 4+0+0 /59 Galloway, Ryan - Georgia 4+0+0 /60 Bellon, Joe - Georgia State 8+0+0 /61 Paulose, Regina - Georgia State 4+0+0 /62 Schaerrer, Mark - Georgia State 8+0+0 /63 Aralica, Edwin - Gonzaga 8+0+0 /64 Russell, Jason - Gonzaga 4+0+0 /65 Slusher, Eric - Gonzaga 4+1+0 /66 McCollum, Peter - Harvard 4+0+0 /67 Perkins, Dallas - Harvard 1+1+0 /68 Partlow, Sarah - Idaho State 0+2+0 /69 Perkins, Jessica - Idaho State 8+0+0 /70 Volpert, Megan - Idaho State 8+0+0 /71 Sullivan, John - James Madison 4+0+0 /72 Butt, Neil - John Carroll 4+0+0 /73 Harris, Scott - Kansas 0+2+0 /74 Magariel, David - Kansas 5+0+0 /75 Morris, Eric - Kansas 3+0+0 /76 Arbenz, Casey - Kansas State 2+0+0 /77 Kemp, Andrew - Kansas State 2+0+0 /78 Stanfield, Sue - Kansas State 2+0+0 /79 West, Isaac - Kansas State 2+0+0 /80 Elliott, Darren - KCCC 8+0+0 /81 Pointer, Steven - Lewis & Clark 4+0+4 /82 Zahorcak, Owen - Lewis & Clark 4+0+4 /83 Varda, Scott - Liberty 4+0+0 /84 Wiese, Danielle - Liberty 4+0+0 /85 Dillard, Tiffany - Louisville 0+0+2 /86 Warner, Ede - Louisville 8+0+0 /87 Romanelli, David - Loyola (IL) 8+0+0 /88 Cram Helwich, David - Macalester 8+0+0 /89 Ellis, Andy - Marist 0+0+0 /90 Schnurer, Maxwell - Marist 4+0+0 /91 Inman, Alex - Marquette 2+1+0 /92 Wick, Michelle - Marquette 2+1+0 /93 Colston, Nicole - Miami (FL) 2+0+4 /94 Grindy, Matt - Miami (FL) 2+0+4 /95 Eber, Alison - Michigan State 8+0+0 /96 Hutchins, Jeremy - Michigan Stat 8+0+0 /97 Lukasik, Dennis - Michigan State 4+0+0 /98 Repko, Will - Michigan State 4+0+0 /99 Wenzlaff, Sue - Michigan-Dearbor 4+0+0 /100 Petit, Lou - Missouri 4+0+4 /101 Kauf, Tom - National American 4+0+0 /102 Baker, Will - New York 0+0+0 /103 Patrice, Joe - New York 4+0+4 /104 Rubino, Kathryn - New York 4+0+4 /105 Green, Justin - North Texas 6+0+2 /106 Neal, Travis - North Texas 0+0+8 /107 Sykes, John - North Texas 3+0+0 /108 McBride, Brian - Northwestern 6+0+0 /109 Carver, Joe - Pace 4+0+0 /110 Achten, Greg - Pepperdine 2+0+0 /111 Reid, Kristen - Pepperdine 4+0+0 /112 Robertson, Kylie - Pepperdine 4+0+0 /113 English, Eric - Pittsburgh 4+0+0 /114 Pfister, Damien - Pittsburgh 4+0+0 /115 Dennis, Doug - Puget Sound 8+0+0 /116 Harris, Sean - Puget Sound 4+0+0 /117 Southworth, Bill - Redlands 4+0+0 /118 Cummings, Kevin - Regis 4+0+0 /119 Ketsdever, Nathan - Rochester 7+0+0 /120 Lee, Adam - Rochester 2+0+0 /121 Myers, Jessica - Rochester 7+0+0 /122 Snider, Sarah - Rochester 8+0+0 /123 Renegar, Val - San Diego State 4+0+0 /124 Keller, Ivo - San Francisco Stat 2+0+2 /125 Salazar, Mary - San Francisco St 6+0+2 /126 Clemmons, Steve - Santa Clara 4+0+4 /127 Kephart, John - Southern Cal 4+0+0 /128 Lowrie, Sue - Southern Cal 6+0+0 /129 Peterson, Jason - Southern Cal 4+0+0 /130 Sharp, Jon - Southern Cal 4+0+0 /131 Stables, Gordon - Southern Cal 2+0+0 /132 Bittner, Brian - Southern Illino 3+0+0 /133 Graham, Todd - Southern Illinois 2+0+0 /134 Walts, Chuck - Southern Illinois 3+0+0 /135 Dillard, Kara - Southern Utah 4+0+0 /136 Harris, Martin - Southwest Misso 8+0+0 /137 Walters, Heather - Southwest Mis 8+0+0 /138 Mozisek, Korryn - Southwest Texa 8+0+0 /139 Myres, Jason - Southwest Texas 0+0+6 /140 Thomas, Robert - Stanford 4+0+0 /141 Hatziavramidis, Katie - Texas 0+0+8 /142 Johnson, Kevin - Texas 4+0+0 /143 McCartney, Jonathan - Texas 4+0+0 /144 Baron, Chris - Towson 4+0+0 /145 Skinner, Beth - Towson 4+0+0 /146 Arnett, Dave - UC-Berkeley 0+0+0 /147 Macdonald, Matt - UC-Berkeley 8+0+0 /148 Baisely, Matt - UMKC 6+0+0 /149 Cushman, Chris - UMKC 4+0+0 /150 Stevens, Monte - UMKC 6+0+0 /151 Burk, Christopher - UT-Dallas 2+0+3 /152 Herndon, Scott - UT-Dallas 2+0+2 /153 Roubidoux, Doug - UW-Oshkosh 4+0+0 /154 Fishbone, Aaron - Vermont 8+0+0 /155 Miller, Gordie - Vermont 8+0+0 /156 Morgan, Helen - Vermont 4+0+0 /157 Parmett, Justin - Vermont 4+0+0 /158 Hovden, Jan - Weber State 4+0+0 /159 Mueller, Eric - Weber State 4+0+0 /160 Davis, Dan - West Georgia 3+0+0 /161 Hester, Mike - West Georgia 2+0+3 /162 Holbrook, Sarah - West Georgia 3+0+0 /163 Sawyer, Reid - West Point 6+0+0 /164 Boggs, Joshua - West Virginia 8+0+0 /165 Marshall, Stephen - West Virgini 8+0+0 /166 Harvey, Korry - Western Washingt 4+0+4 /167 Woods, Steve - Western Washingto 4+0+0 /168 Hanson, Jim - Whitman 8+0+0 /169 Simmonds, Brian - Whitman 4+0+0 /170 Stone, Sarah - Wyoming 8+0+0 ----- End forwarded message ----- From mardigras23 Mon Mar 17 18:24:05 2003 From: mardigras23 (Aaron Kall) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:24:05 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Debate College Basketball Tournament Pool Message-ID: You are invited to join the College Debate on-line Bracket group. To accept this invitation and join the group, click the link below (or cut and paste the link into your browser's address field). You'll be asked to enter the group's password before you can join. The group password is included in this e-mail. http://cdebate.mayhem.sportsline.com/ Our group password is: edebate _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From mardigras23 Mon Mar 17 19:29:56 2003 From: mardigras23 (Aaron Kall) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 01:29:56 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Debate College Basketball Tournament Pool Redux Message-ID: Several people have e-mailed me and experienced problems logging in. I am unable to send a mass invitation to the list-serve because it doesn't recgonize sportsline as a subscriber. If you would like to join the College Debate Pool, please send me an e-mail and I will send you a personal invitation, which solves the logging in errors. Aaron _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From lisakanak Mon Mar 17 19:59:31 2003 From: lisakanak (Lisa Kanak) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:59:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Tim O'Donnell (MWC), Phil Kerpen (or delete) Message-ID: HELP! Please back-channel me. Thanks! Lisa Kanak 540-752-1935 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030317/efe7763b/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/20030317/efe7763b/attachment.obj From sykesjason Mon Mar 17 20:05:11 2003 From: sykesjason (Jason Sykes) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 20:05:11 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] need to share housing at CEDA Message-ID: <000a01c2ecf2$cf382840$46d1a942@computer> 1 female debater who needs a room at CEDA, preferably in the tournament hotel (thurs. through tues.). please backchannel if you have an extra bed. thanks, jason -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030317/c1f9e28d/attachment.htm From GatorDebate Mon Mar 17 20:26:56 2003 From: GatorDebate (GatorDebate at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:26:56 EST Subject: [Fwd: [eDebate] Third teams at NDT] Message-ID: <12b.25a32e02.2ba7ddf0@aol.com> I think Kevin makes two excellent points. We had a discussion about this at the District VI meeting this year and all I can say is that it will be a very tough issue to deal with. On one hand, if the NDT is about individual teams than restrictions on 3rd teams (or 4th or 5th teams for some squads) means the best TEAMS aren't represented. If the NDT is about SCHOOL representation, than limiting the number of teams from a single school and opening the tournament up to more schools would be a good thing for those programs as a whole. You can compare it to the NCAA. I'm sure there are players on the Arizona, Kentucky, and even Florida squads that don't get much of a chance to play but if those schools were allowed to field multiple teams, than the best athletes would be represented during March Madness and we could say goodbye to school like Butler and SIU playing in the Tournament. For the good of College Basketball that is not allowed to happen and it increases parity amongst schools. Personally, I'd like to see the Debate community decide if it is team representation or school representation that is the paramount goal. If it's team representation, than allow Emory, Northwestern, Michigan State and others to send fourth or fifth teams. If school representation is the goal, than any school that has at least one team with a 50% win record should get at least one bid to the NDT. Some might say that this will encourage folks to travel to more regioanl tournaments in hopes of increasing their win percentatge but is that (promoting regional debate) such a bad thing? frank In a message dated 3/17/2003 5:17:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, kkuswa at richmond.edu writes: > Why do you assume more schools = weaker teams? More schools at the NDT > would improve those schools. > > Also, why not go 4 teams or 5th teams. Oh no, the 5th team at NWU could > win the NDT!! Does that hurt the NDT's purpose? No. > > kevin > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030317/411a5095/attachment.html From spmancuso Mon Mar 17 21:18:40 2003 From: spmancuso (Steve Mancuso) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:18:40 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] A Modest Proposal for Compromise on Third Teams References: <12b.25a32e02.2ba7ddf0@aol.com> Message-ID: <3E769010.5040104@aol.com> Some people have argued that there should be no third teams, that the tournament should reward schools and their first teams. Other people believe that the NDT should be for the most meritorious teams (as judged by the NDT committee), even if that means we have third teams. These two solutions are mutually exclusive. We could strike a compromise and establish a number of third teams that represents the composition of our community throughout the year at national-level tournaments. That would be a fair way to come up with a number. The goal: make the NDT roughly representative of our year-long community. Let's see. At the four largest tournaments of the year, the percentages of third/fourth/fifth teams etc. are: Georgia State 39%, Kentucky 40%, Wake Forest 23% and Northwestern 27%. Smaller national circuit tournaments? West Georgia: 28%, Harvard: 20%, USC (where there were no Emory and 2 Northwestern and Wake Forest teams) 24% That averages out to 29%. At national circuit tournaments, the average percentage of our community that is third/fourth etc. teams is 29%. So if we accepted a number of third/fourth teams to the NDT that was representative of our community at similar tournaments we would take 22 teams (rounded down) that are third/fourth etc. teams from schools. I therefore propose the following compromise: we should drastically reduce the representation of third/fourth etc. teams (say, cut it by more than 2/3) and only allow a small maximum number of third teams in the tournament - six. Steve From gordonm+ Mon Mar 17 23:21:01 2003 From: gordonm+ (Gordon Mitchell) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:21:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Chellaney interview: Call for questioners Message-ID: <1375196.3256935661@48.23.20-22.142.136.in-addr.arpa> Hi folks. Good news! We have a commitment for a 60-minute interview via teleconference with Professor Brahma Chellaney this coming Friday, March 21 at 1 p.m., EST. The interview is set up to include moderator and transcript editor Ross Smith of Wake Forest University, as well as six members of the intercollegiate debate community serving as questioners for 10 minutes each. William Dowell, editor of the Global Beat news website, will publish the edited transcript of the interview online. This is the first interview to be held under a primary research initiative proposed last fall. For more details see the original post at: http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200211/0716.html Brahma Chellaney is a Research Professor at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi, India. He is currently Project Coordinator and Principal Researcher for study groups on Technology and Security - India's Long Term Interests and the Future of Nuclear Deterrence (more detailed description of these study groups is attached at the bottom of this email). He has written extensively on India's national security strategy, nuclear proliferation, and the CTBT. We are looking to assemble a strong group of six questioners (debaters or coaches) who are willing to do the following: 1) Co-ordinate with each other to fine-tune the overall package of questions presented to Professor Chellaney. 2) Pay the costs of a long-distance phone call from their own phone to join the teleconference (the number will be a domestic U.S. number) on Friday, March 21, 1 p.m. EST. 3) Transcribe their ten-minute portion of the interview within 24 hours and email the text to transcript editor Ross Smith (arrangements will be made to disseminate the audio recording online promptly after the interview has been completed). This is a unique double opportunity to a) generate salient contest round evidence; and b) steer the course of public discussion on the CTBT. News items added to the Global Beat website are forwarded to thousands of email subscribers, including top international diplomats. This is one key factor that distinguishes the current primary research initiative from previous projects which have not sought to reach an audience beyond the intercollegiate policy debate community itself - here questions asked by debaters and coaches and responses by Professor Chellaney could very well be read by diplomats and non-debate citizens. Please reply via backchannel if you are interested in joining the group of questioners. Here are the details on Professor Chellaney's current study groups, scheduled to run from 2002-2004 at the Centre for Policy Research: Technology and Security - India's Long Term Interests (Prof. Brahma Chellaney, Project Coordinator and Principal Researcher) The study examines the inter-relationship between technology and national security. For India, a key issue is how to gain higher returns from domestic research and development. Another key issue is how to blunt technology controls directed against it. Further, India's emergence as a second-tier supplier has spurred efforts to make New Delhi comply with the guidelines of technology-control regimes. The study will look at technologies of critical importance to long-term national security and decision-making autonomy. Future of Nuclear Deterrence (Prof. Brahma Chellaney, Project Coordinator and Principal Researcher) The role of nuclear weapons is undergoing subtle but important changes in deterrence strategy. Although this transformation is a consequence of the collapse of bipolarity in international relations and the shift in military threats from the global to the regional context, the trend is becoming visible now owing to more recent developments. The principles of nuclear deterrence are beginning to alter in a way that could profoundly impact on the still-evolving post-Cold War security order. In the evolving new situation, the study will probe how the existing premises of arms control and the traditional principles of deterrence are likely to change. It will also assess how deterrence can be built on principles radically different from notions of qualitative or quantitative parity. It will also analyse other questions: What are the military missions for which nuclear weapons will remain relevant? What should be the right mix of offence and defence in deterrence? For deterrence to be credible, what level of force and alertness is required? When a nuclear-armed state appears to be sinking or is totally opaque, or when the two are hand-in-glove, how can deterrence be organised regionally? Finally, here is a copy of the interview invitation, which may help questioners get an idea of what Professor Chellaney is expecting: ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Date: Thu, Mar 13, 2003 9:56 PM From: Gordon Mitchell To: b at vsnl.net Subject: Interview request Dear Dr. Chellaney: In a national vote last August, the American intercollegiate policy debate community voted to select the topic of U.S. ratification of international treaties as the focus for debates during the 2002-2003 season. As a result of this vote, thousands of American college students are currently researching issues related to the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). In thousands of contest rounds held so far this season, students have grappled with issues such as the relationship between the CTBT and NPT, the dangers of global proliferation, the CTBT's effect on the development of space weaponry, and the impact of diplomatic U.S. pressure on India to ratify the CTBT. I write today to proposal for a 60-telephone interview that would connect you with up to six American intercollegiate policy debaters, each asking questions for approximately ten minutes. These questions would likely cover content similar to the issues listed above. Bill Dowell, editor of Global Beat, a syndicated online publication dealing with international affairs, has agreed to publish the finished transcript on Globalbeat.org. This publication reaches 2300 subscribers world-wide, including well-placed diplomats. I am pleased to offer a $75 honorarium for your participation in the interview and cover the expenses of your telephone conference call. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have regarding this proposal, and if you are interested in participating, perhaps we can begin with you suggesting possible times to conduct the interview next week. Best regards, Gordon R. Mitchell Associate Professor of Communication / Director of Debate University of Pittsburgh CL 1117, 4200 Fifth Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15260 Phone: (412) 624-8531 Fax: (412) 624-1878 http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/ From gordonm+ Mon Mar 17 23:42:35 2003 From: gordonm+ (Gordon Mitchell) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 00:42:35 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Schabas interview: Call for questioners Message-ID: <1453110.3256936955@48.23.20-22.142.136.in-addr.arpa> Hi folks. More good news! We have a commitment for a 60-minute interview via teleconference with Professor William Schabas. The interview is scheduled tentatively for Wednesday, March 26 at1 p.m. EST. The interview is set up to include moderator and transcript editor Damien Pfister of the University of Pittsburgh, as well as six members of the intercollegiate debate community serving as questioners for 10 minutes each. William Dowell, editor of the Global Beat news website, will publish the edited transcript of the interview online. This is the first interview to be held under a primary research initiative proposed last fall. For more details see the original post at: http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200211/0716.html Professor William A. Shabas is the director of the Irish Centre for Human Rights at the National University of Ireland, Galway, where he also holds the professorship in human rights law. He is author of +The Abolition of the Death Penalty in International Law+ (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2000). Read more about Professor Schabas at: http://www.nuigalway.ie/law/Staff/william_schabas.html We are looking to assemble a strong group of six questioners (debaters or coaches) who are willing to do the following: 1) Co-ordinate with each other to fine-tune the overall package of questions presented to Professor Schabas. 2) Pay the costs of a long-distance phone call from their own phone to join the teleconference (the number will be a domestic U.S. number provided by the webteleconferencing service freeconference.com) at the scheduled time. 3) Transcribe their ten-minute portion of the interview within 24 hours and email the text to transcript editor Damien Pfister (arrangements will be made to disseminate the audio recording online promptly after the interview has been completed). This is a unique double opportunity to a) generate salient contest round evidence; and b) steer the course of public discussion on the death penalty. News items added to the Global Beat website are forwarded to thousands of email subscribers, including top international diplomats. This is one key factor that distinguishes the current primary research initiative from previous projects which have not sought to reach an audience beyond the intercollegiate policy debate community itself - here questions asked by debaters and coaches and responses by Professor Schabas could very well be read by diplomats and non-debate citizens. Please reply via backchannel if you are interested in joining the group of questioners. Finally, here is a copy of the interview invitation, which may help questioners get an idea of what Professor Schabas might be expecting: ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Date: Thu, Mar 13, 2003 10:17 PM -0500 From: Gordon Mitchell To: William.Schabas at NUIGALWAY.IE Subject: Interview request Dear Professor Schabas: In a national vote last August, the American intercollegiate policy debate community voted to select the topic of U.S. ratification of international treaties as the focus for debates during the 2002-2003 season. As a result of this vote, thousands of American college students are currently researching issues related to The Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty. In thousands of contest rounds held so far this season, students have grappled with issues such as the morality of the death penalty, the utility of the Second Optional Protocol as a tool to abolish capital punishment in the United States, and the affect U.S. ratification of the Second Optional Protocol would have on international and domestic politics. I write today to proposal for a 60-telephone interview that would connect you with up to six American intercollegiate policy debaters, each asking questions for approximately ten minutes. These questions would likely cover content similar to the issues listed above. Bill Dowell, editor of Global Beat, a syndicated online publication dealing with international affairs, has agreed to publish the finished transcript on Globalbeat.org. This publication reaches 2300 subscribers world-wide, including well-placed diplomats. I am pleased to offer a $75 honorarium for your participation in the interview and cover the expenses of your telephone conference call. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have regarding this proposal, and if you are interested in participating, perhaps we can begin with you suggesting possible times to conduct the interview next week. Best regards, Gordon R. Mitchell Associate Professor of Communication / Director of Debate University of Pittsburgh CL 1117, 4200 Fifth Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15260 Phone: (412) 624-8531 Fax: (412) 624-1878 http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/ ---------- End Forwarded Message ---------- From blackdebateguy Tue Mar 18 01:44:20 2003 From: blackdebateguy (doug dennis) Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 23:44:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] chief and/or steve clemmons Message-ID: <20030318074420.24640.qmail@web40405.mail.yahoo.com> chief, steve,,,backchannel me...i lost your phone numbers. dd --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030317/d830e632/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn Tue Mar 18 05:34:57 2003 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 05:34:57 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Quote of the Month Message-ID: "Certain foreign newspapers have said that we fell on Austria with brutal methods. ... I have in the course of my political struggle won much love from my people, but when I crossed the former frontier there met me such a stream of love as I have never experienced. NOT AS TYRANTS HAVE WE COME, BUT AS LIBERATORS" (all-caps emphasis mine). ... a national address also given in the month of March, exactly 65 years ago, by one Adolf Hitler. .k [above quote taken from William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, chapter 11 ('The Road to War'), p474.] _________________________________________________________________ STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From DisciplineAndPunish Tue Mar 18 07:23:18 2003 From: DisciplineAndPunish (Dheeraj Chand) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 07:23:18 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Theory on war in 21st century, with respect to the past. Message-ID: Dear Friends, This looks interesting, and I suggest that you explore it. http://www.utexas.edu/features/ -dx From kkuswa Tue Mar 18 08:25:47 2003 From: kkuswa (Kevin Kuswa) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:25:47 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] A Modest Proposal for Compromise on Third Teams References: <12b.25a32e02.2ba7ddf0@aol.com> <3E769010.5040104@aol.com> Message-ID: <007b01c2ed5a$44874330$2774a68d@richmond.edu> Can you do this math for fourth teams? fifth teams? kevin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Mancuso" Cc: Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 10:18 PM Subject: [eDebate] A Modest Proposal for Compromise on Third Teams > Some people have argued that there should be no third teams, that the > tournament should reward schools and their first teams. Other people > believe that the NDT should be for the most meritorious teams (as judged > by the NDT committee), even if that means we have third teams. These > two solutions are mutually exclusive. > > We could strike a compromise and establish a number of third teams that > represents the composition of our community throughout the year at > national-level tournaments. That would be a fair way to come up with a > number. The goal: make the NDT roughly representative of our year-long > community. > > Let's see. At the four largest tournaments of the year, the percentages > of third/fourth/fifth teams etc. are: Georgia State 39%, Kentucky 40%, > Wake Forest 23% and Northwestern 27%. > > Smaller national circuit tournaments? West Georgia: 28%, Harvard: 20%, > USC (where there were no Emory and 2 Northwestern and Wake Forest teams) 24% > > That averages out to 29%. At national circuit tournaments, the average > percentage of our community that is third/fourth etc. teams is 29%. > > So if we accepted a number of third/fourth teams to the NDT that was > representative of our community at similar tournaments we would take 22 > teams (rounded down) that are third/fourth etc. teams from schools. > > I therefore propose the following compromise: we should drastically > reduce the representation of third/fourth etc. teams (say, cut it by > more than 2/3) and only allow a small maximum number of third teams in > the tournament - six. > > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From kkuswa Tue Mar 18 08:41:20 2003 From: kkuswa (Kevin Kuswa) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:41:20 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] A Modest Proposal for Compromise on Third Teams References: <12b.25a32e02.2ba7ddf0@aol.com> <3E769010.5040104@aol.com> Message-ID: <00fe01c2ed5c$710bd450$2774a68d@richmond.edu> one other thing: Does it really matter if a school's third team *could* win the NDT? There are NIT teams that *could* win the NCAA. Maybe those schools with such a huge number of high quality debaters need to figure out which team/s should go without simply sending them all. Maybe this would effect recruiting (in a small way) such that more of the top high school debaters would diversify their choices of where to attend school (not a lot, but one or two can make a big difference). Also, why is this conversation being dominated by the people who have three teams? Other voices? kevin ps--it is good to see Steve being sarcastic---his proposal at our D7 meeting was to ONLY accept bid sheets from tournaments that limit their entries to three teams from a single school (thereby improving the qaulity of regional tournaments). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Mancuso" Cc: Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 10:18 PM Subject: [eDebate] A Modest Proposal for Compromise on Third Teams > Some people have argued that there should be no third teams, that the > tournament should reward schools and their first teams. Other people > believe that the NDT should be for the most meritorious teams (as judged > by the NDT committee), even if that means we have third teams. These > two solutions are mutually exclusive. > > We could strike a compromise and establish a number of third teams that > represents the composition of our community throughout the year at > national-level tournaments. That would be a fair way to come up with a > number. The goal: make the NDT roughly representative of our year-long > community. > > Let's see. At the four largest tournaments of the year, the percentages > of third/fourth/fifth teams etc. are: Georgia State 39%, Kentucky 40%, > Wake Forest 23% and Northwestern 27%. > > Smaller national circuit tournaments? West Georgia: 28%, Harvard: 20%, > USC (where there were no Emory and 2 Northwestern and Wake Forest teams) 24% > > That averages out to 29%. At national circuit tournaments, the average > percentage of our community that is third/fourth etc. teams is 29%. > > So if we accepted a number of third/fourth teams to the NDT that was > representative of our community at similar tournaments we would take 22 > teams (rounded down) that are third/fourth etc. teams from schools. > > I therefore propose the following compromise: we should drastically > reduce the representation of third/fourth etc. teams (say, cut it by > more than 2/3) and only allow a small maximum number of third teams in > the tournament - six. > > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From scottelliott Tue Mar 18 08:58:33 2003 From: scottelliott (Scott M. Elliott) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 08:58:33 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Please explain why you entered teams in novice Message-ID: <000601c2ed5e$d9c880e0$e6995a42@grandecom.net> In the end, directors of debate are much like sports coaches. Nobody cares about the number of cards you cut or how many hours you put in. Nobody really cares that you are "changing the world" through your intellectual evangalism. All they care about is winning. If that is not the goal, then why would you care about "unfair" competition. Those directors are often evaluated by the number of "championships" won. Trophy counts really do matter. As a result, directors will do whatever they can to secure a win--usually within the rules. If you do not like it, change the damn rule. If you don't, I would suggest you recruit from the L/D TOC----that way you can getcha a cheap "national championship" under your belt. Scott Elliott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/68471d46/attachment.html From Gary.N.Larson Tue Mar 18 09:09:13 2003 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary N. Larson) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:09:13 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Prefs Message-ID: <000301c2ed60$55d941a0$100c18ac@bl2471> Several noted that they couldn't log on last night. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. I hadn't flipped a switch (digitally). Everything should be fine now. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/b5922ef0/attachment.htm From ccooper Tue Mar 18 09:19:37 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:19:37 -0600 Subject: [Fwd: [eDebate] Third teams at NDT] Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A7337071142664@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Thank you , Frank... You seem to be one of the few people who understood my question. I am agnostic on the choice to make the NDT about the best teams or the broadest representation of schools. My argument is that the NDT needs to CHOOSE. It needs to decide what it wants to be and then structure itself accordingly and unapologetically. It is serving NO ONE to facilate in this pretend world of accomplishing both goals. Personally, I think (and from anecdotal evidence I don't think I am alone here) that we should consolidate national tournaments and have one OPEN, NICE tournament that represents ALL schools AND the best teams. DO BOTH, JUDGE! I realize that this may be a logistical nightmare, but somehow we get CEDA Nats. to work and that's just about all the teams (save for those who take the weekend off to prepare for the NDT...what's that...like 10 extra teams?...the big guys?...who shouldn't be afraid to take on an open field of competitors anyway!) Let's once and for all declare a REAL national champion! COOP -----Original Message----- From: GatorDebate at aol.com [mailto:GatorDebate at aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 9:27 PM To: kkuswa at richmond.edu; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [Fwd: [eDebate] Third teams at NDT] I think Kevin makes two excellent points. We had a discussion about this at the District VI meeting this year and all I can say is that it will be a very tough issue to deal with. On one hand, if the NDT is about individual teams than restrictions on 3rd teams (or 4th or 5th teams for some squads) means the best TEAMS aren't represented. If the NDT is about SCHOOL representation, than limiting the number of teams from a single school and opening the tournament up to more schools would be a good thing for those programs as a whole. You can compare it to the NCAA. I'm sure there are players on the Arizona, Kentucky, and even Florida squads that don't get much of a chance to play but if those schools were allowed to field multiple teams, than the best athletes would be represented during March Madness and we could say goodbye to school like Butler and SIU playing in the Tournament. For the good of College Basketball that is not allowed to happen and it increases parity amongst schools. Personally, I'd like to see the Debate community decide if it is team representation or school representation that is the paramount goal. If it's team representation, than allow Emory, Northwestern, Michigan State and others to send fourth or fifth teams. If school representation is the goal, than any school that has at least one team with a 50% win record should get at least one bid to the NDT. Some might say that this will encourage folks to travel to more regioanl tournaments in hopes of increasing their win percentatge but is that (promoting regional debate) such a bad thing? frank In a message dated 3/17/2003 5:17:07 PM Eastern Standard Time, kkuswa at richmond.edu writes: Why do you assume more schools = weaker teams? More schools at the NDT would improve those schools. Also, why not go 4 teams or 5th teams. Oh no, the 5th team at NWU could win the NDT!! Does that hurt the NDT's purpose? No. kevin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/e0768a04/attachment.html From matt_gerber27 Tue Mar 18 10:21:51 2003 From: matt_gerber27 (Matt Gerber) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:21:51 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Thanks to JCCC Message-ID: Big thanks to Jeremy Hutchins and the rest of the Johnson County folks for hosting a wonderful and hospitable Junior Varsity National tournament. Conratulations to Emporia on winning the title, and going undefeated at this years gathering. Matt Kansas _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From bodonnel Tue Mar 18 11:08:49 2003 From: bodonnel (O'Donnell, Brett M.) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:08:49 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Liberty University Tournament Dates Message-ID: The Liberty University Debate Tournament will be November 7-9, 2003. Same format (2 rounds Friday and 4 on Saturday) and the hotel will have the same rate as the last four years. Brett O'Donnell Liberty Debate From wnewnam Tue Mar 18 11:14:47 2003 From: wnewnam (Bill Newnam) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:14:47 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Please explain why you entered teams in novice References: <000601c2ed5e$d9c880e0$e6995a42@grandecom.net> Message-ID: <3E775407.FB68EAD2@emory.edu> Frankly I find this overgeneralization and characterization very offensive "Scott M. Elliott" wrote: > In the end, directors of debate are much like sports coaches. Nobody > cares about the number of cards you cut or how many hours you put in. > Nobody really cares that you are "changing the world" through your > intellectual evangalism. All they care about is winning. > > In the end, we are all educators who mostly care a great deal about > our students, their learning, their growth, and their development. > > Perhaps I am only speaking for a few of us, but I doubt it. > > bill n > emory > > > > > > > > > > From swhalen Tue Mar 18 11:19:12 2003 From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:19:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] War/CEDA Travel Message-ID: A couple of folks have contacted me worried that US military action might coincide with flight delays and interruptions that would effect the national tournament or strand them in Phoenix. I have contacted the six largest carriers into Phoenix and every carrier says (at least for the moment) that they have no plans to alter their flight schedules or to cancel any flights. I encourage you to be especially careful to arrive for your flights early in light of the elevated alerts and potential outbreak of war. If you encounter problems during travel, please try to keep me updated by contacting me at the Sheraton (480) 967-6600 or on my cell (415) 794-6145. Wishing safe and smooth travel this week, Shawn Whalen Director of Forensics San Francisco State University swhalen at sfsu.edu (415) 338-1097 From wnewnam Tue Mar 18 11:21:19 2003 From: wnewnam (Bill Newnam) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:21:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Down to one References: <3E76070C.6B694138@emory.edu> Message-ID: <3E77558E.9D05007E@emory.edu> Dear NDT participants, I have everyone's information now except Berkeley. At this rate, Arnett is scheduled to judge 36 rounds (I bet thats more than he judged all year). So if anyone has persuasive skills with Arnett, or even contact information for the fellow, I would appreciate some help there. We look forward to hearing from you, Dave! bill n emory Bill Newnam wrote: > Dear Community, > > Thank you all for being so responsive to my repeated requests for the > information necessary for getting the NDT booklet to the printers. > > We are down to a handful of as yet not heard from Schools: > > Cal State Fullerton--friends of Bruschke, help me out here. > > UC Berkeley--something in the California air?? > > Dartmouth BS--you got a third team, better take advantage of it while > Harris still gives you a chance. > > I need names, judges and dietary information. > > SOOOOOOON > > PLEEEEEEEASE! > > (and judges from Loyola--at least tentative judges) > > bill n > emory > > BTW If you have sent me emails with this info, you still need to send > your team-coach data form to Cate Palcewski (Chair of the Committee) and > Donn Parson (Tournament Director) > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From frappier Tue Mar 18 11:23:38 2003 From: frappier (Frappier, Glen) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 09:23:38 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Down to one Message-ID: <65D733713D1C6944B4797D83F547069347674D@gem.gonzaga.edu> arnett...you were doing so great this year. bids and eligibility forms in on time, and now you drop the ball with registration. why isnt mcdonald or tejinder the DOF at Berkeley? -----Original Message----- From: Bill Newnam To: edebate; Bruschke, John; Kenneth M. Strange; Tejinder Singh Sent: 3/18/03 9:21 AM Subject: [eDebate] Down to one Dear NDT participants, I have everyone's information now except Berkeley. At this rate, Arnett is scheduled to judge 36 rounds (I bet thats more than he judged all year). So if anyone has persuasive skills with Arnett, or even contact information for the fellow, I would appreciate some help there. We look forward to hearing from you, Dave! bill n emory Bill Newnam wrote: > Dear Community, > > Thank you all for being so responsive to my repeated requests for the > information necessary for getting the NDT booklet to the printers. > > We are down to a handful of as yet not heard from Schools: > > Cal State Fullerton--friends of Bruschke, help me out here. > > UC Berkeley--something in the California air?? > > Dartmouth BS--you got a third team, better take advantage of it while > Harris still gives you a chance. > > I need names, judges and dietary information. > > SOOOOOOON > > PLEEEEEEEASE! > > (and judges from Loyola--at least tentative judges) > > bill n > emory > > BTW If you have sent me emails with this info, you still need to send > your team-coach data form to Cate Palcewski (Chair of the Committee) and > Donn Parson (Tournament Director) > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/dde383fd/attachment.htm From twwesq Tue Mar 18 12:00:50 2003 From: twwesq (Trevor Wells) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:00:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Down to one -- An Explanation Message-ID: Well . . . . I'd be the first to admit that I'm constantly amazed when the University of California-Berkeley successfully registers and then actually arrives at debate tournaments. My guess is that McDonald picks up a lot of the slack, because every time that Arnett, traveling by himself, attempts to fly back to Kentucky, he manages to drop the ball somehow. Usually, it's something like "I missed my flight," or "I forgot where I grew up, and I'm flying into Louisville instead of Lexington," but sometimes the excuse is truly bizarre (like, "I only had five minutes to change terminals and catch my connecting flight, but I hadn't had an Iron City Draft Beer since grade school, so I made a brief detour . . . ." or "I was sitting at the right gate, but then I wandered over to the arcade, where I saw this "Battlezone" video game straight outta 1982, and I needed change, so I went to buy a giant pretzel, and then I missed the five times they tried to page me for my flight.") In this case, however, I suspect that the reason for Wavy Davy's tardiness has a lot to do with his Herculean efforts to carry the "West Coast UK Basketball Fan" mantle. Having to wake up early (like 5 or 6 p.m. in El Cerrito) to catch a UK basketball game can take a lot out of a guy. And, things get even worse once you consider: (1) the stress of circumventing your own tendencies towards sloth so that you can successfully and timely catch a cross-country flight to New Orleans to attend the 2003 SEC Men's Basketball Tournament; (2) the stress of a return flight that prevents you from seeing the NCAA Tourney Selection Show, and thus deprives you of several hours of bracket analysis; and (3) having to clean up the house -- or at least "organize" your Kentucky memorabilia so that you can grab your "UK Fight Song Playing Frog" during tense moments in the upcoming NCAA Tournament action. But, notwithstanding the above, I just placed a call (and got the answering machine -- hey it's only 10:00 a.m. in El Cerrito!) and left a message suggesting to Dave that he might wish to take care of some NDT business. Trevor >From: Bill Newnam >To: edebate , "Bruschke, John" >, "Kenneth M. Strange" >, Tejinder Singh > >Subject: [eDebate] Down to one >Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:21:19 -0500 > >Dear NDT participants, > >I have everyone's information now except Berkeley. > >At this rate, Arnett is scheduled to judge 36 rounds (I bet thats more than >he judged all year). > >So if anyone has persuasive skills with Arnett, or even contact information >for the fellow, I would appreciate some help there. > >We look forward to hearing from you, Dave! > >bill n >emory > >Bill Newnam wrote: > > > Dear Community, > > > > Thank you all for being so responsive to my repeated requests for the > > information necessary for getting the NDT booklet to the printers. > > > > We are down to a handful of as yet not heard from Schools: > > > > Cal State Fullerton--friends of Bruschke, help me out here. > > > > UC Berkeley--something in the California air?? > > > > Dartmouth BS--you got a third team, better take advantage of it while > > Harris still gives you a chance. > > > > I need names, judges and dietary information. > > > > SOOOOOOON > > > > PLEEEEEEEASE! > > > > (and judges from Loyola--at least tentative judges) > > > > bill n > > emory > > > > BTW If you have sent me emails with this info, you still need to send > > your team-coach data form to Cate Palcewski (Chair of the Committee) and > > Donn Parson (Tournament Director) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From nathan_m_smith Tue Mar 18 12:04:57 2003 From: nathan_m_smith (Nathan Smith) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:04:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Paging Monte Stevens - sorry to the rest. Message-ID: <20030318180457.95367.qmail@web14003.mail.yahoo.com> Monte, Drop me a line soon. I'm thinking about coming to Phoenix and wondering about your golf plans. Nate Nathan Smith James E. Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona 520 884 0432 e-mail: nathan_m_smith at yahoo.com nathan.smith at law.arizona.edu --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/4cf724f3/attachment.html From scottelliott Tue Mar 18 12:23:34 2003 From: scottelliott (Scott M. Elliott) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:23:34 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Please explain why you entered teams in novice Message-ID: <000601c2ed7b$7df28000$e6995a42@grandecom.net> First, Andy asked a question and I provided an answer. Your comments do not in any way answer his question--namely why coaches would place a JV or varsity level debater into a novice national tournament. I provided a very reasonable explanation. Your "we care about education" seems very dubious on this particular issue. What is "educational" about spreading a true novice out of a round to win a piece of pottery? As far as being offensive. Sometimes the truth is offensive. But my statement of why people are doing bad things cannot be possibly more offensive that the actual acts that I describe. If you are offended, take it up with those that manipulate the system for cheap victories. In response to over generalization. Somewhat broad, but not too broad a swipe. For example, UCLA just fired its basketball coach for having the first losing season in 60 years. I would say that Emory is the debate equivelent of UCLA--a perrenial winner or finalist at national tournaments and national championships. I presume that you have a big budget. Nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, your program is the envy of the debate world. Now let's say that you decided to one day say "Hell with it! I am going to totally devote myself and the program to love and education." I mean your obvious talent could be much better spent coaching or teaching several hundred people with no experience in argumentation rather than grooming a relatively small group of elite debaters. So you go for the "growth" and development aspect of coaching. Over the next few years the program starts losing. You stop winning tournaments, the NDT, or even qualifiying teams for the NDT? Would you be around in a few years? I sincerely doubt it. I would suggest that winning is a very important aspect of debate. You are lucky enough to not have to fiddle with the rule book. Finally, if debate is not about winning, why do we even have tournaments? Why have trophies? We can accomplish the same educational mission and have the same outcomes without having having tournaments. Somehow--I know this is a shock to most of you--but, somehow, 99.9999% of the world has survived without tournament debating. So Bill, how does placing JV debaters or worse into novice tournaments foster education and growth? Scott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/9b24f7bf/attachment.htm From dbteam Wed Mar 19 12:41:23 2003 From: dbteam (dbteam) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 13:41:23 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Close Encounters of the Third Team Kind Message-ID: <3E726A27@cliff.westga.edu> it has been suggested that those 'voices' that don't have 3rd teams speak out on the issue. i've been UWG coach for 8 years now. Since the topic merger, UWG has had teams at CEDA Nationals, some of whom have had a modicum of success. We've had NDT First Round Bid teams 5 of those years (never more than one team), and qualified teams through D6 the other years (never more than 2 teams at the NDT). i provide this background to contextualize my remarks as coming from a source that seems to intersect conflicting interests - UWG has been very successful while never coming close to having a 3rd team in contention at the NDT. UWG Debate has one goal at the beginning of every year - become the first school to "unify the crown" by winning both CEDA Nationals and the NDT (i recognize their are other 'national' tournaments such as ADA and DSR-TKA, but believe that CEDA and NDT are the two major national championships). i don't want to 'merge' the two national tournaments into one. and i believe that having two distinct methods for determining 'national champions' is actually quite nice. to win CEDA Nationals, you have to be prepared to debate all comers, in front of single judges drawn from the largest pool of the year. sorta like the old fashioned 'battle royals' of professional wrestling. by being 'open', it allows for any team (that meets the financial standards and other requirements) to enter. it's wide open and often requires quite a bit of adaptation and flexibility. to win the NDT (at least from the perspective of someone who's never actually won the thang, but who has judged quite a few final rounds, coached in late elims, and helped friends - like Kuswa and Ahilan - who have done it), you must be prepared for an intense 4 day event where every round is like an elim: 3 or more judges, the very best competition, etc. By being a tournament teams must 'qualify' for, the NDT stresses an elitism and accomplishment that is PERFECTLY consistent within an activity governed by wins and losses. you may not have to debate everyone to win the NDT, but it's highly unlikely you'll not have debated the best by the end. each tournament has its own style. and that is a good thing. throughout the year, we attend tournaments of different shapes and sizes. The Dixie and the Coon break to doubles, enact side-equalization, and break brackets. West Georgia and Harvard break to octas, rely on the coin flip, and don't break brackets. Kentucky hosts a separate round-robin style tournament prior to the Clay. Dartmouth hosts an even smaller sized (except for this past year) round robin. all of them are a great deal of fun. i'd hate to see them standardized. for those who worry about schools missing out on the NDT, i say attend CEDA Nationals and kick butt there. certainly any team that won CEDA Nationals could claim legitimacy as one of the top teams in the country. now this can be used as an argument against third teams. Couldn't lupowitz just attend CEDA Nationals? why do third teams need to be at the NDT at all? i draw a different conclusion, and it's grounded in my original point that the diversity of having two National championships that have different methods of selecting participants is a good thing. in my view, CEDA Nationals should be open to all teams, while the NDT remain a tournament a team must qualify for. i'd like to see the NDT reduced in size - to 64 teams or less. and remove any criteria limiting the number of teams a school can qualify. If the 3rd, 4th, or even 5th team from a school like Emory or NU is good enough to qualify, then more power to them. proponents of the NDT shouldn't be afraid to embrace its elitist qualities. let's not fool ourselves - no matter how 'politically correct' the selection process is made, the event that is being discussed is still a competition where champions are crowned. critics of this elitism should do more to emphasize CEDA Nationals and its celebration of more pluralistic participation. the more it is acknowledged that the winner of CEDA Nationals is just as legitimate a 'national champion' as the NDT winner, the less concern there should be that the NDT is less inclusive i'll add one last caveat. personally, i find that teams that skip CEDA Nationals to prepare for the NDT somewhat 'wimpy' and perhaps even 'cowardly' in their approach. this is especially true in years (like this one) where there is a weekend between the two. Schools like MSU, Gonzaga, Whitman, and Fort Hays that attend both in full force should be commended for taking on all competition, while teams that skip CEDA nats and do well at the NDT should be made fun of for being afraid to test their arguments in a more chaotic atmosphere. if this practice were stigmatized with scorn, perhaps it would decrease in frequency. hester From Kelly.McDonald Tue Mar 18 13:41:24 2003 From: Kelly.McDonald (Kelly McDonald) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:41:24 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT HOTELS FOR CEDA NATIONALS Message-ID: <3996AE5EBEF964418D80953BDCABFF56037C1E05@ex1.asurite.ad.asu.edu> In order to facilitate a smooth check in at the Sheraton or Rodeway Inn, I plead with everyone who has not faxed in a rooming list to please do so at their first opportunity in the next day or so. Both properties have pledged to assemble key packets for schools to make registration more expedient. However, both properties have been at, or nearly at, 100% capacity. It is important for you to turn any rooms you are not planning on using ASAP to the hotel for general customers / tourists so our reserved block does not interrupt their regular business traffic. When you send in a room list, please do the following: 1) indicate who is the coach / supervisor of the group coming in; 2) your expected arrival time at the hotel; 3) names of each student / coach / judge at each room; 4) turning off phones / movies - or special directions 5) any special issues - smoking room, handicapped access, etc. Contact information at Sheraton: Attention "Ellen La Via" Fax: 480-966-2392 Contact information at Rodeway Inn: Attention: "Reservation Desk" Fax: Thanks so much for your cooperation. 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/20030318/bc0f22ac/attachment.html From dbteam Wed Mar 19 13:35:50 2003 From: dbteam (dbteam) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 14:35:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Close Encounters of the Third Team Kind Message-ID: <3E726F19@cliff.westga.edu> wanted to openly acknowledge that there are legit reasons for going to one and not the other, as my friend paul strait points out below. so not everyone is being a fraidy-cat. hester >===== Original Message From Paul Strait <03strait at cua.edu> ===== >Hey Hester, > >Good, thoughtful post. > >Not all teams that skip CEDA do so out of cowardice, however-- many schools >that were straight NDT before the merger just made a habit of not going to >CEDA, and adding an extra tournament that seems to always be way far away, >plus the added stress of missing a whole week's worth of class, make it easy >to maintain inertia. I was really looking forward to go to CEDA this year, >but my comps are on the monday of elims so we had to cancel. Also, I think >you are right that some years are better than others for the excuse that the >CEDA weekend must be an NDT prep weekend--last year that really wouldn't >fly. From Kelly.McDonald Tue Mar 18 13:59:36 2003 From: Kelly.McDonald (Kelly McDonald) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:59:36 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA HOTEL's - TAKE II Message-ID: <3996AE5EBEF964418D80953BDCABFF5674CBC6@ex1.asurite.ad.asu.edu> Just to clarify since some of you have asked - I only listed the Sheraton and Rodeway on the first email b/c that is all I made hotel arrangements through. I know some others of you are at other hotels - I am guessing they would like a rooming list as well if you can provide it for them. This is still peak travel season for tourists in Arizona b/c of the good weather & cactus league baseball. Please be courteous and return any rooms you have reserved and are not planning on using as soon as possible to the property. I forgot the fax # for the Rodeway - sorry- updated information below. Contact information at Rodeway Inn: Attention: "Reservation Desk / Room list CEDA" Fax: 480-966-9568 Just a reminder that registration is at the Sheraton Hotel from 7-10 on Thursday in the ARIZONA ROOM. Thanks so much for your cooperation. 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/20030318/7dc19947/attachment.htm From wnewnam Tue Mar 18 13:59:52 2003 From: wnewnam (Bill Newnam) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:59:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Thank you all Message-ID: <3E777AB8.EE6BD325@emory.edu> NDT participants: I have just received the last entry for the NDT. I appreciate all of you for being so responsive. I thank you, the printer thanks you, the caterer thanks you, my children thank you. bill n emory From Gary.N.Larson Tue Mar 18 14:01:55 2003 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary N. Larson) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:01:55 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Nats Prefs Message-ID: <000001c2ed89$39aa74d0$100c18ac@bl2471> I'm not panicked yet but am curious as to whether everyone is having difficulty with the web site this time around. We have high server volume midday at Wheaton so maybe that's affecting some of you. Please send me your concerns if the tech isn't cooperating. So far we have 18 teams with prefs recorded (a rather small number). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/0748a090/attachment.html From jhutchin Tue Mar 18 13:55:56 2003 From: jhutchin (Jeremy Hutchins) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:55:56 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] NJDDT Results Message-ID: Thanks to everyone who participated in the NJDDT. Thanks also to those folks who helped cover judging when things got tight. Specifically, thanks to Darren Elliott who once again keeps a tournament going with his willingness to come back late and judge the final round. It was a tough tournament with a lot of good debates. Congratulations to the University of Northern Iowa's Kelsey Harr and Kim Adams in novice and Emporia State University's Austin Case and Tiara Naputi in junior for their impressive runs to the championship. UNI was undefeated and did not drop a ballot. Emporia was also undefeated dropping only one ballot. Novice Division Semifinals UNI HA over KCKCC/ENMU 1-0 ENMU HH over UCO KS 1-0 Finals UNI HA over ENMU HH 3-0 Junior Division Octafinals Emporia CN over Augustana FS 3-0 Denver AM over UCO MS 3-0 UCO AD over SUU CR 2-1 WSU JW over SMS PW 2-1 KU GT over WSU DM 3-0 KU ZH over UMKC LC 2-1 JCCC TW over UCO LS 2-1 SMS CT over K-State SF 2-1 Quarterfinals Emporia CN defeated SMS CT 2-1 JCCC TW defeated Denver AM 3-0 UCO AD defeated KU ZH 3-0 KU GT defeated WSU JW 2-1 Semifinals Emporia CN defeated KU GT 3-0 UCO AD defeated JCCC TW 3-0 Finals Emporia CN defeated UCO AD 3-0 From timmonsa Tue Mar 18 14:24:37 2003 From: timmonsa (Timmons, Aaron) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 14:24:37 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Job Opening -Colleyville Heritage Message-ID: <94876F6E894EDC44B2584C560FA368640131E89A@darwin.greenhill.org> Job Opening - Colleyville Heritage HS - (Dallas/Ft.Worth area - Texas) Needed - qualified individual to help with national calibre CX program at outstanding high school in Dallas/Ft. Worth area. Strong district and administrative support for elite program. Students travel extensively and have won numerous national awards over the life of the program. School is 9-12, over 2000 students, nationally recognized as Blue Ribbon School this past year. Demographics - upper middle class. Primary responsibilities involved working with CX debaters although squad is equally involved in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. Class assignments could vary, but speech/communication area preferred. Texas certification ultimately required (although several options available to pursue). Contact Cindi Timmons for more info - cynthia.timmons at gcisd.net OR 817-358-4763 Additional note - successful candidate needs to be able to listen to stories about cute kids and be able to get along with Cindi's husband (Aaron Timmons - Greenhill). If you don't like Aaron or babies - don't call :) From hansonjb Tue Mar 18 15:47:13 2003 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:47:13 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] proposal for ceda nationals in case of closed airlines Message-ID: <001c01c2ed97$f078fa20$1304070a@whitman.edu> I am asking shawn, kelly and the ceda executive committee to make plans in the event that airlines shut down on Thursday morning/afternoon. while I hope this is not going to happen, there is a possibility of it. the ncaa is currently preparing contingency plans; we should too. this proposal would take effect only if many/all airlines shut down travel. I suggest we give teams time to drive to phoenix. I suggest if airlines do shut down, we begin ceda nats on Saturday instead of Friday and have a schedule that looks like this: Friday, no rounds so that teams can drive to nationals sat rounds 1-4 sun rounds 5-6 plus triples and doubles mon rounds octas thru finals; hold awards between octas and quarters while decisions are being made I am suggesting that shawn and the ceda executive committee make an announcement about this by Wednesday evening--so we can plan ahead for this contingency. respectfully and for consideration by shawn, kelly, the ceda executive committee and members of the debate community. jim hanson :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From burke_2 Tue Mar 18 15:58:31 2003 From: burke_2 (chuck w) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:58:31 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] SIU looking for grad students Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/3a18c15b/attachment.htm From kirk Tue Mar 18 15:58:38 2003 From: kirk (Kirk Knutsen) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:58:38 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Invitation to Judge at Nevada State Debate Championships (Las Vegas) Message-ID: <000001c2ed99$8b402050$0202a8c0@themeadowsschool.org> To anyone within reach of sunny Las Vegas, I would like to invite you to serve as a judge at the Nevada State Forensics Championship, to be held March 21-22 at Silverado High School. Please also feel free to invite any other experienced policy debate judges you might know in the Las Vegas area. Without a college program in the area, qualified policy judges are a scarce and valued resource. I promise we will take good care of you. The tournament will be paying $15 per policy round, in addition to generous portions of home cooked hospitality. The first round of policy debate will begin at 4:30pm on Friday, March 21. The second round is scheduled to begin at 8:00pm. The tournament continues on Saturday, March 22, with the 3rd round of policy debate scheduled to begin at 9:15am. We expect the final round on Saturday will begin at approximately 4:30pm. We are not paying for housing, but a small of group of college debaters could definitely cover their local hotel, with some mad money left over, in exchange for picking up some rounds for us. Not a bad way to underwrite a roadtrip to Vegas, eh? To ensure you get the rounds you need to cover your trip, please check in with me via e-mail before heading out. If you're able to make it, the directions follow: >From wherever you are starting, come to Las Vegas and find a way to get on the 215 (beltway near the Airport). Take the Eastern Ave. exit and proceed south (this is a right onto Eastern if you're approaching from the west, or a left onto Eastern if you're approaching from the east). >From Eastern, take the first right onto Serene Ave. From Serene, take the first right onto Spencer St. From Spencer, take the 1st left onto Silver Hawk. Silverado H.S. will come up immediately on your right. For specific computer generated directions you can do to Expedia.com and enter "Silverado High School, Nevada" in the destination. I hope we will be able to see you this weekend. Track down Mrs. Karen Vaughan or myself to arrange for payment for rounds judged. All the Best, Kirk L. Knutsen Director of Speech & Debate The Meadows School 8601 Scholar Lane Las Vegas, NV 89128 kirk at knutsenfamily.com http://www.tmsdebate.org 702- 581-5258 cell -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/642577ee/attachment.html From BERCHNORTO Tue Mar 18 16:08:09 2003 From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:08:09 EST Subject: [eDebate] proposal for ceda nationals in case of closed airlines Message-ID: <15a.1d327a41.2ba8f2c9@aol.com> With all due respect to Jim, Mapquest tells me that the drive from Morgantown to Tempe is 2151.27 miles, or 34 hours and 56 minutes. Drives for New York, DC area schools should be longer. Drive from Burlington would be about 3 weeks. Given that many schools have rules about driving time per day, that people would have to debate immediately after these monstrous drives, that significant missed school would ensue, I think this is not a viable idea for much of the field. In the very unlikely event that this happens, I will eat our plane tickets and try again next year. As for the NCAA, I think their major contingency plans are to avoid starting when the war starts so that they can keep the tournament on CBS and maximize revenues. I'm not sure if the war will affect Tuna's coverage of CEDA finals nor the massive amounts he's willing to pay for the viewing rights! :) --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/faaa6bd1/attachment.htm From Robert.Aronoff Tue Mar 18 16:36:05 2003 From: Robert.Aronoff (Aronoff, Robert) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:36:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Seeking Graduate Student Applications Message-ID: <23FA26BF4E76DC4E949B0D1A9E7BE123304D6E@COMM-EX01.comm.ad.fsu.edu> eDebate Subscribers: Florida State University has funded graduate assistantship positions available in our MA, MS, and PhD programs within the Department of Communication. While there may be positions available directly with the forensics team, for Master's and PhD students who wish to serve as an assistant coach in either Debate or IE, we also fund a number of teaching assistantships through our Oral Communication Competency Requirement (OCCR) courses (the two basic public speaking courses). More information about the Masters and PhD programs of study can be found at www.comm.fsu.edu . Those who are interested in one of these opportunities, please back channel me as soon as possible, as we need to get your paperwork in by April 15th if you decide to apply for this fall. Sincerely, Robert Aronoff FSU Director of Forensics Robert.Aronoff at comm.fsu.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/6c1ca8e1/attachment.html From alfred.snider Tue Mar 18 16:43:43 2003 From: alfred.snider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:43:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Incomplete Judge Philosophies PROBLEM Message-ID: My understanding is that judge philosophy statements are REQUIRED for entering the tournament. I have downloaded and printed the CEDA judge philosophy .pdf documents. We just spent two hours going over the list and reading philosophies, and I am pretty frustrated because many are MISSING. And we have an early deadline for filing prefs. I cannot rank the following judges absent their philosophies. Please send them to me (or post them to the list so that others can use them as well). I know most of these people but I want to see how they feel about things NOW. Larry Wulkan Ben Kearl Jason Cramer Regina Paulose David Magariel Brian McBride Doug Dennis Matt McDonald Thanks, 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 Kelly.McDonald Tue Mar 18 16:47:44 2003 From: Kelly.McDonald (Kelly McDonald) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:47:44 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Judging Philosophies - last call Message-ID: <3996AE5EBEF964418D80953BDCABFF5674CBC9@ex1.asurite.ad.asu.edu> This is a final call for judging philosophies before tournament registration. There will be a supplement copied Wednesday night. If you have not turned one in yet, you must have it to me in WORD format and pasted into an email no LATER than 5 p.m. Central time tomorrow. If you cannot do that, please plan on bringing 200 copies to registration to be distributed. This would be the least desirable alternative so if you have not got it done, please finish in the next 24 hours and email to me. 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/20030318/8a854d03/attachment.htm From cpwiii Tue Mar 18 16:49:46 2003 From: cpwiii (charles woodbury) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:49:46 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] ndtceda--3d,4th, etc. teams Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/b462b205/attachment.html From gordonm+ Tue Mar 18 16:54:28 2003 From: gordonm+ (Gordon Mitchell) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 17:54:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Rove petition text and press release Message-ID: <1066925.3256998868@mitchell3.comm.pitt.edu> Hi folks. We have finished polishing the text of the Rove petition and completed a press release to help explain the petition campaign. Thanks to those who provided helpful feedback in the editing process. Copies of the petition can be downloaded from here and printed out for decentralized signing. Each sheet has room for ten signatures, and our goal is to fill 50 sheets for a total of 500 signatures. We will be setting up tables at CEDA nats and the NDT that will serve as collection points for finished petitions and also as clearinghouses for information and literature exchange on issues relating to the campaign. However, we encourage interested parties to download a copy of the petition before leaving for CEDA nats, so that debaters who are unable to attend the tournament might get the chance to add their voice to the campaign. Best, Gordon * * * Gordon R. Mitchell Associate Professor of Communication / Director of Debate University of Pittsburgh CL 1117, 4200 Fifth Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15260 Phone: (412) 624-8531 Fax: (412) 624-1878 http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Rovepetitiontext.27427DEFANGED-rtf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 5144 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/0e82143d/attachment.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PetitionPressRelease.27427DEFANGED-rtf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 18348 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/0e82143d/attachment-0001.obj From Kelly.McDonald Tue Mar 18 16:56:13 2003 From: Kelly.McDonald (Kelly McDonald) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:56:13 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Incomplete Files - see list: Message-ID: <3996AE5EBEF964418D80953BDCABFF56037C1E10@ex1.asurite.ad.asu.edu> I empathize with Tuna very much on this. I am emailing as attachments all that I have received. I have attached the following philosophies: Doug Dennis David Mageriel Chris Cushman John Foy John Hanson Ben Kearl Jason Cramer 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/20030318/cbb931c4/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Mageriel Type: application/octet-stream Size: 24064 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/cbb931c4/attachment.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Cushman Type: application/octet-stream Size: 25600 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/cbb931c4/attachment-0001.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Dennis Type: application/octet-stream Size: 23552 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/cbb931c4/attachment-0002.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Foy Type: application/octet-stream Size: 21504 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/cbb931c4/attachment-0003.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Hanson Type: application/octet-stream Size: 23552 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/cbb931c4/attachment-0004.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Kearl Type: application/octet-stream Size: 20480 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/cbb931c4/attachment-0005.obj -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Cramer Type: application/octet-stream Size: 22528 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/cbb931c4/attachment-0006.obj From Kelly.McDonald Tue Mar 18 17:04:34 2003 From: Kelly.McDonald (Kelly McDonald) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:04:34 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Kelly's Philosophy List - Take II Message-ID: <3996AE5EBEF964418D80953BDCABFF56037C1E13@ex1.asurite.ad.asu.edu> I have now attached a single word file with the following philosophies included with page breaks separating them. I hope this is more readable: Doug Dennis David Mageriel Chris Cushman John Foy John Hanson Ben Kearl Jason Cramer 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/20030318/554a8557/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Philosophies.29922DEFANGED-doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 60928 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/554a8557/attachment.obj From dbteam Wed Mar 19 17:12:33 2003 From: dbteam (dbteam) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 18:12:33 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Third Team Ire Message-ID: <3E7281FB@cliff.westga.edu> i believe my previous reply to Paul Strait (which i cc'd to edebate) explained that i admit there are legit reasons why schools choose not to attend CEDA. my post included rather fiery language in order to ruffle some feathers. and it has. but it was also intended to make a more insightful point, and many of the backchannels i've received about it indicate i wasn't as successful at making that point as i was at pissing yall off. so i'll make the point again: 1) Rather than altering the current method for NDT selection, i think a better alternative for recognizing community participation in "national championship" tournaments is to recognize that we already have an extremely inclusive "national championship" tournament - CEDA Nationals. 2) In order to emphasize that recognition, we should applaud those teams that navigate their way through BOTH national tournaments, and acknowledge that the effort of attending both (and doing well at both) is perhaps a BETTER indication of the quality of debate than that shown by teams who skip CEDA so as to focus exclusively on the NDT. my previous idea of "scorn" for the "skippers" was meant satirically. anyone i had plans of making fun of (looking in your direction Goof) was gonna hear smart-ass comments from me for many other reasons, and it has nothing to do with their travel schedule (which at many top programs seems to be more a decision by the coach rather than the debaters anyway). the comments in my original post should have been more explicitly directed at teams that skip CEDA are wimps if they do so IN ORDER TO AVOID LOSING AT CEDA. 3) so maybe it would be more persuasive to my critics if i suggested that we laud the merits of those that do well at both. two examples come to mind - both coincidentally from MSU. in 2000, Steve Donald and Aaron Monick were in the final round of both CEDA Nationals and the NDT. they lost by one ballot at each. i commented then, and repeat it now, that as far as i'm concerned, there were THREE National champions that year. They did something that neither of the two champions (UWG HS and Emory HL) did - debating the maximum number of rounds. last year, Greta Stahl and David Strauss were in the Semis of both the NDT and CEDA nationals. i think a strong argument can be made that their accomplishment at both national championship tournaments is a greater indicator of high quality debate than the winners (Fort Hays RR and NU FP) showed by winning the final round. this is not to say Jake, Jonathan, Joe, and/or Jason suck. of course they did awesome. but it is to say that doing great at both CEDA and NDT - in my mind - is a feat that we should acknowledge much more than we do now. if we prioritized doing well at both above doing well at one - and by prioritize i mean in our words and discussions - perhaps those teams who don't perceive it in their interest to attend both now b/c it reduces their chances of winning the NDT (and despite the legitimate protestations of those who replied to me, there ARE teams that skip CEDA for this reason, or for fear of losing rounds at CEDA) might feel more inclined to attend CEDA nats. if they did, maybe the schools who feel marginalized now b/c they didn't qualify for the NDT would feel better about 'only' being at CEDA nats. hester From gordonm+ Tue Mar 18 17:24:12 2003 From: gordonm+ (Gordon Mitchell) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:24:12 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Rove petition text and press release II Message-ID: <1174257.3257000652@mitchell3.comm.pitt.edu> Hi again folks. Sorry for the clutter - resending this note attachment free, with hyperlinks to the documents referenced in my last email. We have finished polishing the text of the Rove petition and completed a press release to help explain the petition campaign. Thanks to those who provided helpful feedback in the editing process. Copies of the petition can be downloaded from here and printed out for decentralized signing. Each sheet has room for ten signatures, and our goal is to fill 50 sheets for a total of 500 signatures. For the text of the petition point your browser to: http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/Petition/Rovepetitiontext.rtf For the press release go to: http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/Petition/PetitionPressRelease.rtf We will be setting up tables at CEDA nats and the NDT that will serve as collection points for finished petitions and also as clearinghouses for information and literature exchange on issues relating to the campaign. However, we encourage interested parties to download a copy of the petition before leaving for CEDA nats, so that debaters who are unable to attend the tournament might get the chance to add their voice to the campaign. Best, Gordon * * * Gordon R. Mitchell Associate Professor of Communication / Director of Debate University of Pittsburgh CL 1117, 4200 Fifth Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15260 Phone: (412) 624-8531 Fax: (412) 624-1878 http://www.pitt.edu/~gordonm/ From MIDNBRUNO Tue Mar 18 17:26:46 2003 From: MIDNBRUNO (MIDNBRUNO at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:26:46 EST Subject: [eDebate] The First Casualty of the War in Iraq - SORT Message-ID: <9.cebbb4f.2ba90536@aol.com> MOSCOW (March 18) - Russian lawmakers postponed indefinitely a vote Tuesday to ratify a U.S.-Russian nuclear arms treaty, as the parliament speaker warned that a war against Iraq could endanger the pact. The treaty, agreed to last May by Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Bush, requires that the two nations cut their strategic nuclear arsenals by about two-thirds, to 1,700 to 2,200 deployed warheads each, by 2012. The treaty was seen as more advantageous to Russia than the now-defunct START II agreement, which specifically banned Russia from deploying land-based missiles with multiple warheads. The new deal would leave it to each nation to decide which weapons it will scrap. That would let Russia keep its Soviet-built multiwarhead SS-18 and SS-19 missiles at the core of its nuclear arsenal. Russia's lower house, the State Duma, had been expected to take up debate on the treaty Friday. But the Duma Council, which sets the legislative agenda, put off the vote indefinitely and did not set a new date. ``We consider ratification very important, but now this step is not justified,'' said Sergei Shishkaryov, the deputy chairman of the Duma's international affairs committee. He added that ``in essence, we are standing on the threshold of World War III.'' The U.S. Senate unanimously approved the treaty earlier this month, a move widely seen as part of a diplomatic effort to win Russian support for a tougher line against Iraq. But Russia opposed a U.S.-backed draft resolution at the U.N. Security Council threatening the use of force against Iraq. President Bush has abandoned diplomatic efforts at the United Nations and given Saddam Hussein until Wednesday night to leave the country or face war. ``In the event of an American strike on Iraq the fate of the entire treaty will be in question,'' Gennady Seleznyov, speaker of the Duma, said during a visit to the Czech capital, Prague. ``The Americans are striking at international law,'' he said, according to the Interfax news agency. Tuesday's postponement reflected the ambivalence of post-Cold War Russian-U.S. relations. Washington and Moscow have pursued closer ties, but the Kremlin bridles at what it regards as a U.S. penchant for unilateral action, such as its withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty. Some Russian lawmakers lashed out at the United States over Iraq. ``Let them know there is a serious nuclear power that will really provide for the security of the entire world community and will never allow itself to act by the laws of the jungle,'' Interfax quoted Seleznyov as saying. Other lawmakers cautioned their colleagues against making rash decisions that could imperil the nuclear treaty and strain the overall U.S.-Russian relationship. Sergei Mironov, the speaker of Russia's upper house of parliament, called the decision to put off ratification a mistake. ``This treaty plays an important strategic role for both Russia and the United States,'' Mironov said, according to the Interfax-Military news agency reported. 03/18/03 15:57 EST Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/697e5ade/attachment.htm From privethedge Tue Mar 18 17:31:01 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:31:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] proposal for ceda nationals in case of closed airlines In-Reply-To: <001c01c2ed97$f078fa20$1304070a@whitman.edu> Message-ID: <20030318233101.49471.qmail@web10004.mail.yahoo.com> I am not currently aware of any plans to shut the system down, barring a terrorist strike, or other 9/11 like incident. If I hear anything, I'll let y'all 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." "France said this week they need more evidence to convince them Saddam is a threat. Yeah, last time France asked for more evidence it came rolling thru Paris with a German Flag on it." David Letterman --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/d32fc95a/attachment.html From privethedge Tue Mar 18 17:35:27 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:35:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Rove petition text and press release II In-Reply-To: <1174257.3257000652@mitchell3.comm.pitt.edu> Message-ID: <20030318233527.52660.qmail@web10005.mail.yahoo.com> Hmmm...isn't this effort a day late, and few hours short. By the time your petition is signed this weekend, or at the NDT, the war will be over, Iraq will be on its way to freedom and stability, and Bush and Rove will look like geniuses for pulling it off. Not saying you shouldn't protest - that';s your right, and I respect that. However, just saying that your protest would have about as much effect as standing on a train track while watching the freight train barrel towards you. You'll slow it down, briefly, by the laws of physics when it hits you, but you won't have much more effect on 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." "France said this week they need more evidence to convince them Saddam is a threat. Yeah, last time France asked for more evidence it came rolling thru Paris with a German Flag on it." David Letterman --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/8f265bd9/attachment.htm From Gary.N.Larson Tue Mar 18 18:01:43 2003 From: Gary.N.Larson (Gary N. Larson) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:01:43 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] RE: rochester pref problems!!!!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000501c2edaa$b9ffd690$100c18ac@bl2471> A few folks have encountered difficulty with the pref system entry. A couple of suggestions. First, it appears that the first judge listed should not be left blank (assuming you're doing a partial entry). The system interprets the fact that the first judge is blank as an "abandoned" form. The web designer is correcting this but in the meantime, enter the first judge (even if you change or blank it later). The second concern is that you might be "timing out." The way that web forms usually work is that the server downloads the page and the java commands to your local system. During the time that you are entering ranks, you aren't sending any keystrokes to the server (or your ISP). If your ISP has a "time out" interval for non-activity as many do, you might be timing out while you are working on your form. To resolve this, hit submit every so often incrementally to save your work and tell your ISP that you're still online. You also should be able to use the refresh button to keep your connection active. I apologize for the difficulties and will keep in touch. > -----Original Message----- > From: adam lee [mailto:arlee1 at hotmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 5:15 PM > To: Gary.N.Larson at wheaton.edu > Subject: rochester pref problems!!!!!! > > > > > > everytime we enter data and hit submit, and attempt to return to entered > info it comes up as absolutely blank...help, please? > > adam lee > > _________________________________________________________________ > Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From swhalen Tue Mar 18 18:27:26 2003 From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:27:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Re: proposal for ceda nationals in case of closed airlines In-Reply-To: <001c01c2ed97$f078fa20$1304070a@whitman.edu> References: <001c01c2ed97$f078fa20$1304070a@whitman.edu> Message-ID: Jim and others, I believe that the prospect of mass airline cancelations are unlikely. Both the NCAA and Oscars have decided to proceed as planned. In the case that 30% of the tournament is effected, we will entertain schedule adjustments to accomodate that emergency. However, since we have no ability to predict how specific travel interruptions might effect us and, consequently, whether any contingency plans might substantially increase participation, it is premature and potentially confusing to announce a contingency plan at this point. I share your concerns and thank you for your insight into potential alternatives should the need arise. I urge anyone confronting travel delays to contact me as soon as possible. Regards, Shawn Whalen Director of Forensics San Francisco State University swhalen at sfsu.edu (415) 338-1097 On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Jim Hanson wrote: > > I am asking shawn, kelly and the ceda executive committee to make plans in > the event that airlines shut down on Thursday morning/afternoon. while I > hope this is not going to happen, there is a possibility of it. the ncaa is > currently preparing contingency plans; we should too. > > this proposal would take effect only if many/all airlines shut down travel. > > I suggest we give teams time to drive to phoenix. > > I suggest if airlines do shut down, we begin ceda nats on Saturday instead > of Friday and have a schedule that looks like this: > > Friday, no rounds so that teams can drive to nationals > sat rounds 1-4 > sun rounds 5-6 plus triples and doubles > mon rounds octas thru finals; hold awards between octas and quarters while > decisions are being made > > I am suggesting that shawn and the ceda executive committee make an > announcement about this by Wednesday evening--so we can plan ahead for this > contingency. > > respectfully and for consideration by shawn, kelly, the ceda executive > committee and members of the debate community. > > jim hanson :) > hansonjb at whitman.edu > From jmarty Tue Mar 18 18:29:21 2003 From: jmarty (Jillian A. Marty) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:29:21 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Will baker( or someone from nyu) AND someone from Mary Washington Please respond Message-ID: <1048033761.3e77b9e179cf0@webmail.uvm.edu> -- hey I some of your teams evidence and I need to know a way to get it back to you. Thanks Jillian- uvm From swhalen Tue Mar 18 18:47:48 2003 From: swhalen (Shawn T Whalen) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:47:48 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Incomplete Judge Philosophies PROBLEM In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Tuna and others, Wulkan and Paulose will not be judging and therefore have not provided philosophies. There was a chance that they might have been and on that chance they were included in the preference sheet. Adding judges to the pref sheet is much more of a problem than dropping them. Gary assures me that judge drops do not significantly effect the performance of the judge preference system. For now, please rank all the judges, even those who have dropped. Thanks for your understanding, Shawn Whalen Director of Forensics San Francisco State University swhalen at sfsu.edu (415) 338-1097 On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Alfred C. Snider wrote: > My understanding is that judge philosophy statements are REQUIRED for > entering the tournament. > > I have downloaded and printed the CEDA judge philosophy .pdf > documents. We just spent two hours going over the list and reading > philosophies, and I am pretty frustrated because many are MISSING. > And we have an early deadline for filing prefs. > > I cannot rank the following judges absent their philosophies. Please > send them to me (or post them to the list so that others can use them > as well). I know most of these people but I want to see how they feel > about things NOW. > > Larry Wulkan > Ben Kearl > Jason Cramer > Regina Paulose > David Magariel > Brian McBride > Doug Dennis > Matt McDonald > > Thanks, > > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From cuanovii Tue Mar 18 18:47:55 2003 From: cuanovii (Catholic Novii-Girls) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 16:47:55 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Re: Please explain why you entered teams in novice Message-ID: <20030319004755.6985.qmail@web20703.mail.yahoo.com> There has been some very active discussion in the last few days regarding Novice Nationals at Towson and a few things must be cleared up: 1) There are ridiculous numbers of high school LD debaters who try to transfer over to college policy debate and fail miserably. 2) LD is NOT policy. Although there are those of you out there who believe that it should be, you are grossly mistaken. While you are trying to make all HS LD?ers go straight to JV or even Varsity, why don?t you attack those who excelled in HS Mock Trial, Model Congress, Model UN, or Theatre? Those are nothing close to policy, but they too must give participants some sort of academic advantage. LD and Policy are completely different forums?this novice had to learn to flow the first week, had a horrible time understanding Kritiks, was the slowest in the class at first, and was just as terribly confused as the rest of us. 3) Hard work is what wins tournaments. This certain novice debater who is the center of such exaggerated controversy has worked exceptionally hard and with more enthusiasm, drive and determination to excel in Policy debate than some Varsity debaters. Strength of character and determination are not traits that should be attacked, they should be praised and emulated. If any other Novice debater besides him has given more than sixty rebuttal re-do?s, spent endless hours in the debate team room, researching as much to two to three hours a day, cutting cards, and working with his teammates trying to learn as much as he can every spare second he has, (and driving his roommate crazy with the endless amount of speed drills in the process) then they too would be exceptional. This person has achieved such success only through determination and hard work, not as a result of experience in a completely different forum of debate. He deserves to be the best in the novice division, because there is no doubt he has worked the hardest. 4) Our coaches and directing staff are phenomenal and not unethical at all! In fact, they should be applauded, because they push every novice on the team to succeed and provide us with endless hours of attention, even though they have three Varsity teams WITH high school experience preparing for the NDT who they could be focusing all of their time and energy on. Winning is important, that?s true, but the novice trophy is not the most important thing ? what?s important is that we do our personal best, learn, and enjoy debate. That?s what we?re in it for, isn?t it? Anyone who knew our staff would recognize that and realize these assumptions are false. Our coaching staff is committed to anyone who wants to do the best they can, to each and every one of us, regardless of whether we win tournaments or not. That has been empirically proven. Also, comments posted on this site that anyone can read are hurting a lot of feelings and diminishing confidence in the integrity of the debate community. If there is a problem or conflict it should be dealt with in a professional manner, not a round-about way that is sure to exacerbate the issue. Meg O?Brien Dori Leonard Carly Shoupe CUA Debate --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/c057687c/attachment.html From kenedebate Tue Mar 18 19:03:44 2003 From: kenedebate (Ken DeLaughder) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:03:44 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Thanks to JCCC Message-ID: The Hornets would like to thanks Jeremy Hutchins for hosting this years NJDDT and being a great guy in general. This tournament has, over the past few outing returned to the 1st-2nd year smackdown that it was in its CEDA heydey, when you read of folks winning this tournament who then went on to win CEDA when they were 3-4th years. Wanting to send folks to a tournament has a lot oto do with that, and the fine facilities and great hosting skills is certainly a good reason. I would also like to thank my entire team, all of whom contributed to this victory. Even the folks at home did research and sent it in, while they got ready for CEDA and the NDT in some cases. This was a whole squad effort and I'm proud of them all... Hornets sting in swarms. I also would like to congratulate all the fine programs who showcased their younger talent. Especially the Bronchos of UCO. Many of these folks will be seeing each other again for some years, it was interesting to see them start those rivalries now. There were many fine fine debaters who did not make the final round. This tournament was ROUGH on outround day. Lastly, my assistants. I would like to thank James Taylor, who volunteers of his time, becuase his paycheck would never cover all the work he does, giving up his better paying job to be a part of our family. Thanks JT even if you did think SPARCing them wouldn't be the best strat :) (heh) And of course, Sam Maurer, who I miss already as he climbs toward graduation. He will do some program very proud next year, thanks Marvin ;) Get some sleep fellas. Oh yeah, and to the JCCC folks who hosted a nice gathering and made sure my tired self didn't have to drive home on no sleep, thanks for the mac and cheese! naptime Ken DeLaughder Director of Debate Emporia State University 2003 NJDDT Champions _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From kkuswa Tue Mar 18 20:05:28 2003 From: kkuswa (Kevin Kuswa) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:05:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] thanks to JMU! Message-ID: <014001c2edbc$048784e0$2774a68d@richmond.edu> just returned from an exciting public debate at JMU. Some stirring speeches about the Patriot Act took place. Thanks to Pete Bsumek and JMU for hosting, happy BDay to James Madison, and congrats to all the participants (Pitt, MWC, JMU, and Richmond). kevin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/5274640b/attachment.htm From kkuswa Tue Mar 18 20:16:43 2003 From: kkuswa (Kevin Kuswa) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:16:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Third Team Ire References: <3E7281FB@cliff.westga.edu> Message-ID: <020401c2edbd$96005040$2774a68d@richmond.edu> Hester, Great posts. Another consideration about going to both is cost. We couldn't come up with the money to do both this year. Kevin ----- Original Message ----- From: "dbteam" To: "Paul Strait" <03strait at cua.edu> Cc: "edebate" Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 6:12 PM Subject: [eDebate] Third Team Ire > i believe my previous reply to Paul Strait (which i cc'd to edebate) explained > that i admit there are legit reasons why schools choose not to attend CEDA. > > my post included rather fiery language in order to ruffle some feathers. and > it has. > > but it was also intended to make a more insightful point, and many of the > backchannels i've received about it indicate i wasn't as successful at making > that point as i was at pissing yall off. > > so i'll make the point again: > > 1) Rather than altering the current method for NDT selection, i think a better > alternative for recognizing community participation in "national championship" > tournaments is to recognize that we already have an extremely inclusive > "national championship" tournament - CEDA Nationals. > > 2) In order to emphasize that recognition, we should applaud those teams that > navigate their way through BOTH national tournaments, and acknowledge that the > effort of attending both (and doing well at both) is perhaps a BETTER > indication of the quality of debate than that shown by teams who skip CEDA so > as to focus exclusively on the NDT. > > my previous idea of "scorn" for the "skippers" was meant satirically. anyone i > had plans of making fun of (looking in your direction Goof) was gonna hear > smart-ass comments from me for many other reasons, and it has nothing to do > with their travel schedule (which at many top programs seems to be more a > decision by the coach rather than the debaters anyway). the comments in my > original post should have been more explicitly directed at teams that skip > CEDA are wimps if they do so IN ORDER TO AVOID LOSING AT CEDA. > > 3) so maybe it would be more persuasive to my critics if i suggested that we > laud the merits of those that do well at both. two examples come to mind - > both coincidentally from MSU. > > in 2000, Steve Donald and Aaron Monick were in the final round of both CEDA > Nationals and the NDT. they lost by one ballot at each. i commented then, and > repeat it now, that as far as i'm concerned, there were THREE National > champions that year. They did something that neither of the two champions (UWG > HS and Emory HL) did - debating the maximum number of rounds. > > last year, Greta Stahl and David Strauss were in the Semis of both the NDT and > CEDA nationals. i think a strong argument can be made that their > accomplishment at both national championship tournaments is a greater > indicator of high quality debate than the winners (Fort Hays RR and NU FP) > showed by winning the final round. this is not to say Jake, Jonathan, Joe, > and/or Jason suck. of course they did awesome. but it is to say that doing > great at both CEDA and NDT - in my mind - is a feat that we should acknowledge > much more than we do now. > > if we prioritized doing well at both above doing well at one - and by > prioritize i mean in our words and discussions - perhaps those teams who don't > perceive it in their interest to attend both now b/c it reduces their chances > of winning the NDT (and despite the legitimate protestations of those who > replied to me, there ARE teams that skip CEDA for this reason, or for fear of > losing rounds at CEDA) might feel more inclined to attend CEDA nats. if they > did, maybe the schools who feel marginalized now b/c they didn't qualify for > the NDT would feel better about 'only' being at CEDA nats. > > hester > > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From GatorDebate Tue Mar 18 20:29:08 2003 From: GatorDebate (GatorDebate at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:29:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Thank you all Message-ID: <21F559E0.6C7DEE4A.37F60172@aol.com> AND WE ALL THANK YOU BILL! frank In a message dated 3/18/2003 2:59:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, wnewnam at emory.edu writes: > > > NDT participants: > > I have just received the last entry for the NDT. I appreciate all of > you for being so responsive. > > I thank you, > the printer thanks you, > the caterer thanks you, > my children thank you. > > bill n > emory > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go > here: > http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From damien.pfister Tue Mar 18 20:49:50 2003 From: damien.pfister (Damien Pfister) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:49:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Rove petition text and press release II In-Reply-To: <20030318233527.52660.qmail@web10005.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Is it ever too late to protest the circumvention of democratic deliberation practices? Is it ever too late to protest the reliance on faulty, unverified evidence? Is it ever too late to argue for the incorporation, rather then dismissal, of disparate voices into the foreign policy realm? And, most ominously, is Iraq really the only case where this heavy-handed pattern of "persuasion" will ever occur? The cynic in most of us thinks not, and the optimist flip side thinks we ought petition Karl Rove to alter the manipulation of public debate. Damien -----Original Message----- From: edebate-admin at ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-admin at ndtceda.com]On Behalf Of Duane Hyland Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 6:35 PM To: Gordon Mitchell; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Rove petition text and press release II Hmmm...isn't this effort a day late, and few hours short. By the time your petition is signed this weekend, or at the NDT, the war will be over, Iraq will be on its way to freedom and stability, and Bush and Rove will look like geniuses for pulling it off. Not saying you shouldn't protest - that';s your right, and I respect that. However, just saying that your protest would have about as much effect as standing on a train track while watching the freight train barrel towards you. You'll slow it down, briefly, by the laws of physics when it hits you, but you won't have much more effect on 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." "France said this week they need more evidence to convince them Saddam is a threat. Yeah, last time France asked for more evidence it came rolling thru Paris with a German Flag on it." David Letterman ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030318/579cee71/attachment.html From hansonjb Tue Mar 18 21:01:17 2003 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 19:01:17 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] check your ndt points Message-ID: <000201c2edc3$d03c3ed0$1304070a@whitman.edu> I encourage you to check your ndt points. You can access the points from jon bruschke's page or from: http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/ndt/ if you see any errors, please notify me as soon as possible. Shortly, after the ndt, the second and final ndt report will be mailed. jim hanson :) whitman college ndt rankings director hansonjb at whitman.edu From beth Tue Mar 18 22:06:29 2003 From: beth (Beth Skinner) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 23:06:29 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Towson Novice/JV Nationals Results and Feedback Message-ID: <1048046789.3e77ecc56a4cb@dalchemy.com> Thanks to all of those who visited us over the weekend. It was our pleasure to have you with us and we look forward to seeing you next year. Below are three different items: my thoughts on eligibility questions, a request for feedback on the tournament and the results. If all you want is to know who won, feel free to skip ahead. I?ve been reading with interest the recent thread on novice and JV eligibility issues. I, too, have seen a good many debates this year in which the skill level of debaters exceeded my expectations of the division in which they had been entered. I?ve also encouraged those I thought ought to be moving up to do so. Ultimately, though, I think that the decision to progress ought to be as local as possible. The debater and coach should reach a decision together on what the debater?s objectives are in terms of winning, education, skill development, etc. The more centralized these decisions are, the less able they are to take into account the goals, personalities and circumstances of the people involved. Some argue that this flexibility allows for ?abuse? of the system ? that coaches more concerned with winning or points than with learning and development will hold students back. I guess that might be happening now, though I think the attribution of bad intent is probably exaggerated and is sometimes (not always) a case of sour grapes. I guess there might be coaches who see their teams as extensions of their own egos and are willing to sacrifice development for points. But when I think of the people I know in the activity, I have trouble seeing them as evil, manipulative and self-serving. Maybe things are different where you are but I trust my colleagues? motivations ? I think I have to in order to have faith in the community and to remain engaged in it. Given that, I think that a tournament that calls itself a national championship ought to reflect the values of the wider community. So, if a consensus for alternate eligibility regulations emerges, we plan to honor it. We welcome your input on any or all of the following questions so if you can backchannel me with your responses, I?d appreciate it as assistance in planning for next year. 1. What did you think of the tournament hotel (especially versus the Holiday Inn we?ve used in the past)? 2. Do you like mutual preference judging or would you rather have strikes and then random judge assignment? 3. Would you rather continue to have 7 prelims or move to 6 (2 on Friday, 4 on Saturday)? 4. Did you miss the pottery awards? 5. Do you have suggestions for improving hospitality? 6. Would you rather see a restrictive (ADA), broad (CEDA) or new (please describe) definition of novice eligibility? Thanks again for coming and congratulations to everyone, especially those who were competing in their first national tournament! Beth Skinner Towson Debate Novice Speakers 1. Melander, Lindsey (Vermont) 2. Klein, Jeff (Binghamton) 3. O'Brien, Meghan (Catholic) 4. Pan, Allison (USMA) 5. Hoban, Lindsey (Liberty) 6. Shoupe, Carly (Catholic) 7. Hurter, Melissa (Liberty) 8. Pope, Jeff (Catholic) 9. Burns, Grace (Liberty) 10. Mates, Eric (Vermont) 11. Kern, Colin (Vermont) 12. Spaulding, Theresa (Rochester) 13. Harris, Jennifer (Louisville) 14. Wyatt, Leslie (Mary Washington) 15. Westlund, Robin (Marist) 16. Floyd, Ebony (Louisville) 17. Azevedo, Kelly (Liberty) 18. Lynn, Cara (Pepperdine) 19. Isham, Jared (Liberty) 20. Hyson, Kim (Pepperdine) JV Speakers 1. Hill, Teresa (Vermont) 2. Press, Elliot (USMA) 3. Tiffee, Matt (Southwest Texas) 4. Langsweirdt, Lana (Vermont) 5 King, Courtney (Louisville) 6. Hoag, Andrew (Pepperdine) 7. Day, Jonathan (Liberty) 8. Williams, Lawrence (Eastern New Mexico) 9. Kraus, Alyse (Liberty) 10. Bernert, Lauren (Louisville) 11. Liu, Andy (NYU/Columbia) 12. Gaskell, Liz (Rochester) 13. Kaplan-Shain, Ilana (Rochester) 14. Nix, Elisha (Liberty) 15. Swords, John (Capital) 16. Murray, Craig (Cornell) 17. Lind, Stephen (Liberty) 18. Logan, Cedric (Rochester) 19. Nuruddin, Nafess (Rochester) 20. Granillo, Jeff (Cornell) Rookie Champions (that's right - rookies in March and they competed in the novice division): James Madison Kim and Gordon Novice Elim Results Partial Double-Octas Chico (2-1) over Richmond HG Mary Washington RW (3-0) over Vanderbilt RP John Carroll AW (2-1) over Chico CP Vermont MM (2-1) over Liberty HW Binghamton KG (3-0) over Vermont RM Louisville FH (2-1) over Liberty CF Vermont VK (3-0) over Case Western FZ Rochester MV (3-0) over Capital MT Octas Rochester SD (2-1) over Vermont VK Liberty HH (2-1) over Rochester MV Liberty AB (2-1) over Louisville FH Catholic MP (3-0) over Binghamton KG Catholic SO (2-1) over Vermont MM John Carroll AW (2-1) over USMA PP Chico GR (3-0) over Liberty IL Pepperdine HL (2-1) Mary Washington RW Quarters Rochester SD (2-1) over Chico GR Liberty HH (3-0) over Pepperdine HL Liberty AB (3-0) over Catholic SO Catholic MP (3-0) over John Carroll AW Semis Liberty AB (2-1) over Rochester SD Catholic MP (2-1) over Liberty HH Finals Catholic MP (3-0) over Liberty AB JV Elim Results Partial Double-Octas Vermont MO (3-0) over MTSU CL Pepperdine HQ (2-1) over CUNY MS John Carroll FG (3-0) over Rochester KC Vermont CK (3-0) over John Carroll DT West Virginia ES (3-0) over Mary Washington ES Octas West Virginia ES (2-1) over Cornell GM John Carroll FG (2-1) over Vermont LH Pepperdine HQ (3-0) over ENMU WM Vermont MO (2-1) over USMA PS Liberty DN (2-1) over Rochester DM Liberty KL (2-1) over Rochester NO NYU/Columbia ML (2-1) over Rochester LG Southwest Texas TK (2-1) over Vermont CK Quarters NYU/Columbia ML (3-0) over West Virginia ES Liberty KL (3-0) over John Carroll FG Southwest Texas TK (3-0) over Liberty DN Vermont MO (3-0) over Pepperdine HQ Semis Vermont MO (2-1) over NYU/Columbia ML Liberty KL (3-0) over Southwest Texas TK Finals Vermont MO (2-1) over Liberty KL Top Judge Award (based on debater rankings) Reid Sawyer (USMA) From Kelly.McDonald Tue Mar 18 22:29:21 2003 From: Kelly.McDonald (Kelly McDonald) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:29:21 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Philosophies - Dennis, Mageriel, Cushman, Foy, Hanson, Kearl, Cra mer Message-ID: <3996AE5EBEF964418D80953BDCABFF56037C1E1B@ex1.asurite.ad.asu.edu> Name: Jason Cramer Institution: CSU Fullerton Rounds on Topic: 30 Years Judging: 2 I am a new judge with not a lot of experience making good decisions. This does not mean that by some stroke of luck I never evaluate a round correctly. Instead, it means that you need to be very clear in the rebuttal speeches as to where I should cast my ballot. Quite frankly, I don't care who wins. I have a decent flow as long as I can understand the speaker. However, if you happen to see my pencil moving you should not automatically assume that I am actually flowing your arguments. You should assume that I am just drawing pictures and proceed to continue guiding me toward where you want me to vote. That also goes for any time you see my head moving. This does not necessarily mean that I understand what the heck you are talking about. Usually I do, but sometimes I get distracted with songs that won't get out of my head so you should most definitely give me clear overviews in your rebuttal speeches. I'm not stupid, just a little slow. With that being said, here is my philosophy about particular subjects: Topicality: I have no problems voting on topicality. All affirmatives need to be topical and if the negative team proves that the affirmative team is not playing by the rules, then it is game over. I will not, however, give any weight to the "reverse voting issue" argument. That is just plain dumb and I don't really understand it. I also have a hard time voting on a hidden independent voter unless it is does not suddenly pop up in the very last speech. If you want me to vote on it, make it an issue early in the round. Disadvantages: That's a wonderful choice. Counterplans: I hate voting on the theory of counterplans. I especially don't care if it is dispositional or conditional. Please don't waste two hours of my life with that crap. Run it and win it. Critiques: These are fun. However, I am not a philosophy major so you need to make it very clear what Nietzsche or Foucault or Heidegger or Kant or Marx or whoever is trying to say in your own words and how it relates to your argument. Also, I am very partial to having an alternative or some kind of option to the affirmative if I agree with the critique. Oh yeah, mention something about the impact of the critique and weigh it to the case impact. I like that too. In conclusion, if you are reading this then it probably means that I am your judge. You should probably figure out how to fill out the strike sheet correctly. Ask me before the round and I'll be happy to ensure this never happens again. :-) Last Name: Cushman___ First Name: Chris_________ School: UMKC Region Midwest___ Years Judging CEDA: 12 # of Rounds on this Topic: 18 1. What is your role as a judge? I am an evaluator and critic of argument. I look at debate as a game played within certain parameters. I let the debaters define most of those parameters, others I generally do not. For example, I don't buy attempts to change or ignore the topic, time limits and other "hard" rules of the game. I like it when debaters establish decision criteria to assist me in evaluating how I weigh competing impacts and scenarios. 2. Affirmative Approaches: I don't care what you run, but you must make an attempt to be topical. Creative definitions and approaches to topic analysis are fine, but don't expect me to accept arguments that you don't have to be topical because the importance of your rhetoric transcends silly things like the resolution. 3. Negative Approaches: Again, I don't care what you run, but you must make an attempt to implicate whatever you are arguing and give me some guidance for what I am supposed to do with it in the context of the round. Read my comments below on likes and dislikes. 4. Topicality: I believe the critic is a gatekeeper of sorts on T. That is, in my mind, it is always a voter because the Affirmative has to be on-face topical for me to have jurisdiction to evaluate the rest of the round. On the flip-side, I have a fairly high threshold for concluding that an Aff. is not topical and don't hand out cheap shots on T. If you want to win on T, expect to spend at least a third of 2NR explaining it. I despise the mindless shelling of T in the 1NC every single round, even on clearly topical cases, and will listen to kritikal arguments and reverse voters when clearly explained, but generally only when the T argument is ridiculously stupid or seeks to unfairly limit the topic. (Again, no cheap-shots awarded here). 5. Evidence: Smith in '99 is fine with me. More details will improve the ethos of the speaker and the evidence a little bit, but not much. I don't read much evidence after rounds generally. I do read evidence after the round to resolve conflicts and get a better understanding of what the evidence says. I will NOT read evidence after the round because it was incomprehensible the first time. 6. Misc. & Delivery: Tag team whatever is fine with me. Speed is OK provided it is clear and the speaker has the requisite talent to pull it off. It is important the faster you go to pause between tags and cards or you will lose me. I follow better if signposting is done by tagline or argument, and not so much by author of the evidence. I will yell at you to be clearer if I cannot follow you. I give pretty obvious non-verbals when I'm lost. Look at me occasionally. 7. Likes & Dislikes: It's not my place to tell you what to run or not run. Keep in mind that I have voted plenty of times this year on arguments and strategies that I really didn't like, so just because I say I don't like something doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't run it in front of me. So here's the list of stuff I really don't like: 1. Politics DA's. At least the links this year are better than last. My personal opinion is that these disads are illegitimate because Aff gets to fiat the plan over the unwilling mindsets of existing congresscritters and presidents, so why should they be subjected to those mindsets in "reaction" to the plan when in reality, those particular people would never allow the plan to pass in the first place? 2. "No Alternative" Negation. If the plan solves for a specified harm, there's no counterplan with a net benefit, and no disad, why should I reject the plan just for the purpose of a nihilistic critique of the state? If the state is really that bad, run a CP to deal with that issue. At a bare minimum you have to really sell it to me and explain. 3. Topical Counterplans. Maybe a throwback to my old-school CEDA days, but I have conceptual problems with Negs winning on a policy option that affirms the resolution. I vote for such CPs often enough, but it makes my brain itch. Similarly, plan minus PICs make a lot more sense than plan plus PICs. 4. Extrinsic Language Kritiks. Arguing I should drop a team just for saying "he" or "human" or whatever is just not persuasive to me. If you can link it to what's being run in the round, fine. As a side note, I really don't like people changing words in cards to try and spike out of these kritiks and find the practice marginally intellectually dishonest. If the author's advocacy bites some kind of K, changing the words when you speak it doesn't change anything, (Hint: in most cases, you don't have to do that in front of me anyway). 5. A Little Background. I'm an attorney in private practice, and my duties this year have been largely administrative. While I've heard many debates on this topic, I've not done the research, or had the day to day involvement with the topic, and you will understand a lot of this material better than I do. Don't expect me to connect the dots or make assumptions for you. The last two rebuttals are critical to explain why you win. Doug Dennis 65 rounds on the topic For the most part, I try not to put myself in debate rounds if given the option. In other words, I like to do almost no work--the path of leastresistance to my decision will ALWAYS be the path I take. I don't like reading cards because that (usually) means debaters aren't explaining or impacting their evidence, which forces me to read the cards and indvertently reward a team for not doing their job. Simply impacting the evidence and important arguments avoids this. Insofar as what arguments you can and can't run, what I will or won't for is pretty much determined by the debate round. There are only two stipulations to this: (1) I have to understand the argument, which if you do your job in rebuttals shouldn't be a problem; and (2) It has to be an argument (claim, warrant, maybe even an implication to stated claim and warrant). Telling me to extend your impacts is NOT impacting an argument. I need to know why you want me to extend a particular argument. What role does this argument play in my decision calculus? If I'm not told how to evaluate things, decisions may become very subjective, and I'd like to stay away for those sorts of decisions. You should read evidence and more specific it is, the better. This isn't to say that that you can't make articulate, true arguments without the benefit of evidence. You should go as fast as you can go and still be clear. This means if you are going to be unclear, don't try to go fast. Even still, I'll probably get it on paper, I just won't know what it means and that, in the end, may be more problematic (for my flow and your points). My non-verbal gestures are REALLY easy to understand--if you're doing something I don't like, you'll know. Since this is Nationals, and speaker points are important, I should tell you that if you debate well Iwill reward you accordingly. The converse is also true, however, and there's nothing wrong with giving a bad round the 23.5 it deserves. Finally, you should debate smart, show some heart, (try to) be right And have fun. This is Nationas. If anything I've said doesn't fit into Your framework, feel free to ignore it. At least choose to go out on your Own terms. 2003 JUDGE PHILOSPHY FORM NAME _John Foy INSTITUTION: __Eastern New Mexico University POSITION __Debate Coach______ YEARS OF COACHING __4 years___________ NUMBER OF TOURNAMENTS THIS YEAR ___15 Tournaments_____________ This is naturally incomplete, please ask if you have questions. Questions people might want answers to: 1.) What kind of debates do you like to see? I'm really not that picky. In general I find myself best equipped and most interested in evaluating in great depth Pla/DA/CP rounds. I also like a good procedural debate (which means you can't just blow that shit off). I even like kritik debates if the position(s) are well developed and impact the framework of the Aff (epistemology, ontology etc.). 2.) Gee, you didn't mention performance. . . . No, I didn't that's because in general I don't enjoy "performance" rounds. This is largely because I'm often not sure how to evaluate them. So, if you do want to read a play, or play music, or dance or whatever, you should be fairly explicit about what the impacts to that are and how they compare to whatever the negative team says. Further, if you frequently start 2AC's by saying "You can flow if you want, but I don't do line-by-line" or some equivalent, maybe you should just strike me. I like the flow, it helps me keep track of what happens in rounds. Without it I am liable to space off during the most critical part of your interpretative reading and not hear what you consider important. Last, several performance teams I have judged have implored me to ignore the flow and to cast a vote in line with my emotions. While I have avoided the temptation to follow their advice thus far, I just might take someone up on the offer, and they will almost undoubtedly be angry/disappointed with the result. 3.) How do you feel about cases that don't defend ratifying and implementing one of the five treaties in the resolution? I really hate them. 4.) What kind of points do you give? A little below average. 5.) Do you vote on wanky, but dropped cheap shots? You goddamn right I do. 6.) How do you like spending a ton of time after rounds reading a shitload of cards because nobody did evidence/impact comparisons in the second rebuttals? I hate it. Sometimes I get bored and just vote. 7.) What'll you have? Pabst Blue Ribbon 2003 JUDGE PHILOSPHY FORM NAME _John Andor Hansen INSTITUTION: __Eastern New Mexico University POSITION __Debate Coach______ YEARS OF COACHING __2 years___________ NUMBER OF TOURNAMENTS THIS YEAR ___15 Tournaments_____________ Theory: My default paradigm is policymaker; I enjoy a moderately high speed round with weighing and full explanation of impacts. I will follow the flow to the best of my abilities and as a caveat, I will only vote for dropped independent voters or RVI's when they are clearly articulated through ground loss. The negative must simply negate the affirmative; multi-world testing is appropriate. I enjoy many different forms of arguments as long as their implications are articulated early and clearly in the debate. Counterplans: For me, the most important factor is that they have a solvency advocate for there to be competition with plan. I generally view conditional counterplans as less fair than dispositional and welcome theoretical objections to both. Exclusion counterplans are integral to negative strategy and are a welcomed argument if they are supported through the literature and anchored in plan text. Permutations: should be clearly explained and the corresponding effects of advocacy must be dealt with in order to win the perm debate. Topic Specific Arguments: T-is an all or nothing issue for me, however, I'm open to critiques of T and even discourse first arguments. Factors helping me adjudicate T are evidence and ground; when used conjointly teams have the best chance of winning the violation. Furthermore, on this topic I currently do not have anyone preference for a specific Disad or Counterplan; if your Disad is unique and links run it likewise with the counterplan if it competes. Critiques/Deontology: Critiques are a useful tool in the negative arsenal. I welcome them whole-heartedly; however, don't expect me to call for cards and try to discern implications if they are not clearly addressed throughout the round. Evidence: I will read evidence if requested to; my specific standards for evaluation are strength of source/qualifications, argument depth (claim, data, warrant), and date of publication. Depending upon the round and arguments presented, each of the criteria above may alternate in the order of importance depending on arguments presented in the round. Style/potpourri: If the clarity of the delivery begins to suffer, I will yell clear. There is no specific mannerism that I am inherently opposed to; just simply create a healthy environment for the round, your opponent, and me to engage the topic within. Ben Kearl School: ASU Graduate - debated three years in college at ASU; Rounds on Topic: none ; judged many HS rounds Years Judging: 1 Region: Southern California It has been a bit of time since I have either debated or judged. As such, I am not sure if I will be hip to any new non-structural arguments. Below are the issues that I remember running and voting on. Topicality: I assume that by Nationals what constitutes a topical case has been resolved. I will vote on topicality though if clearly articulated. Arguments should go beyond the semantical realm and prove actual abuse. Counterplans: I will vote for theory arguments, however, I feel the affirmative has responsibility to articulate why the counterplan violates some standard of fairness. I view competitiveness as the test of a counterplan and will use it as the standard when considering both the counterplan and any theory arguments. Disadvantages: Feel free to run them, but please communicate why they outweigh the affirmative. Kritiks: Initially, the kritik is a tough sell. I stopped debating before kritiks were widely used and missed participating as these arguments evolved. I will vote for them, but ask that they be well explained. Please communicate the framework I should evaluate the kritik through. Style: Do not be offensive to the other team. Please make an effort to be a little extra clear during the round. I really would like to be able to understand what you are saying. David Magariel University of Kansas 4 rounds judged on this topic (yeah that's right - 4). Generally - I have almost not judged this topic. What does that mean for you? Unclear. I do have some knowledge on the topic in doing some initial research on the topic EARLY this year. I also have somewhat kept up. I also have done some work in international law this year in law school. HOWEVER, I don't know a lot of specifics about arguments on this topic. Advise: explain things a bit more to make sure I understand them. I am not an idiot - just not as on top of the topic as I have been in the past. I can only promise one thing as a judge, and that is that I will work hard to make the best decision I can. I try hard to decide the round based on the arguments and analysis debaters make in the round. I will read evidence that I think is relevant to the decision to help me resolve things that are in conflict during the debate. I have no definite presumptions but here are some things I tend to favor: Counterplans - I am a bit mixed on my likes/dislikes of counterplans. I really enjoy listening to a specific PIC that excludes some part of the plan and the net benefit is a disad that turns the case or something along that line. However I think that the "agent" counterplan is usually pretty boring and not a great winning strategy. Specific PICS - great. Generic PICS - boring. I generally think PICs are ok but also could be persuaded to vote affirmative that they are illegit. Dispositionality could be easier to defend on the negative in front of me than conditionality. Both are defensible either way. Theory questions should not whine about time loss but should focus on how their view of the debate world has meant you lost some SPECIFIC strategic benefit that is important. Failure to generate good, explained offensive warrants for whatever theory you are defending/arguing against is asking to lose. Affirmatives should attempt to win that the solvency deficit or disad to the counterplan outweighs the risk of the net benefit - negatives should do the opposite. Topicality - Seems dead on this topic. Not sure if anyone does much in this area. If you have something decent go for it. Disads - Important part of the negative arsenal. I do not think that if you win the uniqueness you automatically win a risk of your disad. If the affirmative wins a larger risk of their link turn and you hose them on the uniqueness you still aren't in a good place. With big impacts on this topic you should evaluate risk of disad impact v. risk of case advantage - relative risks X impact calculus, etc. Critiques - I have become more and more frustrated with this world of argument. This topic has so much room for other types of argument - the rounds I saw were mostly kritik rounds that shouldn't have been and were not the most enjoyable for me. However - you can win this type of argument in front of me. Using big words and rumbling off 2,000 links is not impressive (but I guess might get you a win). If you have a specific reason why the affirmatives assumptions are flawed or whatever your indictment is I am often much more persuaded if it is specific to something the affirmative has done in this debate. "The state is bad" is not very exciting. Something specific to the case that turns the case or takes out the solvency, etc. is way better. I think this genre of argumentation can be very interesting and enlightening IF explained well and used in a specific manner in reference to something the affirmative has done in the debate. Affirmatives should focus on a permutation and how that functions in relation to the negatives links, and implications. Affirmatives should also not let their case fly out the window when facing this type of argument. You affirmative probably has some relevance - explain it and how it relates to their criticism. I am also often disappointed by affirmatives letting the negative get away with their alternative solving the case and global patriarchy (or whatever the negative claims). Things to do to win in front of me - Explain how you win in the 2NR/2AR. I would like to hear some impact calculus, even if we lose X, Z outweighs, kinda overviews. If an argument is something that needs to be explained please do so. I really hate debates where the negative or the affirmative has something tricky but they just read a slew of cards and spend no time explaining how it turns the case, or the disad, or whatever implication it has in the debate. Please read one less card and explain a bit how this argument functions in the debate - especially this year with my lack of rounds judged. Don't not run something tricky - I want to hear it. I like it when people are confident about their arguments and can show some personality/sarcasm in the debate. Being a jerk will get you nowhere - being a funny confident person will get you good speaker points. Finally good luck and congratulations on being at CEDA. 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/20030318/50581740/attachment.htm From Kelly.McDonald Tue Mar 18 22:40:03 2003 From: Kelly.McDonald (Kelly McDonald) Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:40:03 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Judging Philosophy Call Clarification Message-ID: <3996AE5EBEF964418D80953BDCABFF56037C1E1F@ex1.asurite.ad.asu.edu> Just to clarify - there were some judges who did not send in philosophies with their entry. Those are the one's that I was calling for. If you are one of the those people - and you know who you are :-) - please forward via email your philosophy. If you submitted on in hard copy with your entry a month ago, no worries you are scanned, in PDF on Jeff's site and in the hardcopy book. This is just a reminder for those who had not sent in any information with their original entry. 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/20030318/4b00ba65/attachment.html From kkuswa Tue Mar 18 23:07:37 2003 From: kkuswa (kevin kuswa) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 00:07:37 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Towson Novice/JV Nationals Results and Feedback Message-ID: <3E4FE704@webmail.richmond.edu> Thanks again, Beth, for a great tournament. A couple of brief comments about the eligibility issue: 1. I have responded via backchannel to recent messages from varous concerned parties. If you would like to see those emails, let me know. I commend the cua novices for speaking up and will continue to support the cua squad in as many ways as possible. For those of you who do not know them yet, watch out for these cua novices!! They work hard, have great coaches, and love the activity. No one can go wrong with that combination. 2. My intent is not to impose outside rules--I agree with Beth that these are local decisions. 3. The goal is to improve debate as much as possible. Thus, I do think it is important to point out instances where a team might want to consider moving up, although I do not presume to know all the variables at play on any given squad. 4. I apologize for comments that may have been somewhat inflated to make a point. On the other hand, this is an important issue if we are going to continue to suport novice debate and novice divisions. 5. There is no easy way to set up perfect eligibility standards. It is precisely because of the gray area that we need to discuss these issues. 6. Hard work is great and should be rewarded. I am hoping that hard work will lead to "skipping" the maximum eligibility available and help to improve the various teams in question as quickly as possible. Budget and administrative issues may be significant here, but it seems like we should err on the side of education over points wherever possible. 7. I agree with Beth that the coaches in the activity are not bad people (in fact, they are some of the best people I have have the pleasure to spend time with)--that is not, however, a blanket reason to leave every eligibility decision unquestioned. These are not "bad intent" arguments--my point is to try to find a way to nudge people up who are not moving up when they should....if anything, these concerns should be seen as compliments to strong debaters, not insults. For example, if I miss the fact that a given UR team may be debating in a division below their capability, I want to know about it. How else will I find out if judges and coaches do not express such sentiments? My intent here is to reward hard work in a way that translates into long-term success. Most novices (even good novices) have a VERY difficult time making the NDT during their stint as debaters, let alone performing well there. To have a successful varsity season (which seems like a reasonable long term goal for anyone putting in a lot of work), that debater should try to get into as many good rounds as quickly as possible. This will improve debate overall. Finally, special congrats to the rookies at Towson and to the Louisville speaker who earned a jv award in her fourth or fifth tournament ever. sincerely, kevin >===== Original Message From Beth Skinner ===== >Thanks to all of those who visited us over the weekend. It was our pleasure to >have you with us and we look forward to seeing you next year. Below are three >different items: my thoughts on eligibility questions, a request for feedback >on the tournament and the results. If all you want is to know who won, feel >free to skip ahead. > >I?ve been reading with interest the recent thread on novice and JV eligibility >issues. I, too, have seen a good many debates this year in which the skill >level of debaters exceeded my expectations of the division in which they had >been entered. I?ve also encouraged those I thought ought to be moving up to do >so. Ultimately, though, I think that the decision to progress ought to be as >local as possible. The debater and coach should reach a decision together on >what the debater?s objectives are in terms of winning, education, skill >development, etc. The more centralized these decisions are, the less able they >are to take into account the goals, personalities and circumstances of the >people involved. > >Some argue that this flexibility allows for ?abuse? of the system ? that >coaches more concerned with winning or points than with learning and >development will hold students back. I guess that might be happening now, >though I think the attribution of bad intent is probably exaggerated and is >sometimes (not always) a case of sour grapes. I guess there might be coaches >who see their teams as extensions of their own egos and are willing to >sacrifice development for points. But when I think of the people I know in the >activity, I have trouble seeing them as evil, manipulative and self-serving. >Maybe things are different where you are but I trust my colleagues? >motivations ? I think I have to in order to have faith in the community and to >remain engaged in it. > >Given that, I think that a tournament that calls itself a national championship >ought to reflect the values of the wider community. So, if a consensus for >alternate eligibility regulations emerges, we plan to honor it. We welcome >your input on any or all of the following questions so if you can backchannel >me with your responses, I?d appreciate it as assistance in planning for next >year. > >1. What did you think of the tournament hotel (especially versus the >Holiday Inn we?ve used in the past)? >2. Do you like mutual preference judging or would you rather have strikes >and then random judge assignment? >3. Would you rather continue to have 7 prelims or move to 6 (2 on Friday, >4 on Saturday)? >4. Did you miss the pottery awards? >5. Do you have suggestions for improving hospitality? >6. Would you rather see a restrictive (ADA), broad (CEDA) or new (please >describe) definition of novice eligibility? > >Thanks again for coming and congratulations to everyone, especially those who >were competing in their first national tournament! > >Beth Skinner >Towson Debate > > >Novice Speakers > >1. Melander, Lindsey (Vermont) >2. Klein, Jeff (Binghamton) >3. O'Brien, Meghan (Catholic) >4. Pan, Allison (USMA) >5. Hoban, Lindsey (Liberty) >6. Shoupe, Carly (Catholic) >7. Hurter, Melissa (Liberty) >8. Pope, Jeff (Catholic) >9. Burns, Grace (Liberty) >10. Mates, Eric (Vermont) >11. Kern, Colin (Vermont) >12. Spaulding, Theresa (Rochester) >13. Harris, Jennifer (Louisville) >14. Wyatt, Leslie (Mary Washington) >15. Westlund, Robin (Marist) >16. Floyd, Ebony (Louisville) >17. Azevedo, Kelly (Liberty) >18. Lynn, Cara (Pepperdine) >19. Isham, Jared (Liberty) >20. Hyson, Kim (Pepperdine) > >JV Speakers >1. Hill, Teresa (Vermont) >2. Press, Elliot (USMA) >3. Tiffee, Matt (Southwest Texas) >4. Langsweirdt, Lana (Vermont) >5 King, Courtney (Louisville) >6. Hoag, Andrew (Pepperdine) >7. Day, Jonathan (Liberty) >8. Williams, Lawrence (Eastern New Mexico) >9. Kraus, Alyse (Liberty) >10. Bernert, Lauren (Louisville) >11. Liu, Andy (NYU/Columbia) >12. Gaskell, Liz (Rochester) >13. Kaplan-Shain, Ilana (Rochester) >14. Nix, Elisha (Liberty) >15. Swords, John (Capital) >16. Murray, Craig (Cornell) >17. Lind, Stephen (Liberty) >18. Logan, Cedric (Rochester) >19. Nuruddin, Nafess (Rochester) >20. Granillo, Jeff (Cornell) > >Rookie Champions (that's right - rookies in March and they competed in the >novice division): James Madison Kim and Gordon > >Novice Elim Results > >Partial Double-Octas > >Chico (2-1) over Richmond HG >Mary Washington RW (3-0) over Vanderbilt RP >John Carroll AW (2-1) over Chico CP >Vermont MM (2-1) over Liberty HW >Binghamton KG (3-0) over Vermont RM >Louisville FH (2-1) over Liberty CF >Vermont VK (3-0) over Case Western FZ >Rochester MV (3-0) over Capital MT > >Octas >Rochester SD (2-1) over Vermont VK >Liberty HH (2-1) over Rochester MV >Liberty AB (2-1) over Louisville FH >Catholic MP (3-0) over Binghamton KG >Catholic SO (2-1) over Vermont MM >John Carroll AW (2-1) over USMA PP >Chico GR (3-0) over Liberty IL >Pepperdine HL (2-1) Mary Washington RW > >Quarters >Rochester SD (2-1) over Chico GR >Liberty HH (3-0) over Pepperdine HL >Liberty AB (3-0) over Catholic SO >Catholic MP (3-0) over John Carroll AW > >Semis >Liberty AB (2-1) over Rochester SD >Catholic MP (2-1) over Liberty HH > >Finals >Catholic MP (3-0) over Liberty AB > > > >JV Elim Results >Partial Double-Octas > >Vermont MO (3-0) over MTSU CL >Pepperdine HQ (2-1) over CUNY MS >John Carroll FG (3-0) over Rochester KC >Vermont CK (3-0) over John Carroll DT >West Virginia ES (3-0) over Mary Washington ES > >Octas >West Virginia ES (2-1) over Cornell GM >John Carroll FG (2-1) over Vermont LH >Pepperdine HQ (3-0) over ENMU WM >Vermont MO (2-1) over USMA PS >Liberty DN (2-1) over Rochester DM >Liberty KL (2-1) over Rochester NO >NYU/Columbia ML (2-1) over Rochester LG >Southwest Texas TK (2-1) over Vermont CK > >Quarters > >NYU/Columbia ML (3-0) over West Virginia ES >Liberty KL (3-0) over John Carroll FG >Southwest Texas TK (3-0) over Liberty DN >Vermont MO (3-0) over Pepperdine HQ > >Semis >Vermont MO (2-1) over NYU/Columbia ML >Liberty KL (3-0) over Southwest Texas TK > >Finals >Vermont MO (2-1) over Liberty KL > > >Top Judge Award (based on debater rankings) >Reid Sawyer (USMA) > > > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >To subscribe, UNSUBSCRIBE, and see the subscriber list, go here: >http://ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From dig Wed Mar 19 03:12:36 2003 From: dig (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 04:12:36 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] novice Message-ID: <200303190912.h2J9CaG04785@fiat.cross-x.com> I beleive that there would be wide spread agreement amongst the coache and the debaters involved that these are decisons being made by directors, though i dont discount that some debaters who could win jv would want to debate in novice i think its largely the responsibility of the directors to guide and ultimatly make these decisons and since rules dont seem to constrain them there must be other ways of reaching thoise making these decisons, and i wonder where some of those directors who make theses are in this discussion, i understand that they are busy but maybe next week? or the week after? You dont owe us an explanation, but without one we are free to continue to guess at your motivation and from what i am seeing that doesnt seem to cast you all in a good light, so because i believe like kevin and beth that most of the people in this activity are good folks, im with great interest awaiting their arrival to the discussion(or any other directors who would like to join). That being said what i think the ultimate problem is is that there are a lot of skills that some of the ld folks already have that they only have because they debated ld in high school, flowing, line by line etc are not skills that you could learn from odel congress or extemp, sure note taking precision and susinctness are skills that you could learn from these and other pursuits but even if they are different ld still teaches some skills that everbody else has to learn during theri novice years, there are of course a plethora of advantages and i dont think we can identify and correct for all of them, but cant we clearly identify the advantages that ld has for novices versus people who dont have ld experience? So ultimatly i dont think the rule is a very effective way to go about it, because as we have seen rules dont restrict this process they only allow for punishments to be metted out and controversies to be started when some directors get caught breaking the rules and others dont get caught braking the rules, but the question is for those concerend about making this better, is how do we reach the directors that are making these decisons, quiet complementariy mentions that people should move up dont work, and edebate messages are a start, and screamin and yellin only cause debaters to close ranks around their directors, so what else can the community do to check against this process? I gotta backchannle message from a debater today who suggested that the burden should be on the judges to deny ballots to these teams so that their directors have no incentive to put them down divisions, its a thought proking strategy that i ultimatly hope never gets employed, because i dont want the debaters hurt, but the level of discontent is growing and i fear that without some reassesment from the community on this issue such direct action strategies will be employed, people are pissed, becausei think many people have asked people they like nicely and have basicaly been told to screw off, i think we can assess this and all take a more ethical appraoch to this before it begins to get ugly or we can continue to let it fester and force people to be angry disenchanted and occasionaly disqualified. Now lemme say i honestly wasnt directing this message at catholic, we speant nearly all of our team in the ceda east and i unfortunatly never got to see many of the catholic teams(nor really even knew about this before this weekend), but your perspective on the issue has made this a more valuble and open discussion, and i would strongly encourage rochesters participation in this discussion as well, we all want the fairist playing field and the best experience for all of our students, and im sure as a community we can give voice to those on all sides of this issue. Andy Ellis Marist -- Debate Information Group http://dig.ndtceda.com/ -- Debate Information Group http://dig.ndtceda.com/ From gvinedebate Wed Mar 19 07:23:17 2003 From: gvinedebate (Jane Boyd) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 07:23:17 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] The War and questioning the President. Message-ID: <000f01c2ee1a$b4e8a0e0$65169384@scott> I wish I could write and say I support this war effort 100%, but I can't. I was most appalled yesterday as I saw the Republican discussing Daschle's patriotism because he is questioning the President. Forgive me, but the right to question should be one of this things that we are fighting for. President Teddy Roosevelt said it best, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President - right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American Public" We need to question and question often. I wasn't a Dixie Chicks fan -- but I sure am now. Natalie Maines had it correct, Tom Daschel has it correct, every protestor has it correct. Why are we NOT questioning the President more? Sincerely, Jane G. Boyd -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030319/23686d04/attachment.htm From lisakanak Wed Mar 19 07:38:01 2003 From: lisakanak (Lisa Kanak) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:38:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Novices, etc. Message-ID: In D7/ADA, novice rules are continually being ?tweaked? to move ?advanced? novices (those with proven records) into JV, etc., in order to allow the other novices more learning opportunities, and give the ?advanced? novices a higher degree of competition. In general, those rules have been helpful. That said, most directors of novice programs are not short-sighted. They need all of their teams to improve, and for those who are ?advanced? or catch on more quickly, this means debating them JV. While the temptation may be great to leave winning novice teams in the novice division to collect trophies, many programs depend upon their novice division to build, and sustain their upper-level divisions (my experience is primarily with Liberty & Navy, and other D7 schools). The suggestion that judges should deny ballots to teams is a frightening one. At Navy, I have had (as I know Brett at LU, and Ron at Catholic) ?true novices? that, from the outset, debated as well as an average junior varsity team. These novices had no prior debate experience; perhaps one or two had i.e. experience (extemp/impromptu), which may have given them an edge speaker-wise, but they still had to learn everything in policy debate. I have also had debaters who arrived with prior LD -- even policy -- debate experience that didn?t understand most rudimentary debate exercises (flowing, the difference between inherency and significance, disadvantages and PMNs, let alone how to argue topicality, or counterplans). As a result, we petitioned to allow them to debate novice until they ?proved? they had accomplished a level of understanding to compete in the junior divisions. These are decisions that should, ultimately, be left to program directors and coaches ? within the possibility of certain constraints (such as those briefly alluded to above). However, at novice nationals, I believe the test should be who is the best novice team. I would hate to see ?true novices? (in their first year of debate) left out, because people felt they could, or should, debate at a different level. I would also hate to see debaters (either with prior LD or policy) who were pretty much as clueless as any true novice, at the beginning of the year be excluded for that same reason. This past weekend, I judged a high-school, home-school round between a ?true novice? team and a team that had been debating for 3 years. Their debate skills were about equal, with one obvious member of each team whose analytical skills were clearly superior to their partners. And, honestly, I can say that not one of these debaters was ready to debate in college junior divisions. The best debater in the group performed at a level equivalent of an average, mid-season novice debater. Prior experience ? whether that is policy or LD ? is no complete measure of one?s ability to debate junior or varsity at the college level. While it can, and should be used as a general rule, we should always be willing to look at individual circumstances/skill sets and take those into consideration. The kind of disparity being alluded to exists at all levels of college debate. 2nd year debaters in junior division, debating former 4-year, high-quality high school debaters, who ?could? be debating varsity. And what about 2nd or 3rd year college debaters debating in Varsity, against debaters with 6-7 years of debate behind them? Some individuals will always catch on to debate more quickly than others, and some will always catch on more slowly (or not at all). We cannot ignore that fact, nor can we hope to truly ?fix? it. Nor, can we arbitrarily decide who is a ?novice? and who is not ? especially as judges. I would have had many a ?true-novice? team be denied a ballot, because the judge felt that the team was not a novice team. I know this, because I have had judges and other coaches come to me and say, ?What is that team doing in novice? They aren?t novices!? -- when, in fact neither team member had any sort of prior debate experience, LD or otherwise ? what they learned about debate, they learned from me, and how they preformed was due to an innate talent I had the privilege to groom. General rules are fine ? definitions of who is a novice, or who is not a novice, is fine. However, exceptions should, and must be allowed ? because all high-school LD and policy divisions are not equally competitive, or have equal access to quality coaching and judging. Lisa Kanak 540-752-1935 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030319/1fd527d9/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/20030319/1fd527d9/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/20030319/1fd527d9/attachment-0001.obj From privethedge Wed Mar 19 07:42:58 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 05:42:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Re: [CX-L] The War and questioning the President. In-Reply-To: <000f01c2ee1a$b4e8a0e0$65169384@scott> Message-ID: <20030319134258.46054.qmail@web10004.mail.yahoo.com> << every protestor has it correct >> Really? Are you sure that you would like to go on the record saying that "EVERY protestor has it correct?" Even the ones calling the troops facist pigs, jack booted thugs, baby killing beasts are right? Defaming men and women just because they are serving their nation in the Armed Services. I'm apalled that you would support those who would defame our servicemen and women that way. To question the President is everyone's right, and, I guess I'd even be willing to say everyone's repsonsibitliy, to defame servicemen and women, who, in about 12 hours, will be harms way is putrid and reprehensible. But, I guess it's OK..afterall, you're safe in the walls of your high school, and not about to get shot at. You should rethink your unfortunate statement, or be very ashamed of yourself. I wonder what your principal, or school board would think of your statement? Last I heard, Texans support men and women in the military even if they don't support the Commander-in-Chief - they don't side with bunch of freaks defaming them. The better quote would be: "We need the iron qualities that go with true manhood (or womanhood, just correcting the quote to make it inclusive). We need the positive virtues of resolution, of courage, of indomitable will, of power to do without shrinking the rough work that must always be done." T. Roosevelt. I guess that quote goes either way - and each side can take something from it. But to say that EVERY protestor is right...my God. 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." "France said this week they need more evidence to convince them Saddam is a threat. Yeah, last time France asked for more evidence it came rolling thru Paris with a German Flag on it." David Letterman --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030319/3fe4e784/attachment.htm From SD003K Wed Mar 19 07:55:04 2003 From: SD003K (SD003K) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 08:55:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Novice. Message-ID: <3e7876b8.c8c.22470@mail.rochester.edu> Andy asked for some Rochester opinions so here we go: First off Andy I am glad you are not faulting debaters. All too often last year our LD debaters had to endure every single DoF from the region and other regions ask us "why are you still novice." After awhile it becomes an accusation and it makes us feel guilty for winning. Often I felt like I was being blamed for the lack of sucess of other programs. That?s just not cool. I urge people like Kuswa (who has posted saying he tells debaters to move up all the time) and those who have repeated the question as a sort of mantra to us to cease and take up the issue with our DoFs--whos' decesion to send us to novice nats I will now defend. I agree fully with the Catholic debaters who posted. The main "advantage" that LD gave me was that I could speak in public. Flowing? Have you seen an LD flow? It?s not even a flow! We make one argument on each contention a round. And what the hell is a "value premise" anyway. So... should we ban all those who can speak somewhat well from novice? I guess that means anyone who gave a speech at their graduation has to go, as well as model UN, and mock trial, and anyone who the community argues is "just to good," to debate in novice. I guess if we follow this argument we should make a super-varsity division at all the national tourneys for those teams that get a first round. I can hear it now: "They are just TOO good. It?s not fair." The real reason the LD debaters tend to do well is their work ethic. Doing debate in High School they have already learned to love debate, to work at it, to spend their weekends debating. They've learned it?s more addictive than coke. (Something that most hardcore novices learn at their first tourney anyway) So the LD debaters that make the transition... what do we do? We spend hours in the basement of Morey Hall on the Rochester campus (or the equivalent at Catholic) learning, working, practicing. The whole year we learn there is something special about novice nationals. We prep hard for it. We hope to win it. It?s our chance for some glory. To be honest the chances of a LD debater, just like normal novices, ever breaking at a national tournament are slim to none. We have one chance at the end of our first year where everyone is focused on us and we get a chance to take home something that says #1. It?s easy for all the DoFs and coaches who ask us "why are you still in novice" to critique us. Hell, most of you debated policy in HS back in the day and were top level debaters. (Kuswa?) You had a shot at winning tourneys so to you it seems obvious we should want to move up and progress as debaters. There is, however, a desire amongst all of us LDrs to win. We get a year to do this. After that, it?s basically over. Some will respond and say "but you will learn more in JV and varsity." Yes... this is true. That?s why many of us go JV at swing and other tourneys. But at novice nationals we come back down for the reasons cited above. Now you also might ask "but you exclude people from other teams by doing so well and dominating." Bull! First, if education is the goal those novices that are excluded will learn more by debating better debaters meaning we actually help the education of novice debate. Second, WE DONT WIN THAT MUCH. Last year at novice nats there was one former LD debater in quarters and he lost in semis in a round you picked him up in Andy. He decided to go for "topical counterplans suck" in the 2AR--hardly a move worthy of the dominating debate deity you like to prop us up as. We are not perfect--we can loose. Teams that work hard enough with their novices (Liberty for example) will defeat us. The final was between Vermont and liberty (another round you judged) and none of those debaters had any High School debate experience but were excellent debaters. Perhaps we should have kept them out of novice nats for being too good. Again it comes down to how hard you work. We work hard. We win some. We loose some. Isn?t that what debate is about? -Steve D'Amico U of R Debate From BERCHNORTO Wed Mar 19 08:00:29 2003 From: BERCHNORTO (BERCHNORTO at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:00:29 EST Subject: [eDebate] another director's perspective Message-ID: <6d.cd7a89a.2ba9d1fd@aol.com> Andy Ellis asked to hear from other directors on the novice eligibility issue, and I think we should. Kevin Kuswa and Beth Skinner have already contributed some important points, and the CUA novices have also done so. I think I have a unique perspective, so I'm going to offer a few thoughts. First, full disclosure: 1. I authored the ADA rules change that counted high school L-D experience toward the novice limits. I did so because I thought that for two or three years previous to this one, teams with one or both debaters with high school L-D experience had dominated the novice division. 2. At King's, I objected to the ADA Executive Committee having given Jeff Pope (yes, the Catholic debater is named Jeff Pope, and I mention him by name because it's more convenient, and because THERE SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY NO SHAME IN ANYTHING HE HAS DONE) a one tournament waiver to compete in novice. Now, on to some points (in fairly random order). 1. I still think, on balance, that this is a good rule change. As of now, I intend to introduce it at a CEDA Business meeting next year. I don't think having two separate rules is a good thing. 2. Mr. Pope AND HIS PARTNER, STEVE MARTANO, should be congratulated on their achievement. They, completely within the rules, entered and won the novice division at the best and most representative novice tournament of the year. They beat some very good teams who may not have had the advantage of high school L-D experience, but who had other advantages. I'm quite sure that their hard work was the largest element in that success. 3. Catholic University has some of the hardest-working debaters and coaches that I've ever seen. There are days when I'd like to get some of that work ethic to rub off on my team. 4. Catholic University, as I mentioned in a post a few weeks ago, is one of the few programs that is doing varsity well, and also doing novice and JV well. They just missed a first round bid to the NDT this year, while also winning the novice division at Towson. 5. It says a great deal about Mr. Pope that his teammates have rallied around him so strongly. 6. Mr. Pope debated in novice at King's, where he and his partner won 15 straight ballots. Then, he debated in JV the rest of the year (except for a varsity appearance at Northwestern). He and a variety of partners cleared in every JV tournament, won outrounds in several, and made it to finals at Navy. He also won several speaker awards. This suggests that he perhaps wasn't so far behind at the start of the year. 7. Indeed, while I've thought that Mr. Pope didn't belong in novice at all this year, it was far more of a concern at King's than at Towson. In the former case, the skill gap between him and raw novices was such that it caused concerns about novice retention (and I'm increasingly concerned that we're continually raising the barrier for entry at the novice level). That wasn't true in the latter case, except with respect to the rookie team from James Madison, and Mr. Pope was not unique in that respect. 8. There are a variety of ways to produce novices with an advantage either at the start of the year (or throughout the year), and depending upon resources, programs use one or more of them. These include recruiting the year before, putting people who haven't cleared twice in novice rounds, having new novices with speech/Congress experience, sending new novices to camp (we do most of our "recruiting" on campus in the fall, but when I know someone is going to join us as a novice the following fall, I try to send them to camp), having a team mini-camp/retreat. These all produce inequities, but I don't believe that any of them are on the scale of having novices with signficant high school L-D experience. 9. Kevin Kuswa is right. The goal for debater development should be to move people up through the divisions as quickly as possible. That's why we're adopting our "unilateral disarmament" policy starting next year. WVU debaters will debate in no more than 6 novice tournaments in a lifetime, and in no more than 10 JV tournaments in a lifetime (though not necessarily consecutively, and yes, we may move them back for Towson and/or ADA Nationals). 10. Kevin Kuswa is right again. It's so difficult to have someone go from a walk-on novice to a competitive varsity debater in four years (if you have that long--many programs, including ours, accept new novices who are sophomores, juniors, and even seniors. Others do not). Given that, it seems silly to waste rounds beating up on people with inferior skills. 11. But Beth Skinner is also right. These decisions should generally be made locally. Every program and every debater is a unique situation. 12. On the other hand, programs like Vermont, Richmond, and Louisville that consistently enter people at levels above their eligibility should be applauded. 13. Tuna Snider was right in something he told me a while ago. He told me he doesn't worry about programs holding their debaters back in novice while Vermont's novices move up, because that experience advantage will aid the Vermont debaters when they meet the held-back debaters in JV and varsity in future years. 14. On the other hand, we do have eligibility rules, and we should have the best ones for both education and competitive balance. While I think that on balance high school L-D should count toward novice eligibility, I certainly understand that there is great variation in the quality of high school L-D experience. Perhaps we should scrap that rule and get both ADA and CEDA to institute the same rule that we have for JV: make it to three finals and you have to move up (or we could make it two finals, since novice is only supposed to last one year, as opposed to two for JV). And, yes, you could move back for "national championship" tournaments. Can someone tell me what would be bad about that? 15. Finally, Andy Ellis is right when he says judges should not take these issues out on debaters in rounds. Given the full disclosure above and given that Towson is an MPJ tournament, I was quite surprised when I was handed a ballot for Mr. Pope and Mr. Martano's octafinals debate versus Binghamton (and I thank the CUA coaching staff for having confidence in my ability to adjudicate the round fairly). There's only one way this debate thing can work: once a round starts, all that other stuff has to go away. And, Beth Skinner and Kevin Kuswa are right: virtually all of the folks I know who coach and direct teams understand this. To do otherwise would not be fair to the debaters in question, AND TO THEIR PARTNERS (it did become a little tricky when Mr. Pope's extreme speed became an issue in the round). I await constructive feedback. --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030319/c63f4162/attachment.html From privethedge Wed Mar 19 08:19:46 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 06:19:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Rove petition text and press release II In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030319141946.371.qmail@web10002.mail.yahoo.com> << Is it ever too late to protest the circumvention of democratic deliberation practices? Is it ever too late to protest the reliance on faulty, unverified evidence? Is it ever too late to argue for the incorporation, rather then dismissal, of disparate voices into the foreign policy realm? >> It depends, is the purpose of the protest to note on the historical record the objections to the action? Then, I would answer your question this way: "No, it is not wrong to note the historical record with your protests, to show that not all were in favor of the Action undertaken." Nor do I think it is wrong to question the President - However, I think when the shooting starts, we need to support the troops. However, if the purpose of the protest was to bring about real change, or to avert the war in Iraq, I would answer this way: "No, your protest is far to late to be meaningful." Let me ask everyone who objects to this war a few questions: 1. The majority of those on this list who have opposed the war have done so on the grounds that the evidence supporting the claim that Sadaam has WMD is flawed. If Sadaam uses Weapons of Mass Destruction in the upcoming conflict, will you be willing to concede that Bush was right all along? 2. The majority of those on this list who have opposed the war were, mostly, silent in 1998, when Clinton lobbed more cruise missiles into Iraq, than were fired in the entire Gulf War. A check of the list archives, for 1998, shows about 7 posts on Iraq. Is the message I'm to get from this, that when a Democratic President shoots missiles, it's OK, but when a Republican president does it, it's wrong? <> Not sure about this....I guess we'll have to wait and see. But why do I get the feeling that if Clinton had used this type of "heavy-handed pattern of "persuasion," in Rwanda - that he'd be hailed as a saint? And, I also need to ask this question - should I start to judge all of you based on the strategies and things you did as high school or college debaters? Even though some of you are many years removed from that time? Should I think that because you, at one time or another, power spread a fledgling novice team out the round because you could, and because "you needed a ballot," that somehow that will bear on how you conduct yourself now? Some of the people criticizing Rove for his tactics engaged in the same, or worse, in the heat of competition. The way I look at this current conflict is this way - just so there is no doubt: 1) Do I think that Bush has done a good job of "selling" the war? No - not really. I think he is an awful public speaker, who lacks the power to persuade - he looks like a deer in the headlights. However, that said, I think he got enough of the key parts right, to satisfy me: A) Sadaam is evil, he abuses his people in heinous and monstrous ways.B) Sadaam has WMD, he will use them, or permit others to use them (I think the quote from the foreign minister yesterday saying that if we attack, then no American was safe, and Iraq would attack us anywhere, shows that).C) For too long the world has allowed Sadaam's abuses to go unchecked, it's time to act. Do I think that the liberation of Iraq can bring about real change in the Middle East? Yes, yes I do. I think we should then move on Saudi Arabia next, and liberate the Saudis from a corrupt, abusive, monarchy. 2) Do I have reservations about this war? Yes, of course, any sane and rational person always has doubts about war. I could lose two cousins in the next 48 hours, and a lot of people can lose sons, fathers, mothers, brother, sisters. 3) Do I think that Sadaam is an evil man, comparable to Stalin or Hitler? Yes, without a doubt. 4) Do I think that someone has to take a stand against evil? Yes...without a doubt. If the war is over quickly, and achieves the goals that have been set forth, then Bush looks like Churchill (even if the man can't speak like Churchill). If the war is over quickly, and achieves the goals that have been set forth, then Bush, Rove, Rummy, and the rest of the commanders, look like geniuses, and all Daschiel, Pelosi, and Finestein, and all the others come away looking like fools. If the war drags on, bogs down, or is a failure - then Bush looks like a fool - but he can say "look, Sadaam was evil, corrupt, and abusive, and a menace, someone had to try." I readily admit that the entire Bush Presidency is riding on the next few days. Win, and he most likely wins in '04, lose, and he's gone and we get..........? But, win/lose, right/wrong...disagree/agree with Bush, I hope that none of you will defame our servicemen and women. They deserve our respect, they're the ones whose lives are on the line. 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." "France said this week they need more evidence to convince them Saddam is a threat. Yeah, last time France asked for more evidence it came rolling thru Paris with a German Flag on it." David Letterman --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030319/642e6fb7/attachment.htm From privethedge Wed Mar 19 08:27:24 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 06:27:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Re: [CX-L] The War and questioning the President. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030319084648.00b25fd0@130.94.69.178> Message-ID: <20030319142724.26199.qmail@web10009.mail.yahoo.com> >You should rethink your unfortunate statement, or be very ashamed of >yourself. I wonder what your principal, or school board would think of >your statement? Last I heard, Texans support men and women in the military >even if they don't support the Commander-in-Chief - they don't side with >bunch of freaks defaming them. >. This is not a threat. I don't even know Jane Boyd, and I'm only guessing that she's a teacher at a school. I know she's a debate coach, but that' about all I know. I'm far to busy right now to stir up trouble in a town outside Dallas. But, that said, the list archives are public records - anyone can see what we post there. A degree of circumspection is always good. What if I were the parent of a student at her school? What if my husband was in the Gulf right now, or my wife, or my son, or my daughter, and I see a post by a teacher telling me that the protestor down the street, calling my son/daughter, husband/wife, is a jackbooted, facist, baby eating thug, is right. The point of my response there is that NOBODY is EVER ALWAYS right. An object lesson, I once lost a job because I support abortion...I posted a message expressing a pro abortion stance in a list serve, the next thing I knew the Catholic High School i was working at, was firing me.....Not to say that the same thing would happen, just asking people to think a bit, before they make sweeping assertions with real consequences. "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." "France said this week they need more evidence to convince them Saddam is a threat. Yeah, last time France asked for more evidence it came rolling thru Paris with a German Flag on it." David Letterman --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030319/951aa841/attachment.html From mmk_savant Wed Mar 19 08:35:48 2003 From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 06:35:48 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] request of Gordon Mitchell Message-ID: i am considering whether or not to sign your petition. would you please, in the interests of a full and complete public deliberation of the contents of your petition, please post or post links to: a) the famous original graduate paper which British Intelligence supposedly lifted large portions of in its public press release. if possible, would you highlight those portions which appeared in Powell's presentation? b) present evidence that the administration knew or should have known that the documents about Iraqi attempts to acquire nuclear materials from African countries were forged? c) argue that these questionable pieces of evidence are a substantial portion of the case made by the administration for war against Iraq? surely you don't expect the members of the debate community to sign a piece of paper without presenting a full and balanced case that they do so? thank you, 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/20030319/5060efdc/attachment.htm From privethedge Wed Mar 19 08:43:20 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 06:43:20 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Re: [CX-L] The War and questioning the President. In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20030319084648.00b25fd0@130.94.69.178> Message-ID: <20030319144320.3900.qmail@web10002.mail.yahoo.com> killing beasts are right? Defaming men and women just because they are >serving their nation in the Armed Services. I'm apalled that you would >support those who would defame our servicemen and women that way. While I've been pretty busy lately, I don't recall seeing any of the protestors verbally abusing the troops that are deployed. While I guess you may be right that someone has mentioned that, I certainly wouldn't say that is the consensus message coming from the anti-war protestors. >> But, Jane said EVERY protestor was right - so, taking the good with the bad, she agrees with these people as well, by her own words. Seems as if that was the one real lesson that could be drawn from the Vietnam War. >> I would hope we learned more lessons than that. << However, I don't think that it would be uncalled for to tighten the leash on some soldiers that are eager to go to war to prove their metal and their machismo. That sort of thinking is not an example of a professional military man focused on preserving freedom and protecting the weak. >> Here, I agree with you. I hope that there are comeptent corp commanders in place, competent, and strong, men and women who will pull in the leash. << I'm not saying that makes them baby eaters and the other non-sense that people will right, but I do think that the thinking of such people should be questioned. >> Questioned? Maybe. They should be punished when they do things not in keeping with the UCMJ. Who should be questioned? I'm confused. >To question the President is everyone's right, and, I guess I'd even be >willing to say everyone's repsonsibitliy, to defame servicemen and women, >who, in about 12 hours, will be harms way is putrid and reprehensible. Well, it really serves no good purpose to criticize someone who is simply following orders, unless they do something wrong. My Lai, Son Thang etc. >> The people who comitted the atrocities at My Lai were punished. The excuse of "just following orders" didn't work at Nuremburg, it won't work now. I would never support anyone who committed an attrocity in the name of "orders." However, I will support those who followed lawful orders, to prosecute military action - there's a far cry from frontal assaults and My Lai. >But, I guess it's OK..afterall, you're safe in the walls of your high >school, and not about to get shot at. << Duane, this is probably one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard. Lets keep something in mind, the military works for the American People. If I as a citizen find something that the military is doing to be distasteful then I have every right and a responsibility to speak up about it. Because like it or not, those soldiers are doing those things on my behalf, and that it includes not only the brave and heroic acts, but the lesser ones as well. >> True..but it isn't it easier to criticize them when you are snug in your office, your classroom, your house? And, I can't agree with you fully, Pat. If the military is engaging in crime, or genocide - then yes, I agree with you. But, when they are engaged in their purpose, war, then no..I can't agree with you. The troops should be supported, until they do something not worthy of support. << Furthermore, your thinking taken to its illogical conclusion would allow you to tell parents of students to keep their nose out of your classroom because they don't sacrifice as much as you do or have to put up with the same things you do. The garbage men could begin to tell the public that it has no right to complain about how it collects trash because the public doesn't actually do the dumping and don't smell because of it. >> No...look, she said EVERY protestor was right. I've got two cousins in the Gulf right now...I was pissed to think that she agrees with the ones calling them murderous thugs. Heck, one runs a ship storeroom on a refueling vessel, the other is a weather observer - his sole job is to, and I think this is funny, to look at and record what the sky is doing. They are not thugs, and I won't stand for anyone telling me they are, or agreeing with people who say they are. << This sort of thinking, that civilians have not right to criticize the military, is wrong both legally, morally, and logically. >> To dissent with the military is fine. It's your right. To insult the honor, integrity and morals of our men and women in service is wrong. At the very least, we owe those people the benefit of the doubt. Think about this way, Pat, those people are willing to DIE so you can protest. Are you willing to say the same? >You should rethink your unfortunate statement, or be very ashamed of >yourself. I wonder what your principal, or school board would think of >your statement? Last I heard, Texans support men and women in the military >even if they don't support the Commander-in-Chief - they don't side with >bunch of freaks defaming them. That sounds like a threat. I think I would read it like a threat and sounds as if your trying to bully individuals into keeping quiet if they don't agree with you. That doesn't sound like something you would say, but maybe I thought to highly of you... (I would certainly ask that you clarify this point) >> Covered in another post. Words have meanings, and can be taken serveral ways. That' all that was meant. I don't have time to fight those battles, and I've been a victim of my own statements in the past. If I can spare another person the trauma I went through for my beliefs, then I feel it's my obligation to do so. 10 hrs, 51 minutes... Patrick Garrett GlobalSecurity.org "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." "France said this week they need more evidence to convince them Saddam is a threat. Yeah, last time France asked for more evidence it came rolling thru Paris with a German Flag on it." David Letterman --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030319/627283e2/attachment.html From ccooper Wed Mar 19 09:01:10 2003 From: ccooper (Christopher Cooper) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:01:10 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Rove petition text and press release II Message-ID: <0F59059F65E5BA4292E061E8A73370711426A4@exm01w.apac.planning.org> Duane: A few weeks back, on this very same issue, I posited a question to you that you did not answer. It was: These same servicemen and women who are willing to die for me are also willing to kill for me. How do I respect the former while protesting the latter? I watched a very interesting hour-long expose on PBS the other night that tracked the entire history of Saddam and US-Iraq relations. Though I was already aware of much of the details (how the CIA helped Saddam and the Bath party win a military coup...how we helped arm Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war...how we blocked Saddam from making a claim of international law violations for Kuwait's slant-drilling into Iraqi oil fields...how we abandoned the Shiites who tried to overthrow Saddam at the end of the last war), it helped solidify my opposition to unilateral action for one important reason: We create madmen and kill a lot of innocent people when we are through with them. Who will replace Saddam? If we uphold true and fair elections in Iraq, shouldn't Saddam be a potential choice for the Iraqi people? Or someone else involved with his regime? Who will we ALLOW to run? Or have we already hand-picked those pointy-headed leaders of the INC to take over? (The same leaders who have promised to tear up French contracts for drilling rights and replace them with BP and Amoco?) How will we respond if the Kurds take this opportunity at "liberation" to establish a Kurdistan state? Will we "liberate" them from the inevitable violent Turkish crackdown? You would be right, Duane, if this was really an international police action to arrest Saddam for crimes against humanity and to liberate the Iraqi people so they could exercise self-determination. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS IS. Coop -----Original Message----- From: Duane Hyland [mailto:privethedge at yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 9:20 AM To: Damien Pfister; edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: RE: [eDebate] Rove petition text and press release II << Is it ever too late to protest the circumvention of democratic deliberation practices? Is it ever too late to protest the reliance on faulty, unverified evidence? Is it ever too late to argue for the incorporation, rather then dismissal, of disparate voices into the foreign policy realm? >> It depends, is the purpose of the protest to note on the historical record the objections to the action? Then, I would answer your question this way: "No, it is not wrong to note the historical record with your protests, to show that not all were in favor of the Action undertaken." Nor do I think it is wrong to question the President - However, I think when the shooting starts, we need to support the troops. However, if the purpose of the protest was to bring about real change, or to avert the war in Iraq, I would answer this way: "No, your protest is far to late to be meaningful." Let me ask everyone who objects to this war a few questions: 1. The majority of those on this list who have opposed the war have done so on the grounds that the evidence supporting the claim that Sadaam has WMD is flawed. If Sadaam uses Weapons of Mass Destruction in the upcoming conflict, will you be willing to concede that Bush was right all along? 2. The majority of those on this list who have opposed the war were, mostly, silent in 1998, when Clinton lobbed more cruise missiles into Iraq, than were fired in the entire Gulf War. A check of the list archives, for 1998, shows about 7 posts on Iraq. Is the message I'm to get from this, that when a Democratic President shoots missiles, it's OK, but when a Republican president does it, it's wrong? <> Not sure about this....I guess we'll have to wait and see. But why do I get the feeling that if Clinton had used this type of "heavy-handed pattern of "persuasion," in Rwanda - that he'd be hailed as a saint? And, I also need to ask this question - should I start to judge all of you based on the strategies and things you did as high school or college debaters? Even though some of you are many years removed from that time? Should I think that because you, at one time or another, power spread a fledgling novice team out the round because you could, and because "you needed a ballot," that somehow that will bear on how you conduct yourself now? Some of the people criticizing Rove for his tactics engaged in the same, or worse, in the heat of competition. The way I look at this current conflict is this way - just so there is no doubt: 1) Do I think that Bush has done a good job of "selling" the war? No - not really. I think he is an awful public speaker, who lacks the power to persuade - he looks like a deer in the headlights. However, that said, I think he got enough of the key parts right, to satisfy me: A) Sadaam is evil, he abuses his people in heinous and monstrous ways. B) Sadaam has WMD, he will use them, or permit others to use them (I think the quote from the foreign minister yesterday saying that if we attack, then no American was safe, and Iraq would attack us anywhere, shows that). C) For too long the world has allowed Sadaam's abuses to go unchecked, it's time to act. Do I think that the liberation of Iraq can bring about real change in the Middle East? Yes, yes I do. I think we should then move on Saudi Arabia next, and liberate the Saudis from a corrupt, abusive, monarchy. 2) Do I have reservations about this war? Yes, of course, any sane and rational person always has doubts about war. I could lose two cousins in the next 48 hours, and a lot of people can lose sons, fathers, mothers, brother, sisters. 3) Do I think that Sadaam is an evil man, comparable to Stalin or Hitler? Yes, without a doubt. 4) Do I think that someone has to take a stand against evil? Yes...without a doubt. If the war is over quickly, and achieves the goals that have been set forth, then Bush looks like Churchill (even if the man can't speak like Churchill). If the war is over quickly, and achieves the goals that have been set forth, then Bush, Rove, Rummy, and the rest of the commanders, look like geniuses, and all Daschiel, Pelosi, and Finestein, and all the others come away looking like fools. If the war drags on, bogs down, or is a failure - then Bush looks like a fool - but he can say "look, Sadaam was evil, corrupt, and abusive, and a menace, someone had to try." I readily admit that the entire Bush Presidency is riding on the next few days. Win, and he most likely wins in '04, lose, and he's gone and we get..........? But, win/lose, right/wrong...disagree/agree with Bush, I hope that none of you will defame our servicemen and women. They deserve our respect, they're the ones whose lives are on the line. 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." "France said this week they need more evidence to convince them Saddam is a threat. Yeah, last time France asked for more evidence it came rolling thru Paris with a German Flag on it." David Letterman _____ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030319/35fc7bb1/attachment.htm From damien.pfister Wed Mar 19 09:08:08 2003 From: damien.pfister (Damien Pfister) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:08:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Rove petition text and press release II In-Reply-To: <20030319141946.371.qmail@web10002.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Duane, I am afraid that there is some miscommunication about the petition. I'm glad that you have raised these issues in the public sphere of edebate. When we argue openly about the intent of our actions and the evidence that we base those actions on while inviting criticism, we can decide on the best course of action for this petition. Your support for dissent is admirable. In the rush to war, the administration has "miscommunicated" key evidence and has avoided engaging the public spheres of dissent. Some of this evidence has not been verified (Niger uranium accusation), has been plagiarized from reports written 5 years ago (the British dossier), or has been controverted (aluminum tubes). The administration has not _openly_ argued about the best course of action in the public sphere by dismissing _all_ objections to war from protesters and countries. Miscommunication over edebate is one thing; miscommunication when justifying preventive war costs lives. I implore you to read the petition again. I have attached it to the bottom of this email for ease of access. I think you'll find that it is not anti-war, rather, it is pro-debate. Surely you're for open, honest, fair debate about issues so critical to the life and death of thousands of Iraqis and soldiers? Can you really defend the spying on UN diplomats to gain an upper hand in negotiating? Can you you really defend the circumvention of democratic processes through financial inducements? Can you defend the demonization of France (recently renamed "Freedom" on globes made in the USA)? It seems that anyone interested in _really_ promoting democracy (or liberation, as you put it), should be interested in democratic process. After all, its the disrespect for democratic _process_ that has enabled the US to have a policy of democracy promotion that has relied largely on installing dictators. Why is this important, given the inevitability of war in Iraq? The Bush national security doctrine of "pre-emptive/preventive" war is getting its litmus test in Iraq. This doctrine could be utilized to advance preventive war in North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, among others. Regardless of the merits of preventive war, relying on faulty evidence to advance the case for war is a recipe for miscalculation! Why Karl Rove, and why the focus on his debating style? Karl Rove is certainly involved with the marketing of the war, and as you acknowledged, he realizes that Bush's fate will follow the public perception of how the war goes. As he was once "one of ours," we believe that this petition might garner some attention from him. His debating style is relevant because it forms the basis of a pattern of intimidation using "fake" evidence (in his case, boxes of blank index cards) that is also being utilized in promoting the war against Iraq. Does the petition somehow not support the troops? You'll note upon your re-reading of the petition text that we emphasize the importance of political legitimacy to protect combat troops. US "brusque unilateralism" alienates potential allies, making the troops rely on riskier intervention strategies. US "brusque unilateralism" erodes its credibility in Arab public spheres, encouraging terrorist recruitment and attacks that might ultimately be targeted at troops (as in the USS Cole). US "brusque unilateralism" undermines intelligence sharing that can facilitate better targeting of (possible) WMD facilities and eliminate civilian casualties. I hope that this has answered some of your concerns. If you feel comfortable advocating _for_ public deliberation over major foreign policy concerns, I urge you to have your students fill out the petition. I can send you my mailing address backchannel if you would like to send it to me. Thanks for the opportunity to dialogue here; your respect for open deliberation practices belies your overt rejection of the petition. I hope you'll reconsider. Damien Pittsburgh Petition text: We object to the Bush Administration's manipulation of public deliberation in the implementation of its preventive military intervention policy. World-wide political legitimacy for that policy can be forged only through a process of fair and honest public argument. Uncritical use of forged documents purporting to link Iraq to Niger's nuclear industry, reliance on a deceptive British report that plagiarized and misrepresented the work of a California graduate student and intimidation tactics at the UN Security Council are each part of the Bush administration's 'win at all costs' approach to public diplomacy. These argumentative strategies must be reconsidered immediately, because the alienation and mistrust sown worldwide by their implementation bankrupts the political legitimacy of U.S. foreign policy and polarizes diplomatic conflict. This exposes U.S. soldiers to harm by dividing allies, worsens the terrorist threat by stimulating recruitment and undermines cooperative security ventures ranging from allied intelligence sharing to international peacekeeping and post-war reconstruction. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030319/883e9cf0/attachment.html From STVherro Wed Mar 19 09:17:12 2003 From: STVherro (STVherro at aol.com) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 10:17:12 EST Subject: [eDebate] Novice. Message-ID: <19b.12391a77.2ba9e3f8@aol.com> What you have written below is that HS LD debaters have MORE EXPERIENCE with debate and things related to debate than do "pure" novices, and that you gain an advantage from that experience. YOUR OWN ARGUMENT IS THAT HS LDERS HAVE AN ADVANTAGE OVER "PURE" NOVICES. This advantage, in your own words, has more to do with having a better understanding of what needs to be done and how to do it, than "hard work." And that is exactly why some people think HS LDers competing in Novice is unfair. Steve Herro Not a coach anywhere...for now In a message dated 3/19/2003 8:57:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, SD003K at mail.rochester.edu writes: > The real reason the LD debaters tend to do well is their work ethic. Doing > debate in High School they have already learned to love debate, to work at > it, to spend their weekends debating. They've learned it?s more > addictive than coke. (Something that most hardcore novices learn at their > first tourney anyway) So the LD debaters that make the transition... what > do we do? We spend hours in the basement of Morey Hall on the Rochester > campus (or the equivalent at Catholic) learning, working, practicing -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20030319/1d37382e/attachment.htm From privethedge Wed Mar 19 09:22:15 2003 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 07:22:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Re: excuse me? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030319152215.29656.qmail@web10010.mail.yahoo.com> Ms. Boyd: I was not threatening you, only thinking out loud that your school administration might be less than pleased to see a teacher supporting those who would defame our troops. I once lost a coaching job at a school because I posted a pro-abortion message on a list, and the Catholic School I worke