From db8coach Thu Dec 1 11:42:30 2005 From: db8coach (Bob Lechtreck) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 09:42:30 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] A few questions for Jason Russell References: <00a301c5f55e$07bd13d0$6400a8c0@bobsputer> Message-ID: <00af01c5f69e$9a75e350$6400a8c0@bobsputer> Jason Russell is one of the good guys (not a "poser" like Korcok insists.....), but I have to admit that I liked his theories better when he was at Gonzaga. That said, only a few things. JR SAYS: Here is the fact of the matter: there is not an aff in over 7 years of performance debating or debating from conviction or whatever else you want to call it that does this. If this argument was undefeatable it would be more prevalent, given that there are plenty of judges that consider these types of debate arguments legitimate. There is no Racism Bad aff. There is no dancing with a chair aff. There is no Dr. Seuss aff. All of these bugaboos of the right are misnomers and urban legends. I SAY: Maybe not prevalent, but I have SEEN a sexism bad aff where you were asked to sign a petition saying you oppose sexism in debate and if the judge doesn't vote for the aff, they can't sign the petition. I am pretty sure you saw that aff as well. I also saw a dancing with a flag aff (OK, not a chair, but still...), and I guess you missed the Sneeches (Dr. Suess) aff on the Title VII topic. I saw it. I may even have voted for it, but I kinda doubt it They are not urban legends, they are real. But that is really neither here nor there. While the "Conviction affs" (a term I find very useful - tho I know you are hating it) may not be THAT bad, they are along the same vein. However, the part of this that I really want to answer is when, JR SAYS: As far as judging goes, I bet you won some bad debate arguments when you were a debater. I bet debaters you have loved that make policy debate arguments have won arguments you hated in front of you. I believe that you should afford those that debate outside of your ideological box that same benefit. It is hard for me to understand how someone can purport to love college debate and not believe that judge intervention is worse than non-topical affs winning debates when they are defended effectively. No enclave model or any other model of debate I have heard of short of NEDA defends this. I bet you would be hard-pressed to articulate a pedagogical model of debate that includes the disclaimer, "but judges have the leeway to vote against any type of shit that you say and they don't like." I SAY: Sure, I have won my share of really bad args (not many tho, I wan't really that good. Mahoney carried me like a backpack). And my teams have won some terrible args. As a judge I have voted for some really stupid shit INCLUDING Lemoine. But all this was done when debate was a GAME. Everyone understood that running "spark" did not mean that you really believed we should encourage a nuclear war, or that running racism good did not mean you really thought racism was good. Debates were just about winning and losing and a ballot meant NOTHING other than a place to write the name of the winning team. But that all changed a few years ago. Now my ballot is a tool (at least that is what all the performance and critical people have been telling me). My ballot makes a real world difference. Wow, this is kinda heavy. How I vote in this debate will really affect the world outside this debate round. So now I can't vote for spark because I would never encourage a real nuclear war. I can't vote for racism good because I don't want it perpetuated. Now I have to concern myself with every word being uttered and praying that the teams at least had the good sense to put those sexist terms under erasure. Now I have to try to decipher poetry and songs, decide if a picture of a mushroom cloud really makes my heart bleed enough vote on it, and if giving Africans a "voice" meets the criteria of the USFG giving developmental aid to the Greater Horn. But more than that, since I am being told that my ballot makes a real world difference, I also have to decide if my ballot is going against my OWN convictions. Look, I do love college debate. But I DON'T love the direction it is heading. I want debate to be a game. A simple competition to determine a winner and a loser. A competition with strict rules to make that competition fair and equitable. It is my conviction that I will not encourage the change away from that game. I can't necessarily stop it (tho I wish I could), but I refuse to encourage it. I also HATE judge intervention. I have always spoke out against it. I agree that judge intervention will kill debate. So please don't force me to intervene. I would absolutely hate to do it. Either debate the resolution as it is written or strike me. That really isn't too much to ask. If your convictions prevent you from debating the resolution as it is written, then please respect MY conviction and simply use one of your ample strikes on me. Again, why is it that debaters should never have to go against their convictions, but judges must go against theirs? This is a terribly unfair double standard. I respect the convictions of the debaters and I say if you feel that you cannot argue for USFG axion, then don't. But don't pref me if that is your decision. Simple, no? Bob Lechtreck Bakersfield College -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051201/da3ec1df/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Thu Dec 1 09:08:54 2005 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 08:08:54 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] coach and get your MA at Wyoming Message-ID: Below is the original posting for the GA position at Wyoming. Our chair is presently negotiating with the grad director and dean to get a position where a student could complete an MA in disciplines other than communication studies. Therefore, if you are interested in the position, you should contact me regardless of whether you are interested in rhetoric, comm, etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------- The University of Wyoming will have an opening for a graduate assistant coach beginning in the Fall of 2006. It's not too early to contact me if you are interested in the position. The position pays your tuition and provides a healthy stipend to complete an MA in Communication Studies or Journalism. Our department is cutting-edge and diverse; you can study rhetoric, media criticism, cultural and intercultural communication, comm.theory and science, public relations, and "hard" journalism. Our faculty's range is incredible--in the past three years we've offered graduate courses on the rhetoric of Hip Hop and Punk Rock, Social Movements, Race/Class/Gender, post-September 11 institutional rhetoric, linguistics, media ethics, and the list goes on. It's a small, diverse, and extremely supportive department. The department, and the University administrators, love the debate team. UW debaters travel both a national and regional schedule in NDT/CEDA and parliamentary debate. Graduate coaching assistants travel to tournaments with the team, coach, assist with research, judge debates, listen to practice rounds, etc. The Director of Forensics shares these responsibilities. We have a pluralistic and democratic philosophy of debate with a great deal of ideological and methodological diversity. Our success rate for placing former Wyoming assistant coaches is simply incredible. The current Directors of Forensics at both LSU and Marist, and the former DOF at Regis, are all alums of the UW coaching staff. Former UW assistant coaches are also PhD candidates at both Penn State and SIU, and still another former assistant is on the faculty in our department. Finally, Laramie is an extremely cheap place to live, and you're moments away from some of the most beautiful mountain ranges and recreation areas in the country. If you are interested in the position, there are two things you should do: 1. Email me. I will answer any questions you have, and will also forward your contact information to Dr. Mike Brown, our Director of Graduate Studies. 2. Check out the department and the grad school. The department's home page is: http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/COJO/. The department's graduate studies page is: http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/COJO/grad.asp Please contact me with any questions. Best of luck this season. Matt Stannard Director of Forensics University of Wyoming From jwpatt00 Thu Dec 1 09:25:59 2005 From: jwpatt00 (JW Patterson) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:25:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NDT Support Staff Message-ID: Although the debate over support staff at the NDT has subsided [temporarily, at least] I none the less have decided to add my nickel's worth to the foray. As you know, several people on one side of this issue favor a limitation on the number of support staff including other debaters an institution can bring to the National Tournament. From my point of view, this proposal attempts to treat the symptoms but it does not get at the root cause of the problem. In my mind, I think the major question should be asked: Should any coaches, hired people etc. be cutting cards and doing research for the debaters? There was a time not long ago when most debaters did all of their research. The coach or teacher served as director of the research but did not do the work for the students. Since this issue arose, I have asked several debaters from the 1970s if their coach or coaches cut cards and wrote briefs for them. Although the poll is not scientific, I have yet to find anyone who indicates that the coach cut cards, wrote cases etc. or in other words did their work for them. The floodgates opened in the late 1970's and 80"s when a few coaches whose teams were very successful began writing cases and doing a much of the research for the debaters This soon led to the hiring of professional card cutters. The problem was further intensified when debate coaches began comparing themselves to football coaches. I prefer not to think of debate as a sports game where virtually anything goes. Instead I believe it to be an academic activity in which directors and all coaches are teachers rather than coaches.Athletic Coaches design plays and does much of the work etc. but a teacher instructs students how to do things for themselves. As a teacher, I don't believe we would write speeches or write a paper for someone in our classes. Likewise, I don't think we should be doing the work for debaters. Teaching them how to do the work for themselves is of significant importance. In other words, I think all evidence cutting and brief writing should be done by debaters under the direction of teachers/coaches. At the same time, I feel that if the entire student squad helps with the research, they should all be permitted to attend the NDT either as participants or observers, hear as many debates as they would like, and cut any cards they would like to cut. I do not think debaters should be restricted from observing the NDT simply because they happen to be on a large team. In other words, I would like to see us cease and desist work being done by the coaches, hired people etc, and start playing the role of the teacher who teaches students how to do things but does not do them for them. This should not imply that debating was better in the past then it today when in fact in some ways it is better. But it does assert that we should learn something from the past which happens to have been better than it is today. Peace on Earth, JW Patterson From majeredb8 Thu Dec 1 09:39:50 2005 From: majeredb8 (Steve Sawyer) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:39:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] On experts and truth claims Message-ID: <200512011539.jB1Fdo126317@hsdebate.com> Given the vigorous discussion lately about the merits of expert research and so on, I thought the online rewriting of history regarding of former Kennedy administration official John Seigenthaler might be a good counterpoint: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm I'd suggest that in light of growing numbers of stories like this, the debate community should find a balance between misplaced ad homs, and simply making sources beyond repute. -Steve Sawyer Catholic University '05 From Alfred.Snider Thu Dec 1 11:09:38 2005 From: Alfred.Snider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 12:09:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Intl Debate Academy Results and thanks Message-ID: <20051201120938.rs59hxfi5h6sgcs0@webmail.uvm.edu> The 2005 Intl Debate Academy ended last Saturday, departure day from lovely Slovenij Gradec amidst a snowstorm. It was lovely with the snow covered mountains and the streets and houses of this quaint little town looking almost holiday-like with winter's white carpet of snow. Spela has put some photos online at http://www.ljudmila.org/debata/forum/album_cat.php?cat_id=18 The training sessions seemed to be a huge success. There were many opportunities to expand beyond just the basics and provide some real advanced training for the students, even those in the intermediate group. I know that I, as a trainer, was challenmged to teach new and innovative advanced techniques because the students were very serious and very sophisticated. 17 nations were represented at the Academy. Each student received a CD-ROM with many relevant materials, including: The exercises used in the small group sessions, exercises you can do in training back home; Lecture notes from many of the instructors; 4 lecture videos (the rest will be on the web soon -- watch for them); Resources that debaters might find useful, such as a glossary of legal terms, textx of major international treaties, a listing and description of major international organizations, descriptions of major USA supreme court decisions, materials about UN peacekeeping missions, as well as other instructional materials. An extensive teacher section with materials for coaching in general, debate classes, parliamentary-policy-LD debate, public speaking, media literacy and tournament administration. A video of the USA ambassadors question and answer session, where the debaters really asked difficult and pointed questions (a challenge he seemed to enjoy, even if people didn't like many of the answers). I will ask Bojana and Grega to post the speaker awards because they calculated them from the spreadsheet that I produced. I do know that the top speaker was Ivan Velev of Bulgaria. Simon Grabrovec of Slovenia was second. Primoz Karnar of Slovenia was third. Jake Meany of the USA was fourth. Congratulations to all of them. After five preliminary rounds, with the last three being power-paired, the standings to enter semifinals were: 1. Primoz Karnar-Ivan Velev*** 2. Jake Meany-Simon Grabrovec*** 3. Leslie Keller-Nick Landsman-Roos 4. Spela Kranjc-Spela Kunej*** 5. Branka Marusic-Crt Podlogar 6. Filip Popovic-Urska Derganc*** 7. Stefana Karevska-Jure Planinsek 8. Peter Mesarec-Sintija Dobrotinsek Two teams from each semifinal advanced, and I have indicated the advancing teams with ***. Both semifinals were, apparently, very close. In the final round, with seven judges, on the motion, "This house believes that the UN should replace the USA in Iraq," the results were.... 1st - Jake Meany-Simon Grabrovec 2nd - Primoz Karnar-Ivan Velev I want to thank the trainers at the Academy for their fine work... Sam Grenland, Hong Kong Jason Jarvis, Korea Loke Wing Fatt, Singapore Branka Josimov, Serbia & Montenegro Maja Nenadovic, Croatia-Hungary-more Joe Zompetti, USA Sam Nelson, USA Jure Pozgan, Slovenia And of course, the overall organizer of the evnt, Bojana Skrt and ZIP. Special thanks to Grega Gostenchnik, Primoz Karnar, Simon Grabrovec, Peter Mesarec and other Slovenians who worked so hard to make the program a success. Also thanks to the World Debate Institute for planning help, the USA Embassy in Slovenia for funding, the Government of Slovenia, and the town of Slovenij Gradec. Bojana says next year will be better.... Thanks to all, Alfred C. Snider, Head Trainer, IDAS 2005 University of Vermont, USA From dave Thu Dec 1 11:28:49 2005 From: dave (Steinberg, David L) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 12:28:49 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Summer Meetings Message-ID: If you are interested in submitting a bid to host the 2006 CEDA summer meetings, please do so by 12/08. The meetings include the Topic Committee and the Executive Council, and are open to any and all interested people. To bid as a host, you need only offer hotel arrangements including meeting room access, and optimal internet connectivity. The meetings have been hosted on campuses and at hotels. The bid form is available at http://cedadebate.org/reports.htm I suggest the following dates, however, if you are submitting a bid you are, or course, free to offer your preference of dates. May 31-June 4 June 7-June 11 If you have additional questions about hosting, please address your questions to me. I will be soliciting input regarding the program after the location and dates are set. Thank you! David L. Steinberg, Director of Debate University of Miami PO Box 248127 Coral Gables, FL 33124 Wolfson Building #3015 305-284-5553 (office) 305-284-5216 (fax) dave at miami.edu From jbhdb8 Thu Dec 1 12:00:27 2005 From: jbhdb8 (Josh Hoe) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 13:00:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NDT Support Staff In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Are you proposing this as a rule JW? While I agree with the sentiment I am not sure how it would work in practice. For coaches at so-called small programs to stop cutting cards at this point would put them at an even more massive disadvantage then they are in in the sq. I think the support staff proposal is an attempt to reach the heart of the question that you identify. It attempts to create a disincentive for vast numbers of coaches to cut cards. You are right that the few coaches who attended could cut cards but at least that would be a more level field. The point is program A can hire 10 judges and 10 coaches (I seem to remember someone bragging once of a 27 person work room - not NU) - and program B can hire no judges and no card cutting coaches except for the same poor bastards who are forced to judge their committment. Team B has close to zero chance against program A. You are correct that what has happened is that the students no longer battle it out in the arena as much as the pre-scripted playbook battles it out in the arena. Anyway, I agree with the basics of what you are saying. How do you propose we get coaches to quit cutting cards? Josh On 12/1/05, JW Patterson wrote: > > Although the debate over support staff at the NDT has subsided > [temporarily, > at least] I none the less have decided to add my nickel's worth to the > foray. As you know, several people on one side of this issue favor a > limitation on the number of support staff including other debaters an > institution can bring to the National Tournament. From my point of view, > this proposal attempts to treat the symptoms but it does not get at the > root > cause of the problem. > > In my mind, I think the major question should be asked: Should any > coaches, > hired people etc. be cutting cards and doing research for the debaters? > There was a time not long ago when most debaters did all of their > research. > The coach or teacher served as director of the research but did not do the > work for the students. Since this issue arose, I have asked several > debaters from the 1970s if their coach or coaches cut cards and wrote > briefs > for them. Although the poll is not scientific, I have yet to find anyone > who indicates that the coach cut cards, wrote cases etc. or in other words > did their work for them. > > The floodgates opened in the late 1970's and 80"s when a few coaches > whose > teams were very successful began writing cases and doing a much of the > research for the debaters This soon led to the hiring of professional > card > cutters. > > The problem was further intensified when debate coaches began comparing > themselves to football coaches. I prefer not to think of debate as a > sports > game where virtually anything goes. Instead I believe it to be an academic > activity in which directors and all coaches are teachers rather than > coaches.Athletic Coaches design plays and does much of the work etc. but > a > teacher instructs students how to do things for themselves. As a > teacher, > I don't believe we would write speeches or write a paper for someone in > our > classes. Likewise, I don't think we should be doing the work for > debaters. > Teaching them how to do the work for themselves is of significant > importance. > > In other words, I think all evidence cutting and brief writing should be > done by debaters under the direction of teachers/coaches. At the same > time, > I feel that if the entire student squad helps with the research, they > should > all be permitted to attend the NDT either as participants or observers, > hear > as many debates as they would like, and cut any cards they would like to > cut. I do not think debaters should be restricted from observing the NDT > simply because they happen to be on a large team. > > In other words, I would like to see us cease and desist work being done by > the coaches, hired people etc, and start playing the role of the teacher > who > teaches students how to do things but does not do them for them. This > should > not imply that debating was better in the past then it today when in fact > in some ways it is better. But it does assert that we should learn > something from the past which happens to have been better than it is > today. > > Peace on Earth, > JW Patterson > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051201/6e582559/attachment.html From dave Thu Dec 1 12:29:41 2005 From: dave (Steinberg, David L) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 13:29:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 2007 CEDA Nationals Message-ID: If you are interested in submitting a bid to host the 2007 CEDA National Tournament, please contact me. There is no official bid form. The ideal dates of the tournament are March 23-26. Of course we are sensitive to the need to be flexible accommodting potential hosts. The most important functions of the host are to provide rooms for debates and tournament management (Preferably 100+), make suitable hotel arrangements to facililtate the tournament, and to provide some on-campus support including photocopying and some volunteers. While ammenities are appreciated, CEDA will work with the host to minimize costs. Please also encourage colleagues who direct programs on suitable campuses to consider submitting bids. Thank you. David L. Steinberg, Director of Debate University of Miami PO Box 248127 Coral Gables, FL 33124 Wolfson Building #3015 305-284-5553 (office) 305-284-5216 (fax) dave at miami.edu From jwpatt00 Thu Dec 1 12:40:18 2005 From: jwpatt00 (JW Patterson) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:40:18 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Clarification Message-ID: In an e-mail earlier today, I suggested that we have coaches and others quit doing the physical blocking of evidence etc. for our debaters. Certainly, I did not mean to suggest that coaches should not do research on the topic for their own education. Obviously, unless a coach knows everything about everything they have to do research on the topic in order to direct the work of their debaters. I did not mean to suggest that coaches should not recommend books and articles or give their students ideas for arguments, certainly, these are in keeping with the role of a teacher in any discipline. In all frankness, I think we know the difference in directing research and in doing the research for our debaters. Peace, JW Patterson From sjld Thu Dec 1 14:05:52 2005 From: sjld (Steven DAmico) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 15:05:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Clarification Message-ID: <6075355607ae44.607ae446075355@gwu.edu> JW, Interesting idea, I have some questions: I'm curious what novice debate would look like in this world. Perhaps you can explain how novice debaters got their arguments before the coaches started cutting cards. Can we expect novice debaters to produce an entire 1AC with 2AC cards that meets the needs of modern policy debate? There are some novice debaters who write their own cases, the majority, I suspect, do not. Most, however, "personalize" them (add in a card they found themselves, exchange cards for the 2AC into the 1AC, take advantages out, etc) Furthermore, what happens when there are 25 other novice 1ACs to prep for? Along the same lines, what's the difference between coaches doing work versus situations where a core of 1-2 debaters perform the majority of research and the rest of the debaters simply use the evidence that is handed to them by their peers? I suspect the best varsity researchers currently (and will in the future) distribute evidence to the rest of the team, including novices. Should debaters only be permitted to use evidence that is produced by them or their partner? And what about the debaters who are one of the few on their squad to produce evidence? Is it fair for them to shoulder the entire burden of research against the 40 or so different affs out there as well as keep an affirmative or two updated and competitive? Wouldn?t this exacerbate the already substantial trade-off many debaters have between schoolwork and debate? I think if this was the case debate would very quickly move in a direction you might be opposed to. Debaters would adapt with the total elimination of specific arguments to reduce work. Generic critiques (the state is wicked bad?see OU for further explanation), Con Con, Lopez, consult the Japan, xo and the states CP would be all that was left. Good coach researchers help solve this trend in debate by providing more specific arguments. More specific research means the entire community learns more. Even if debaters didn?t cut it, they have to deploy it in rounds (including reading it) and that is a learning process unto itself. A final thought?didn?t debate have much less evidence back then? Isn?t the trend towards more and better evidence a good thing? -steve d'amico, gw ----- Original Message ----- From: JW Patterson Date: Thursday, December 1, 2005 1:40 pm Subject: [eDebate] Clarification > In an e-mail earlier today, I suggested that we have coaches and > others quit > doing the physical blocking of evidence etc. for our debaters. > Certainly, I > did not mean to suggest that coaches should not do research on the > topic for > their own education. Obviously, unless a coach knows everything about > everything they have to do research on the topic in order to direct > the work > of their debaters. I did not mean to suggest that coaches should not > recommend books and articles or give their students ideas for > arguments,certainly, these are in keeping with the role of a > teacher in any > discipline. > > In all frankness, I think we know the difference in directing > research and > in doing the research for our debaters. > > Peace, > > JW Patterson > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From jbhdb8 Thu Dec 1 14:38:04 2005 From: jbhdb8 (Josh Hoe) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 15:38:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Steve's proposal for staff Message-ID: Hello, A few weeks ago, I made a plea in favor of Steve Mancuso's proposal for staff limitations at the NDT. I have not spoken about it since because several people I really like/care about were really angry with me for supporting the proposal. I am just writing to say - and I have already apologized for being too specific in my arguments - that I still support this proposal. In baseball there is a team called the New York Yankees (JPLupo is going to be mad) who have a network that provides them with billions more dollars in revenue than other teams have access to....This skews baseballs competitiveness in two ways: 1. It allows the Yankees to buy up all the best free agents year after year after year. 2. It skews the salary structure across the league upwards because they can afford to pay more for each player, coach, etc etc etc than any other team - what they pay creates a market price for players. Agents use the salary structure the Yankees can afford to pay as the baseline for players of similar ability. This means all teams have to pay what the Yankees can pay for all the players, coaches, etc etc etc that the Yankees choose not to pursue. We have many schools in debate that have access to Yankees style money relative to the vast majority of teams in debate. The reason baseball created a "salary cap" is because they felt that the fans of all baseball franchises should have the right to feel that, with good management, any team could be competitive. The salary cap has clearly helped in this regard (read money ball etc). While it is true that the combination of massive money and talent still wins....limitations on the use of that money have allowed other teams, well managed, to feel that they still have a chance. In current debate terms - teams with a resource advantage can: 1. Push the price on hired judges so high that it becomes prohibitive. 2. Create a double disadvantage for teams that cant hire judges (they cant coach as much while the team with resources can put a group of excellent judges out of the pool and hire often marginal judges to take their place. The resource constrained team gets less coaching and worse judging generally). 3. Can create a war room of incredible debate minds that are not elligible to judge I have no issue with anyone who is succeeding using the system as it exists to the best of their ability. However, I think it is obvious that not ever team feels it has a fair chance to be competitive (please note I am NOT talking about winning the NDT). I believe Steve's proposal is a step in the right direction toward levelling the playing field. Even if Steve's proposal is not the exact solution it moves in the right direction and is a better than the sq. JW speaks of a time when debaters competed against each other not against pre-scripted expert preperation. I believe everyone who qualifies should believe they have a chance to compete at the NDT. I am not sure I believe that is the case now. All I am arguing for is a move in the direction of a salary cap. I realize that this is an incredibly touchy issue. I do not mean to offend anyone at all with my arguments but I do think that the salary cap is a good idea in baseball and would be a good idea in debate. Hope everyone is having a good holiday season, Josh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051201/47fa3eab/attachment.htm From FijiPapabear Thu Dec 1 15:02:50 2005 From: FijiPapabear (FijiPapabear at aol.com) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 16:02:50 EST Subject: [eDebate] Reminder to Enter the Hurricane Debates 1/6-1/8 in MIami Florida Message-ID: <1a7.4552eb7c.30c0befa@aol.com> Reminding the community to enter the tournament down here in Sunny South Florida. Put your shovels and your jackets away. If you need help planning your sojourn to the South email me back and I will make it so. Peace Alex Acosta -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051201/63386d1a/attachment.html From paulj567 Thu Dec 1 15:19:12 2005 From: paulj567 (Paul Johnson) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 13:19:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] The Answer isn't a Cap In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051201211912.78883.qmail@web53508.mail.yahoo.com> Its revenue sharing. For every "hired gun" brought in by a big squad, a committment is made to a separate pot financially. these funds are then used to hire coaches who respond in kind for the schools unable to keep up with the bigger schools- this evidence could be shared amongst the cooperative of schools unable to bring in high priced talent without judging committments to tirelessly cut cards. this would induce a calculation into the minds of the hiring schools- they would be strengthening a number of opponents in order to increase their power- revenue sharing in baseball has allowed the jays to sign BJ Ryan and maybe Aj Burnett this offseason, and while the Yankees still have a bigger payroll, te jays are gonna be more competitive bc they get another solid player. worth kicking around PJ wfu --- Josh Hoe wrote: > Hello, > > A few weeks ago, I made a plea in favor of Steve > Mancuso's proposal for > staff limitations at the NDT. I have not spoken > about it since because > several people I really like/care about were really > angry with me for > supporting the proposal. > > I am just writing to say - and I have already > apologized for being too > specific in my arguments - that I still support this > proposal. > > In baseball there is a team called the New York > Yankees (JPLupo is going to > be mad) who have a network that provides them with > billions more dollars in > revenue than other teams have access to....This > skews baseballs > competitiveness in two ways: > > 1. It allows the Yankees to buy up all the best free > agents year after year > after year. > 2. It skews the salary structure across the league > upwards because they can > afford to pay more for each player, coach, etc etc > etc than any other team - > what they pay creates a market price for players. > Agents use the salary > structure the Yankees can afford to pay as the > baseline for players of > similar ability. This means all teams have to pay > what the Yankees can pay > for all the players, coaches, etc etc etc that the > Yankees choose not to > pursue. > > We have many schools in debate that have access to > Yankees style money > relative to the vast majority of teams in debate. > The reason baseball > created a "salary cap" is because they felt that the > fans of all baseball > franchises should have the right to feel that, with > good management, any > team could be competitive. The salary cap has > clearly helped in this regard > (read money ball etc). While it is true that the > combination of massive > money and talent still wins....limitations on the > use of that money have > allowed other teams, well managed, to feel that they > still have a chance. > > In current debate terms - teams with a resource > advantage can: > > 1. Push the price on hired judges so high that it > becomes prohibitive. > 2. Create a double disadvantage for teams that cant > hire judges (they cant > coach as much while the team with resources can put > a group of excellent > judges out of the pool and hire often marginal > judges to take their place. > The resource constrained team gets less coaching and > worse judging > generally). > 3. Can create a war room of incredible debate minds > that are not elligible > to judge > > I have no issue with anyone who is succeeding using > the system as it exists > to the best of their ability. However, I think it > is obvious that not ever > team feels it has a fair chance to be competitive > (please note I am NOT > talking about winning the NDT). I believe Steve's > proposal is a step in the > right direction toward levelling the playing field. > > Even if Steve's proposal is not the exact solution > it moves in the right > direction and is a better than the sq. JW speaks of > a time when debaters > competed against each other not against pre-scripted > expert preperation. I > believe everyone who qualifies should believe they > have a chance to compete > at the NDT. I am not sure I believe that is the > case now. All I am arguing > for is a move in the direction of a salary cap. > > I realize that this is an incredibly touchy issue. > I do not mean to offend > anyone at all with my arguments but I do think that > the salary cap is a good > idea in baseball and would be a good idea in debate. > > Hope everyone is having a good holiday season, > > Josh > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate __________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs From jbhdb8 Thu Dec 1 15:25:43 2005 From: jbhdb8 (Josh Hoe) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 16:25:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The Answer isn't a Cap In-Reply-To: <20051201211912.78883.qmail@web53508.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051201211912.78883.qmail@web53508.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Interesting idea, not sure I entirely disagree with the idea at all but: 1. All free agents arent equal - I have already made the argument that resource rich schools benefit unfairly from the present system. That is not to say that they are at fault for figuring out how to make the system best work for themselves. It is to say that the "pool" likely would likely end up resembling the public defenders office. 2. Incentives are a critical part of work being of good quality - Identification with a school and team generally motivates people more than I would suspect working for a pool would. Of course, there are certainly some really fine folks that are very big for the underdog - so maybe I am wrong on this one. I agree, a luxury tax is an interesting idea as well, Josh > this would > induce a calculation into the minds of the hiring > schools- they would be strengthening a number of > opponents in order to increase their power- revenue > sharing in baseball has allowed the jays to sign BJ > Ryan and maybe Aj Burnett this offseason, and while > the Yankees still have a bigger payroll, te jays are > gonna be more competitive bc they get another solid > player. > > > worth kicking around > > PJ > wfu > > --- Josh Hoe wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > A few weeks ago, I made a plea in favor of Steve > > Mancuso's proposal for > > staff limitations at the NDT. I have not spoken > > about it since because > > several people I really like/care about were really > > angry with me for > > supporting the proposal. > > > > I am just writing to say - and I have already > > apologized for being too > > specific in my arguments - that I still support this > > proposal. > > > > In baseball there is a team called the New York > > Yankees (JPLupo is going to > > be mad) who have a network that provides them with > > billions more dollars in > > revenue than other teams have access to....This > > skews baseballs > > competitiveness in two ways: > > > > 1. It allows the Yankees to buy up all the best free > > agents year after year > > after year. > > 2. It skews the salary structure across the league > > upwards because they can > > afford to pay more for each player, coach, etc etc > > etc than any other team - > > what they pay creates a market price for players. > > Agents use the salary > > structure the Yankees can afford to pay as the > > baseline for players of > > similar ability. This means all teams have to pay > > what the Yankees can pay > > for all the players, coaches, etc etc etc that the > > Yankees choose not to > > pursue. > > > > We have many schools in debate that have access to > > Yankees style money > > relative to the vast majority of teams in debate. > > The reason baseball > > created a "salary cap" is because they felt that the > > fans of all baseball > > franchises should have the right to feel that, with > > good management, any > > team could be competitive. The salary cap has > > clearly helped in this regard > > (read money ball etc). While it is true that the > > combination of massive > > money and talent still wins....limitations on the > > use of that money have > > allowed other teams, well managed, to feel that they > > still have a chance. > > > > In current debate terms - teams with a resource > > advantage can: > > > > 1. Push the price on hired judges so high that it > > becomes prohibitive. > > 2. Create a double disadvantage for teams that cant > > hire judges (they cant > > coach as much while the team with resources can put > > a group of excellent > > judges out of the pool and hire often marginal > > judges to take their place. > > The resource constrained team gets less coaching and > > worse judging > > generally). > > 3. Can create a war room of incredible debate minds > > that are not elligible > > to judge > > > > I have no issue with anyone who is succeeding using > > the system as it exists > > to the best of their ability. However, I think it > > is obvious that not ever > > team feels it has a fair chance to be competitive > > (please note I am NOT > > talking about winning the NDT). I believe Steve's > > proposal is a step in the > > right direction toward levelling the playing field. > > > > Even if Steve's proposal is not the exact solution > > it moves in the right > > direction and is a better than the sq. JW speaks of > > a time when debaters > > competed against each other not against pre-scripted > > expert preperation. I > > believe everyone who qualifies should believe they > > have a chance to compete > > at the NDT. I am not sure I believe that is the > > case now. All I am arguing > > for is a move in the direction of a salary cap. > > > > I realize that this is an incredibly touchy issue. > > I do not mean to offend > > anyone at all with my arguments but I do think that > > the salary cap is a good > > idea in baseball and would be a good idea in debate. > > > > Hope everyone is having a good holiday season, > > > > Josh > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > > __________________________________ > Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051201/364f601e/attachment.htm From joepatrice Thu Dec 1 15:41:07 2005 From: joepatrice (Joe Patrice) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 16:41:07 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] My candidacy for 2VP (Specifically Ede's seat...not to be confused with next year's 2VP) Message-ID: After a lot of thought and talking to several folks in the community I decided to run for CEDA 2VP and I officially entered my name with Edebecause the 2VP collects the names of new candidates. Then he resigned. As I considered procedurally whom I should now tell about my candidacy I figured that I might as well just run to fill out his term. I figured I'd first announce it at NCA. Then I got laid up with heart surgery (seriously?it totally sucked, but I'm fine now ? I've got this cool computer/pacemaker/cyborg thing in my shoulder a la Haraway). So, I'm announcing my candidacy for filling out Ede's 2VP term here on edebate. I originally decided to run for office because I determined that it was time to offer the efforts I've invested in the East region and my own teams to the national community. This organization relies upon coaches voluntarily taking on the enormous burden of keeping an academic and competitive sanctioning organization afloat in addition to running their own teams and doing their non-debate jobs. Going into the summer I realized that I'd been a bit of a free-rider nationally, relying upon people to step up and run the national organization while I focused on my own province and that I needed to do more. For those who don't know me, I've worked at a few places. I started out as an assistant at Oregon, then went off to law school and a continuing legal career in New York and helped out the various NYC programs for the past several years. Now I'm part of the Army coaching staff. First of all, let me echo Chief's statement that the organization is at a crossroads. There are a lot of things that are right in this organization and a lot of areas where it needs work. Ede's resignation earlier this month has left a hole in this organization?actually two holes. One was the very straight-forward hole of a vacancy in the CEDA 2VP position, but the much more significant hole exists because he has challenged all of us to find new ways to increase participation and grow this activity. Whether you agree with his proposals or not, he's challenged us to justify our own approaches to participation, team-building, competition, outreach, and that may even have been more important because it has disrupted the complacency many of us fell into. The first hallmark of my term would be greater participation. We should have new programs and the national organization should assist in retaining existing programs. I think Chief's platform for his candidacy for the 2006-07 2VP position (as opposed to the one I'm running for) outlines several excellent ideas for tackling this issue. I also have several ideas of my own, ranging from developing standardized new program packs including instructional and logistical materials, contact information, even evidence or bibliographies to help a new program get its bearings to more symbolic commitments to new programs such as novice breakout awards at CEDA Nats to honor and encourage those poor, unfortunate novices who had to endure several rounds of knowing they were out of contention all in the name of an important learning experience that they won't fully appreciate until next year. However, rather than list all the ideas I've had over the years, I really feel that a large part of this job is listening and being open to new ideas and suggestions from all parts of this community. First, because I think there are good ideas out there that I would never even think of. Second, because, while a national organization, I recognize that a lot of debate problems are not uniform. CEDA leadership fills the executive void implicitly absent from the concept of academic debate?specifically, facilitating the transformation of the ideas and discussions happening at all levels of the community (that debaters are necessarily good at) into actions (something that debaters are traditionally less good at). One of the best edebate discussions of the past few months was the exchange that recognized that programs disappear for a lot of different, often unique reasons. A monolithic national approach could never address such problems. I think a key component in the role of CEDA leadership is intelligence gathering. What is going on in the community? Where are problems arising? How is the landscape different from the year before and why? I hope to increase the transparency of CEDA's workings that has developed over the last few years, making it easier for people who are unable to attend every meeting to understand what's going on and get their proxy out there. This not only adds to the depth of ideas before the leadership, but also improves lines of communication to help the leadership identify problems before it is too late. I firmly believe it is our responsibility to ensure the future viability of this activity and it is only through an executive that is keenly aware of the problems and dedicated to increasing all forms of participation that we can meet this commitment to our community, Finally, if you have any ideas or constructive feedback, please do not hesitate to back channel me. Joe Patrice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051201/88a10804/attachment.html From woodyardkm Thu Dec 1 15:56:40 2005 From: woodyardkm (woodyardkm at aol.com) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:56:40 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Assistantships at Northern Illinois Message-ID: <8C7C4D93E63AC49-5F0-229@mblk-r40.sysops.aol.com> GRADUATE ASSISTANTSHIPS AT NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY Beginning Fall, 2006 Department of Communication Northern Illinois University NIU Forensics seeks two (2) debate coaches to enter our Masters program and assist with the direction and development of NIU Forensics' competitive debate program. The competitive debate wing of NIU Forensics competes in both policy team debate and parliamentary team debate. NIU Forensics strives to make the benefits of a forensics education available to as many students as possible regardless of previous experience. Coaches support intense opening-year recruitment and orientation activities and are primarily responsible for running practice rounds and traveling with the team to tournaments. In addition to coaching responsibilities, debate assistants teach one section COMS 100, Fundamentals of Oral Communication. Graduate assistantships cover tuition costs and provide a monthly stipend to help cover living expenses. The Department of Communication offers a Master of Arts degree in communication studies. Graduate course work is available in communication theory, journalism, media studies, and rhetorical studies. Students may focus their studies in one area (communication theory, media studies or rhetorical studies) or may elect to study several areas. In consultation with faculty advisers, students may design programs of study that meet their individual needs and academic background. A program of courses could focus, for example, on organizational communication, on political rhetoric, or on documentary film. NIU us a Carnegie Doctoral/Research Extensive University and member of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grand Colleges. The Department of Communication, one of twenty-one academic units in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, offers BA and BS degrees in both Communication Studies and Journalism and a MA in Communication Studies. It serves a diverse student body including approximately 700 undergraduate majors and 83 graduate students with 24 tenure-track faculty, 15 full-time instructors, and 4 supportive professional staff. Department faculty are active in academic and professional associations as well as press, broadcast media, public relations, civic and corporate organizations. The NIU main campus is located near the western suburbs of Chicago, offering advantages of nearby cosmopolitan atmosphere in a semi-rural setting . For full consideration, students interested in graduate assistantships should apply to the graduate program by February 1, 2006. For more information about graduate study in the Department of Communication at Northern Illinois University, please visit . Kerith Woodyard Director of Forensics Department of Communication Northern Illinois University 815-753-7101 kwoodyard at niu.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051201/1c8a3125/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Thu Dec 1 18:24:41 2005 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:24:41 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] job postings at debatecooperative.net Message-ID: I wanted to let everyone know that there are a lot of available DOF, ADOF, and graduate assistant jobs floating around the debate community right now, and many of them are posted at http://www.debatecooperative.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=45 New and recent postings include: -graduate coaching assistant at the University of Wyoming -Assistant coach and comm. instructor at Appalachan State University -Temporary DOF at CSU-Chico -graduate coaching assistant at Northern Illinois University -debate coach at Mary Washington University -DOF at Texas Tech University -graduate coaching assistant at Texas Tech University Best of luck to everyone hunting for jobs and graduate degrees. matt stannard From kenedebate Thu Dec 1 19:19:05 2005 From: kenedebate (Ken DeLaughder) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 19:19:05 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] The Answer isn't a Cap In-Reply-To: <20051201211912.78883.qmail@web53508.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: This system could be implemented without "revenue sharing" (although I like that idea). If anyone is interested in cooping on hiring some folks to cut cards... a "consortium" type idea, I'd be happy to participate. Eric Jenkins, Joey... ohhh Hardaway was is? (damn my memory), and a couple of other folks used to coop on evidence before CEDA Nationals.. the exchange benefitted everyone, we even coop'd on assignments. Maybe we ought to officially form "leagues" of smaller schools that want to do well at the NDT, bring in our own hired guns and coop on the evidence we produce. 5 medium size schools who qual'd and wanted to contribute $500 or so could hire some folks... that might buy us some firepower. Anyone like the idea? we'll pool it all.. maybe for politics or something like that. perhaps the solution is to form alliances. Ken D. >From: Paul Johnson >To: Josh Hoe , edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: [eDebate] The Answer isn't a Cap >Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 13:19:12 -0800 (PST) > >Its revenue sharing. For every "hired gun" brought in >by a big squad, a committment is made to a separate >pot financially. these funds are then used to hire >coaches who respond in kind for the schools unable to >keep up with the bigger schools- this evidence could >be shared amongst the cooperative of schools unable to >bring in high priced talent without judging >committments to tirelessly cut cards. this would >induce a calculation into the minds of the hiring >schools- they would be strengthening a number of >opponents in order to increase their power- revenue >sharing in baseball has allowed the jays to sign BJ >Ryan and maybe Aj Burnett this offseason, and while >the Yankees still have a bigger payroll, te jays are >gonna be more competitive bc they get another solid >player. > > >worth kicking around > >PJ >wfu > >--- Josh Hoe wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > A few weeks ago, I made a plea in favor of Steve > > Mancuso's proposal for > > staff limitations at the NDT. I have not spoken > > about it since because > > several people I really like/care about were really > > angry with me for > > supporting the proposal. > > > > I am just writing to say - and I have already > > apologized for being too > > specific in my arguments - that I still support this > > proposal. > > > > In baseball there is a team called the New York > > Yankees (JPLupo is going to > > be mad) who have a network that provides them with > > billions more dollars in > > revenue than other teams have access to....This > > skews baseballs > > competitiveness in two ways: > > > > 1. It allows the Yankees to buy up all the best free > > agents year after year > > after year. > > 2. It skews the salary structure across the league > > upwards because they can > > afford to pay more for each player, coach, etc etc > > etc than any other team - > > what they pay creates a market price for players. > > Agents use the salary > > structure the Yankees can afford to pay as the > > baseline for players of > > similar ability. This means all teams have to pay > > what the Yankees can pay > > for all the players, coaches, etc etc etc that the > > Yankees choose not to > > pursue. > > > > We have many schools in debate that have access to > > Yankees style money > > relative to the vast majority of teams in debate. > > The reason baseball > > created a "salary cap" is because they felt that the > > fans of all baseball > > franchises should have the right to feel that, with > > good management, any > > team could be competitive. The salary cap has > > clearly helped in this regard > > (read money ball etc). While it is true that the > > combination of massive > > money and talent still wins....limitations on the > > use of that money have > > allowed other teams, well managed, to feel that they > > still have a chance. > > > > In current debate terms - teams with a resource > > advantage can: > > > > 1. Push the price on hired judges so high that it > > becomes prohibitive. > > 2. Create a double disadvantage for teams that cant > > hire judges (they cant > > coach as much while the team with resources can put > > a group of excellent > > judges out of the pool and hire often marginal > > judges to take their place. > > The resource constrained team gets less coaching and > > worse judging > > generally). > > 3. Can create a war room of incredible debate minds > > that are not elligible > > to judge > > > > I have no issue with anyone who is succeeding using > > the system as it exists > > to the best of their ability. However, I think it > > is obvious that not ever > > team feels it has a fair chance to be competitive > > (please note I am NOT > > talking about winning the NDT). I believe Steve's > > proposal is a step in the > > right direction toward levelling the playing field. > > > > Even if Steve's proposal is not the exact solution > > it moves in the right > > direction and is a better than the sq. JW speaks of > > a time when debaters > > competed against each other not against pre-scripted > > expert preperation. I > > believe everyone who qualifies should believe they > > have a chance to compete > > at the NDT. I am not sure I believe that is the > > case now. All I am arguing > > for is a move in the direction of a salary cap. > > > > I realize that this is an incredibly touchy issue. > > I do not mean to offend > > anyone at all with my arguments but I do think that > > the salary cap is a good > > idea in baseball and would be a good idea in debate. > > > > Hope everyone is having a good holiday season, > > > > Josh > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > >__________________________________ >Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! >http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement From dbteam Thu Dec 1 19:25:19 2005 From: dbteam (dbteam) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 20:25:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] The Answer isn't a Cap Message-ID: <4379F634@cliff.westga.edu> i'd support the revenue sharing idea, but only if it was cash, and the schools receiving shared revenue could use it on whatever they want. we could upgrade our plane seats to first class, or get a sweet stretch hummer as our rental vehicle, or cover the costs of james' hotel tv porn addiction, or any number of "amenities" hester >===== Original Message From Paul Johnson ===== >Its revenue sharing. For every "hired gun" brought in >by a big squad, a committment is made to a separate >pot financially. these funds are then used to hire >coaches who respond in kind for the schools unable to >keep up with the bigger schools- this evidence could >be shared amongst the cooperative of schools unable to >bring in high priced talent without judging >committments to tirelessly cut cards. this would >induce a calculation into the minds of the hiring >schools- they would be strengthening a number of >opponents in order to increase their power- revenue >sharing in baseball has allowed the jays to sign BJ >Ryan and maybe Aj Burnett this offseason, and while >the Yankees still have a bigger payroll, te jays are >gonna be more competitive bc they get another solid >player. > > >worth kicking around > >PJ >wfu > >--- Josh Hoe wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> A few weeks ago, I made a plea in favor of Steve >> Mancuso's proposal for >> staff limitations at the NDT. I have not spoken >> about it since because >> several people I really like/care about were really >> angry with me for >> supporting the proposal. >> >> I am just writing to say - and I have already >> apologized for being too >> specific in my arguments - that I still support this >> proposal. >> >> In baseball there is a team called the New York >> Yankees (JPLupo is going to >> be mad) who have a network that provides them with >> billions more dollars in >> revenue than other teams have access to....This >> skews baseballs >> competitiveness in two ways: >> >> 1. It allows the Yankees to buy up all the best free >> agents year after year >> after year. >> 2. It skews the salary structure across the league >> upwards because they can >> afford to pay more for each player, coach, etc etc >> etc than any other team - >> what they pay creates a market price for players. >> Agents use the salary >> structure the Yankees can afford to pay as the >> baseline for players of >> similar ability. This means all teams have to pay >> what the Yankees can pay >> for all the players, coaches, etc etc etc that the >> Yankees choose not to >> pursue. >> >> We have many schools in debate that have access to >> Yankees style money >> relative to the vast majority of teams in debate. >> The reason baseball >> created a "salary cap" is because they felt that the >> fans of all baseball >> franchises should have the right to feel that, with >> good management, any >> team could be competitive. The salary cap has >> clearly helped in this regard >> (read money ball etc). While it is true that the >> combination of massive >> money and talent still wins....limitations on the >> use of that money have >> allowed other teams, well managed, to feel that they >> still have a chance. >> >> In current debate terms - teams with a resource >> advantage can: >> >> 1. Push the price on hired judges so high that it >> becomes prohibitive. >> 2. Create a double disadvantage for teams that cant >> hire judges (they cant >> coach as much while the team with resources can put >> a group of excellent >> judges out of the pool and hire often marginal >> judges to take their place. >> The resource constrained team gets less coaching and >> worse judging >> generally). >> 3. Can create a war room of incredible debate minds >> that are not elligible >> to judge >> >> I have no issue with anyone who is succeeding using >> the system as it exists >> to the best of their ability. However, I think it >> is obvious that not ever >> team feels it has a fair chance to be competitive >> (please note I am NOT >> talking about winning the NDT). I believe Steve's >> proposal is a step in the >> right direction toward levelling the playing field. >> >> Even if Steve's proposal is not the exact solution >> it moves in the right >> direction and is a better than the sq. JW speaks of >> a time when debaters >> competed against each other not against pre-scripted >> expert preperation. I >> believe everyone who qualifies should believe they >> have a chance to compete >> at the NDT. I am not sure I believe that is the >> case now. All I am arguing >> for is a move in the direction of a salary cap. >> >> I realize that this is an incredibly touchy issue. >> I do not mean to offend >> anyone at all with my arguments but I do think that >> the salary cap is a good >> idea in baseball and would be a good idea in debate. >> >> Hope everyone is having a good holiday season, >> >> Josh >> > _______________________________________________ >> eDebate mailing list >> eDebate at ndtceda.com >> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > >__________________________________ >Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! >http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From korryharvey Thu Dec 1 21:11:50 2005 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 19:11:50 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Indo-Pak students debate peace Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051201/babba925/attachment.html From Alfred.Snider Fri Dec 2 09:07:13 2005 From: Alfred.Snider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 10:07:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] By 12/31/05: Tape a debate, win $5000 Message-ID: <20051202100713.6302vtwizfl10kck@webmail.uvm.edu> The clock is ticking. $5000 is a lot of money for your program, and you can do a lot with it. These prizes will be awarded, and the deadline is 12/31/05. The details are at http://www.historychannel.com/crusades/classroom/index.html Prizes: Grand Prize: One high school level winner and one college level winner will each receive a $5,000 grant for their high school or college/university and have their debates streamed on History.com/crusadesdebate. First Prize: Two high school level winners and college level winners will each receive a $1,000 grant for their high school or college/university. All winning teams will have their debates transcribed and posted on History.com/crusadesdebate. Winning teams will also receive a DVD collection of hit shows from The History Channel and a t-shirt for each individual member of the winning team. All the topics, format stipulations, etc. are available at the site. Unlike the "want to be televised" offer from some weeks ago, this is a go and will not be cancelled. Email me or Michan Capullo if you have questions. Alfred C. Snider ----- End forwarded message ----- From ilanaks Fri Dec 2 11:36:37 2005 From: ilanaks (Ilana Kaplan-Shain) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 12:36:37 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Miami Dade Urban Debate League Tournament Message-ID: <8b7e1daa0512020936w2a8f84d1k8879fa3bdfe3a535@mail.gmail.com> The Miami-Dade Urban Debate League is holding it's second tournament this next Saturday on December 10th from 8:30-4:30. We are in need if judges to help ensure that every team is able to debate the full 3 rounds. If interested you can contact me through my e-mail which is IlanaKS at gmail.comor on my cell phone at (585) 709-1446. If you have already expressed interest please e-mail me and I will send you the schedule and directions. The tournament will be held at the University of Miami. A stipend is available for judging if you require it. Thank you for all your help. Ilana Kaplan-Shain Miami-Dade Urban Debate League Coordinator -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051202/5991b84b/attachment.htm From gabrielleprisco Fri Dec 2 12:13:17 2005 From: gabrielleprisco (Gabrielle Prisco) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 13:13:17 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] lesson plans/models for teaching debate to at-risk youth Message-ID: Hey All, I am trying to get a debate training/workshop going at a wonderful new teen center in the Bronx serving kids who are in foster care, kids who are aging out of foster care, and other at- risk kids in the community. At this point, I am working with the ED of the center, Hope Academy (part of the Children's Aid Society), on setting something up. We are not thinking of a competitive debate model but more of a public speaking/debate/advocacy model with the end goal of helping prepare the kids involved to lobby the legislature for changes in the foster care system. I was hoping some of you might have some lesson plans/ideas/models from your work in urban debate leagues, prisons, or other debate/community work. If so, can you send something my way? Anything would be helpful--even notes for your discussions or outlines of workshops, etc.. Thanks so much, Gabrielle -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051202/bf97fd12/attachment.html From smithr Fri Dec 2 22:59:06 2005 From: smithr (smithr) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 23:59:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NDT Support Staff Message-ID: <4391261A.2000803@wfu.edu> Thank you, JW, for one of the best edebate posts in a long time. I would add to your remarks about the educational role of the coach with a remark about the competitive reward structure: In the status quo the very best student researchers are *relatively* poorly rewarded for their efforts. They end up competing against full-time, graduated, "pros", not with against their peers. I am not sure we can put the genie back in the bottle. The kind of work done by coaches in the SQ violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the AFA Code of Ethics under which the NDT is run. Would a "new" rule against this practice work? Hard to say. Others have mentioned coops. I would say, OK, as long as it is student produced work. It may be time to make the move to Open Source Debate (OSD). Think of the debate world as one big coop. All evidence produced by all students could be used by all and must be shared by all. Open Source Debate is an idea in its infancy. I will develop the idea and seek input and arguments later. Please, folks, do not let me hijack the crucial teacher/researcher distinction JW is emphasizing in this thread. I use OSD here only to allow people to imagine a world with both an abundance of evidence and coaches whose time could then be spent teaching students to use the evidence well and to discover more of it. From dperkins Sat Dec 3 09:56:15 2005 From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 10:56:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: [eDebate] NDT Support Staff In-Reply-To: <4391261A.2000803@wfu.edu> References: <4391261A.2000803@wfu.edu> Message-ID: It seems to me that the Open Source Debate idea and the luxury tax idea proposed by Josh, Paul and others, are fundamentally complementary. Suppose there were a highly progressive tax on extra workers, a tax paid in people or money. Above one extra worker, the tax might be 100%, or even 200%. The human and financial resources generated could support a system that not only scouted the rounds, but made the actual evidence available to everyone within a couple of hours. I know I have an affinity for grandiose market-based schemes to fix problems with running debate tournaments. I also acknowledge that this would not produce so perfectly level a playing field as the hard caps proposed by Mancuso and endorsed by many. I was at the NDT meeting when the Mancuso proposal was discussed. One conclusion that could not escape even the most casual observer is that this proposal is very divisive and emotional. A system that supported a move in the direction of OSD would perhaps be something we could all feel good about. dp On Fri, 2 Dec 2005, smithr wrote: > Thank you, JW, for one of the best edebate posts in a long time. > > I would add to your remarks about the educational role of the coach with > a remark about the competitive reward structure: > > In the status quo the very best student researchers are *relatively* > poorly rewarded for their efforts. They end up competing against > full-time, graduated, "pros", not with against their peers. > > I am not sure we can put the genie back in the bottle. The kind of work > done by coaches in the SQ violates the spirit, if not the letter, of the > AFA Code of Ethics under which the NDT is run. Would a "new" rule > against this practice work? Hard to say. > > Others have mentioned coops. I would say, OK, as long as it is student > produced work. > > It may be time to make the move to Open Source Debate (OSD). Think of > the debate world as one big coop. All evidence produced by all students > could be used by all and must be shared by all. > > Open Source Debate is an idea in its infancy. I will develop the idea > and seek input and arguments later. Please, folks, do not let me hijack > the crucial teacher/researcher distinction JW is emphasizing in this > thread. I use OSD here only to allow people to imagine a world with both > an abundance of evidence and coaches whose time could then be spent > teaching students to use the evidence well and to discover more of it. > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From brittclark Sat Dec 3 15:30:28 2005 From: brittclark (Britt Clark) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:30:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for Johnny Prieur Message-ID: <20051203213029.08C3083C5B@ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com> Johnny, please backchannel, Does someone have a working email or phone number for Johnny Prieur? Thanks, Britt Clark UTD Debate -- ___________________________________________________ Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/ From charrigan Sat Dec 3 18:21:43 2005 From: charrigan (Casey Harrigan) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 18:21:43 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for Johnny Prieur In-Reply-To: <20051203213029.08C3083C5B@ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com> References: <20051203213029.08C3083C5B@ws1-1.us4.outblaze.com> Message-ID: Try checking the end of http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200405/0001.html On 12/3/05, Britt Clark wrote: > > Johnny, please backchannel, > > Does someone have a working email or phone number for Johnny Prieur? > > Thanks, > Britt Clark > UTD Debate > > -- > ___________________________________________________ > Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051203/8fa7d1d4/attachment.htm From mgayetsky06 Sat Dec 3 20:16:15 2005 From: mgayetsky06 (Matt Gayetsky) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 21:16:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: [eDebate] John Carroll Austin J. Freeley Memorial Tournament--Clearing Teams Message-ID: <20051203211615.BJM36423@mirapoint.jcu.edu> John Carroll Clearing Teams: Parings will be at 7:00 in the morning, breakfast at 7:30, round at 8:00 Novice: Boston College CK Clarion University AD Kings College AD Liberty University HH Liberty University MP Liberty University OZ Liberty University TW Liberty University ZZ (but really BH) Vanderbilt PR Wayne State University HP Junior Varsity: Clarion University DZ Clarion University EH Kansas State AT Liberty University BH Liberty University BU Liberty University DH Liberty University HP Mary Washington CS Towson HS Wayne State University KV Varsity: Case Western DD Concordia CT Liberty University BM Mary Washington RS Miami GV Miami MW Michigan State DM Michigan State HS Rochester KW Vanderbilt EM Wayne State University BR Wayne State University ET Wayne State University FP Wayne State University GP Wayne State University JM Wayne State University MS Congratulations to all clearing teams, good luck in the morning Matt Gayetsky JCU Debate 330.518.8979 _______________________________________ "Camus said that the only serious question was whether or not to kill yourself. Tom Robbins said that the only serious question was whether or not time has a beginning and an end. Apparently, Camus got up on the wrong side of bed and Tom Robbins forgot to set an alarm." - Tom Robbins, Still Life With Woodpecker From SSbauschard2 Sat Dec 3 21:29:01 2005 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 22:29:01 EST Subject: [eDebate] NDT Support Staff Message-ID: Some comments: 1. There are other less radical things that could be done to reduce the inequality in the current playing field such as turning out pairings with the ballot counts and team total and h/l points on them. At least the ballot counts... Generally, I think it may be useful to think not only of ways to create equality through limits but also through a) expanding cooperative opportunities (such as scouting open source) and b) just thinking of what could easily be done at the tournament to reduce inequity within the current system. 2. Open Source is interesting, but curious as to how "Open" a new strategy is. The wheelchairs PIC was very creative, but would not have worked if it was available in Open Source before the semis started. 3. "Pros" will always have the advantage of doing a lot with a given pile of cards (whether collected through Open Source efforts or not). Some coaches, "pro" or not, are better than others and will always create unique advantages for their students vis-a-vis other students whose coaches may be non-existent (in extreme situations) or relatively inexperienced in other situations. Card-cutting pros will be able to out-do card-cutting undergrads, but strategy pros will also out-do strategy undgrads. It's not just about the cards -- and the strategy is, IMHO, more important, or at least as important, than the pro cards. Not sure why eliminating the card-cutting pros is the key issue. Eliminating card-cutting pros could even give an advantage to strategy pros who don't cut cards. 4. Thinking should not be focused exclusively on how to reduce inequalities at the NDT (convenient because that is the one tournament regulated through representative democracy), but how to reduce it throughout the year and how changes at the NDT might impact the rest of that year. For example, imagine if there was a rule that said that the only people who could cut cards (or carry tubs, ferry food) during the NDT were undergrads (maybe who participated in 30+ debates during the year) or who people who had judged AT LEAST 30 (or more) COLLEGE DEBATES DURING THE YEAR. This a) keeps the # of people cutting at the NDT to the # who cut them during the year -- ensuring (or at least working toward ensuring) that the NDT is representative of the entire season, b) encourages people to judge a lot of debates (rather than avoiding judging such debates). I suppose it could be objected that Northwestern (they seem to be a popular target) may fly all its alums around the US all year on its supposed bottomless budget in order to get them all 30+ debates. I guess. And, even if this did happen, would that be bad? NWestern adds 120+ rounds from very good judges to the debate season -- not exactly crying here. 4) It would be interesting if an invitational put rules similar to what is being considered for the NDT in to their own tournament invitation and see how people reacted. Any tournament willing to add some or all of the following: a) no coach card cutting during the tournament, b) no undegrad card cutting by those not debating during the tournament, c) no box moving by those not debating during the tournament, d) no food ferrying by those not debating during the tournament, e) no extra workers at our tournament, f) 1 or 2 coaches/team...If there really is a "ton" of popular support for such measures it seems that it would be a very popular tournament. Wake has always led the community in innovating... 5) The community resists regulation. If rule passes that restricts the # of people at the NDT, I predict the Fort shows-up with an 80 person staff :) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051203/a22705ac/attachment.html From lacyjp Sun Dec 4 21:33:25 2005 From: lacyjp (lacyjp) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 22:33:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Final Integrated Shirley List Message-ID: <4393B505.2060707@wfu.edu> Its at the usual place -- http://www.wfu.edu/~lacyjp The documents include all the pre-tournament info plus everything gathered at the Shirley. --JP From anabaptist Mon Dec 5 09:30:56 2005 From: anabaptist (Donald Bryson) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 10:30:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CSTV 2005 NDT Message-ID: <000801c5f9b0$e3031ec0$6401a8c0@Donald> for those interested......... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We will be making it available for purchase shortly. We are collecting names of interested buyers and hope to be in touch with you when it is available. In the meantime, be sure to check our posted on-air schedule, and feel free to tape it off the air. You should also continue to check our website for updates on the home video version's availability. Thanks for your interest, CSTV -----Original Message----- From: Donald Bryson [mailto:anabaptist at alltel.net] Posted At: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 12:15 PM Posted To: Copy Conversation: cstv programming Subject: cstv programming I would like to get a copy of CSTV's documentary on the 2005 National Collegiate Debate Championship. How do I do that? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051205/e3abe05f/attachment.htm From icievents Mon Dec 5 10:21:56 2005 From: icievents (Patty Patchrint) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 08:21:56 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Professional Grant Writing Workshop (Univ of Nevada at Reno - January 2006) Message-ID: The Grant Institute's Grants 101: Professional Grant Proposal Writing Workshop will be held at the University of Nevada, Reno, January 9 - 11, 2006. Interested development professionals, researchers, faculty, and graduate students should register as soon as possible, as demand means that seats will fill up quickly. Please forward, post, and distribute this e-mail to your colleagues and listservs. All participants will receive certification in professional grant writing from the Institute. For more information call (888) 824 - 4424 or visit The Grant Institute website at http://www.thegrantinstitute.com. Please find the program description below: THE GRANT INSTITUTE GRANTS 101: University of Nevada-Reno Reno, NV January 9 - 11, 2006 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM The Grant Institute?s Grants 101 Course is an intensive and detailed introduction to the process, structure, and skill of professional proposal writing. This course is characterized by its ability to act as a thorough overview, introduction, and refresher at the same time. In this course, participants will learn the entire proposal writing process and complete the course with a solid understanding of not only the ideal proposal structure, but a holistic understanding of the essential factors, which determine whether or not a program gets funded. Through the completion of interactive exercises and activities, participants will complement expert lectures by putting proven techniques into practice. This course is designed for both the beginner looking for a thorough introduction and the intermediate looking for a refresher course that will strengthen their grant acquisition skills. This class, simply put, is designed to get results by creating professional grant proposal writers. Participants will become competent program planning and proposal writing professionals after successful completion of the Grants 101 course. In three active and informative days, students will be exposed to the art of successful grant writing practices, and led on a journey that ends with a masterful grant proposal. Grants 101 consists of three (3) courses that will be completed during the three-day workshop. FUNDAMENTALS OF PROGRAM PLANNING This course is centered on the belief that ?it?s all about the program.? This intensive course will teach professional program development essentials and program evaluation. While most grant writing ?workshops? treat program development and evaluation as separate from the writing of a proposal, this class will teach students the relationship between overall program planning and grant writing. PROFESSIONAL GRANT WRITING Designed for both the novice and experienced grant writer, this course will make each student an overall proposal writing specialist. In addition to teaching the basic components of a grant proposal, successful approaches, and the do?s and don?ts of grant writing, this course is infused with expert principles that will lead to a mastery of the process. Strategy resides at the forefront of this course?s intent to illustrate grant writing as an integrated, multidimensional, and dynamic endeavor. Each student will learn to stop writing the grant and to start writing the story. Ultimately, this class will illustrate how each component of the grant proposal represents an opportunity to use proven techniques for generating support. GRANT RESEARCH At its foundation, this course will address the basics of foundation, corporation, and government grant research. However, this course will teach a strategic funding research approach that encourages students to see research not as something they do before they write a proposal, but as an integrated part of the grant seeking process. Students will be exposed to online and database research tools, as well as publications and directories that contain information about foundation, corporation, and government grant opportunities. Focusing on funding sources and basic social science research, this course teaches students how to use research as part of a strategic grant acquisition effort. REGISTRATION $597.00 tuition includes all materials and certificates. Each student will receive: * The Grant Institute Certificate in Professional Grant writing * The Grant Institute?s Guide to Successful Grant Writing * A to Z Grant Writing * The Grant Institute Grant Writer?s Workbook with sample proposals, forms, and outlines REGISTRATION METHODS 1) On-Line -Visit www.thegrantinstitute.com and click on the Registration area. Fill out the online registration form completely. We?ll send your confirmation by e-mail. 2) By Phone - Call toll free (888) 824 - 4424 to register by phone. Our friendly Program Coordinators will be happy to assist you and answer your questions. 3) By E-mail - Send an e-mail with your name, organization, and basic contact information to info at thegrantinstitute.com and we will reserve your slot and send your Confirmation Packet. Professional Grant Writing Workshop (University of Nevada at Reno - January 2006) _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From a.savage Mon Dec 5 12:22:47 2005 From: a.savage (Alex Savage) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 12:22:47 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] TEXAS TOURNAMENT INVITE Message-ID: From the desk of Jonah Feldman: Hey all you Coaches, Debaters, and Judges. You are officially invited to the 1st Annual Kinky Friedman Debates (hereinafter referred to as "the Kinky" ? visit www.kinkyfriedman.com to learn more), to be held on the Austin campus of the University of Texas, February 4-6, 2006. Northwestern doesn?t exist this year, so we're the only show in town. Tournament Hotel: We will have two hotels that are adjacent to one another, we would appreciate it if you would stay at one of these two hotels. We will run an evidence shuttle and deliver pairings at each. It's about a ten minute drive to campus from both hotels. Elims and the Banquet will be held at the Doubletree. January 20th is the cutoff date for both hotels. Doubletree Hotel 6505 Interstate Highway-35 North Austin, TX 78752 Phone: 512-454-3737 Fax: 512-419-0102 The Doubletree is a Hilton Honors property and they are offering a rate of $89 a night for Kings or Doubles with up to four persons in a room. The block is under UT Debate and reservations will be made directly with the hotel by calling (512) 454-3737 or (800) 347-0330. When calling, please refer to the group name of UT Debate. All reservations must be guaranteed by credit card, first night deposit or to your direct bill account. Reservations must be canceled by 4:00 PM, 24 hours before the day of arrival or the first night of the stay will be charged. Parking is free. Our contact at the Doubletree is Theresa Patterson. The Red Lion Hotel Austin 6121 I-35 @ Hwy 290 E. Austin, TX 78752 Telephone: (512) 323-5466 Fax: (512) 371-5269, and rooms are also $89 a night. Contact Shelly Staff in sales to make a reservation. Phone: 512-371-5243 Fax: 512-371-5269 E: sstaff at hisaustin.com. The block name is UT Debate. Tournament Debates: Preliminary debates will be held in University buildings and elimination debates will be at the Doubletree hotel. A shuttle for evidence only will be provided from the hotels to the tournament Saturday morning and from the tournament to the hotels Sunday night. Transportation: Austin is easily accessible by air via Austin-Bergstrom International Airport (AUS). The airport is about 20 minutes from the tournament hotels. Transportation from the airport to the hotel can be obtained by contacting Super Shuttle (www.supershuttle.com/htm/cities/aus.htm, 1-512-258-3826). Roundtrip fare is $25 per person but you will be able to get a discounted rate if you are staying at the Doubletree or Red Lion. Yellow cab is your best bet for Austin taxi's. Parking: Some street parking may be available, but your best option is to use nearby parking garages that will charge $8 a day. Parking at the hotel is free. Entry Deadlines, Limitations, and Procedures: Use www.debateresults.com to enter. There is no limit to how many teams from one school can participate. Please complete your entry by January 25th, 2006. Entry Fees: Fees for the tournament will be $40 per team and $60 per person attending the tournament. This covers a variety of meals, including breakfast and lunch on Saturday and Sunday, and a tournament banquet on Sunday evening. It also contributes to the cost of appropriate team and speaker awards, room and building clean-up as required by the University, a reception for coaches and judges, and supplies required for tournament administration. Should you need to drop a participant, please do so no later than Noon Central Standard Time on February 1, 2006. Drops are official ONLY if confirmed at the official tournament web site, the same URL where you enter. Should you need to drop one or more participants after the aforementioned deadline, a drop fee of $60 per person will be assessed. Judge Requirements: Schools are required to provide four rounds of preliminary judging for each team entered. Each judge is required to be available to hear the first two elimination rounds. Per community practice, each judge is expected to be available one round beyond the elimination of the team with whom they are associated. A limited number of hired judges are available at $25 per round. Early notice of your need to hire a judge is appreciated. Each judge will be REQUIRED to declare ONE AND ONLY ONE WINNER and ONE AND ONLY ONE LOSER in each debate to which they are assigned by the tab room. Compliance with this rule requires each judge to complete an official judge ballot as designated by the tab room. Completion of the ballot requires the judge to clearly designate affirmative or negative to signify a winning team. Judges will also be required to confirm their choice by indicating the school with which the designated winner is affiliated. The side (affirmative or negative) and school affiliation must match the assignments made by the tab room. Judges will also be required to assign speaker points and speaker ranks to each participant in the debate. Speaker points are accepted in increments of 0.5 from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 30. Speaker ranks are accepted in whole numbers only from 1 to 4. Judges are also required to render a decision in accordance with the aforementioned criteria no more than 165 minutes beyond the designated start time of any debate that they are assigned by the tab room to adjudicate. If you or one of your judges is unable or unwilling to fulfill these requirements, please submit an alternative judge prior to the start of the tournament. If, during the course of the tournament, any judge representing your school refuses to comply with these requirements, teams affiliated with your school will be removed from the competition by the tab room. Judges are expected to disqualify themselves from hearing any team or school with which they may have a personal or professional conflict. Such conflicts include, but are not limited to: former college or high school debate colleagues, former students, students from schools with which you have been associated in the last two to four years, and students from a school you plan to associate with next year. We urge judges to maintain a high standard of integrity on this question. Conflicts may be entered in the ?comments? section of the judge entry section at www.debateresults.com. Conflicts can also be submitted to Jonah Feldman at colonelfeldman at mail.utexas.edu. The tab room reserves the right to restrict a judge?s eligible team field based upon our understanding of your past institutional affiliation. Topic: Students are required to debate the topic selected for the 2005-06 season by a vote of the Cross Examination Debate Association membership. The precise wording of this year?s topic is Resolved: The USFG should substantially increase diplomatic and economic pressure on the People's Republic of China in one or more of the following areas: trade, human rights, weapons nonproliferation, Taiwan. Tournament Procedures: We will not break brackets or have side equalization. Hybrid teams are permitted. Prior to the tournament, maverick entries are NOT accepted. Once the tournament begins, maverick debaters may or may not be permitted to continue. The tournament director will evaluate maverick situations on a case-by-case basis. The tournament employs the now traditional 9-3-6 format with ten minutes of preparation time allocated to each team. The first four rounds are preset. Round five is high-high; six through eight are high-low. We continue to employ a mutual judge preference (MJP) placement system. Eight preliminary rounds are scheduled, followed by an appropriate number of elimination rounds, typically five. Texas teams may compete in the tournament. If so, they are eligible to receive speaker awards and to compete in elimination rounds. We will enter via the web page and declare our participation publicly. Texas teams will be required to complete a judge preference sheet; judge assignments for Texas teams will be assigned by the computer and changed only by the option of an external tab room manager. The team of Jonah Feldman and Dave Breshears reserves the right to ?tag in? against any team that they feel like embarrassing. We subscribe to CEDA?s policy against Sexual Harassment and Discrimination. There's no smoking in any of the University buildings and Austin does have an indoor smoking ban. If you have any further questions, please e-mail colonelfeldman at hotmail.com From nicole.colston Mon Dec 5 14:10:36 2005 From: nicole.colston (Nicole) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:10:36 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Pedagological defense of personal advocacy over game, of substance over technique Message-ID: hey ya'll- just some thoughts from my reading lately, concerning the debate about debate. . . 1) Debate must acknowledge the affective functions of learning. Owning your learning, whether through conviction or writing your own blocks, has a profound outcome. Debate is more. Rogers, C. (1969). Freedom to learn. Columbus, OH: Merrill. "Self initiated learning which involves the whole persona of the learner- feelings as well as intellect- is the most lasting and pervasive. . .This is not learning that takes place "only from the neck up." It is a gut-level type of learning. . .An important element in these situations is that the learner knows it is his own learning and can thus hold onto it or relinguish it in the face of a more profound learning, without having to turn to some authority for corrobortion of his judgement." The choice of words, the subject matter, the emotional release of tears and/or laughter, the expression of beauty or love--- these all make debate more than the intellectual space we occupy for role-playing policy decisions. . .but also a function for coping with the world, our past experiences, for discovery of the future. 2) Technique striving for verbal and analytical thinking often denies the interconnectedness of our consciousness, the mental and biological influences of reality. Why do we exclude imagination, intuition, holism, emotion, quietude, effortless intentionality, visualization, and even deliberative reason in the debate performance? We are scared of the discovery. Gilman, R. (1985, Winter). The cosmic story: The universe and where it all begins. Found in "In Context: Journal of Humane Sustainable Culture". "Since knowledge is power, and since people vary considerably in their current facility for using the mind in this way, such an acceptance would significantly rearrange the power relationship. . . Those who have invested heavily in a traditional route, and perhaps along the way learned to suppress the other skills, are understandably loathe to see the primacy of their strengths challenged." From berchnorto Mon Dec 5 17:15:19 2005 From: berchnorto (NEIL BERCH) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:15:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] diversity question Message-ID: Hi, everyone! Can someone point me to literature that shows the benefits for college and university students of having a diverse faculty? I'm interested in making a case with respect to student benefits from diversity rather than affirmative action to correct previous inequality. Thanks in advance. --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051205/817bc5e7/attachment.html From andy.edebate Mon Dec 5 18:13:28 2005 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:13:28 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] my final comment on the josh jason debate Message-ID: <9368bc9b0512051613u201e7f55n58b950d1d15b9526@mail.gmail.com> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051205/302c1798/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: comic.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 155262 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051205/302c1798/attachment.jpg From jbhdb8 Mon Dec 5 18:48:25 2005 From: jbhdb8 (Josh Hoe) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:48:25 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] my final comment on the josh jason debate In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0512051613u201e7f55n58b950d1d15b9526@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0512051613u201e7f55n58b950d1d15b9526@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: :) Josh On 12/5/05, Andy Ellis wrote: > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051205/54419435/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 Mon Dec 5 18:48:49 2005 From: jbhdb8 (Josh Hoe) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:48:49 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] my final comment on the josh jason debate In-Reply-To: References: <9368bc9b0512051613u201e7f55n58b950d1d15b9526@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I am flattered that somehow I was the slimmer dinasaur ;) Josh On 12/5/05, Josh Hoe wrote: > > :) > > Josh > > > On 12/5/05, Andy Ellis wrote: > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051205/7770a193/attachment.html From adamhfar Tue Dec 6 00:47:57 2005 From: adamhfar (Adam Farra) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 01:47:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Ohio Valley Finals In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0512051613u201e7f55n58b950d1d15b9526@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0512051613u201e7f55n58b950d1d15b9526@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6D5505A4-B701-457F-A00C-6936E1111955@umich.edu> In the final round of the 2005 Ohio Valley High School Invitational Glenbrook North Fisher/Friend (Negative) defeated Chattahoochee Dhir/ Ni on a 2-1 with a panel of Jane Munksgaard (W. Georgia), Adam Farra (UMich), and Dylan Keenan* (UMich). The 2NR was T. Congratulations to all involved. Adam UMich On Dec 5, 2005, at 7:13 PM, Andy Ellis wrote: > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From andy.edebate Tue Dec 6 09:22:16 2005 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 09:22:16 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] 3 rounds for hire at texas Message-ID: <9368bc9b0512060722y20d4b7cescabab61c457158ff@mail.gmail.com> Hello i can hire for 3 rounds at texas....ill be hireable at the tournament rate which is i believe 25 dollars a round..... thanks a -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051206/583be8e9/attachment.htm From jwpatt00 Tue Dec 6 10:42:23 2005 From: jwpatt00 (JW Patterson) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:42:23 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] TOC RESULTS: UT, OHIO VALLEY, BRONX Message-ID: MISSING RESULTS: WESTIMINSTER, ST MARKS [LD, STUDENT CONGRESS], MANCHESTER CLASSIC, GBN. THE ROAD TO THE FIFTH TOC OF THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY DATES: SATURDAY, SUNDAY, MONDAY APRIL 29, APRIL 30, AND MAY 1, 2006 TOURNAMENT HOTEL: RAMADA INN (ASK FOR INTERNET ACCESSIBILITY) PHONE # - 859-299-1261 (Hotel is rapidly filling) 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: 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 . OHIO VALLEY (KY) I am certifying the Ohio Valley TOC qualifiers for 2006. The Ohio Valley is a TOC qualifier in Policy debate at the quarter finals level. The Qualifiers for LD will be posted later today. POLICY: > Matt Fisher and Greg Friend Glenbrook North (IL) > Chen Ni and Rajat Dhir Chattahoochee (GA) > Aliya Bhatia & Bobo Bose-Kolanu Woodward (GA) > Jack Ewing & Mark Presenti Bishop Guertin (NH) > Jamie Berk & Kyle Davis Montgomery Bell Academy (TN) > Libby Angst & Will Sabransky New Trier (IL) > Abe Corrigan & Mima Lazarevic Glenbrook South (IL) > Daniel Lewin & Alyssa Lucas-Bolin Glenbrook South (IL) > BRONX (NY) Jon Cruz, director of the Big Bronx New York City Invitational, has certified the following TOC bid recipients. Big Bronx is a TOC qualifier in Policy debate at the finals level. > POLICY: > > Ian Hemley & Spencer Wright Burlington High School > (VT) > Geoff Smith & Amy Bond Weston High School > (MA) > UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS (TX) Joel Rollins, Director of Longhorn Classic Debate Tournament has certified the following TOC bid recipients. The Longhorn Classic is a semifinalist qualifier in LD and a quarterfinalist qualifier in CX. POLICY: > Matt Andrews & Stephen Polley Greenhill School (TX) > RJ Giglio & Cameron Goldsmith Caddo Magnet High School (LA) > Zach Beauchamp & James Brockway Georgetown Day School (DC) > Nick Watts & Kate Smith Heritage Hall (OK) > John Kee & Tom Ferenc St. Mark's School of Texas (TX) > Swayze Smartt & David Lee St. Mark's School of Texas (TX) > Daniel Sharp & Ryan Beiermeister The Kinkaid School (TX) > Benjamin Dunnington & John Elson Round Rock High School (TX) LINCOLND DOUGLAS: Patrick Mahoney Strake Jesuit College Preparatory Corbin Cass Highland Park Douglas Jeffers Dulles High School Shane O'Neal Strake Jesuit College Preparatory Sincerely, JW Patterson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051206/29ecac75/attachment.html From sjld Tue Dec 6 13:40:05 2005 From: sjld (Steven DAmico) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 14:40:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Judging at the Cali Swing Message-ID: <67f413167efc5a.67efc5a67f4131@gwu.edu> I have half commitments available for hire at both of the California swing tournaments. -Steve D'Amico, GW From spmancuso Tue Dec 6 14:19:27 2005 From: spmancuso (Steve Mancuso) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:19:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Repost - Miami, OH - Invitation - Jan 7-9 Message-ID: <999AC4AC-6695-11DA-95F9-000D93322D0A@aol.com> Miami (OH) Tournament Invitation January 7-9, 2006 Dear friends, We are pleased to invite you to attend The Sanders Invitational at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio to be held the weekend of January 7-9, 2006. As always we hope to provide an enjoyable, hospitable, and rewarding beginning for the second semester. We will offer varsity, junior varsity and novice divisions. We have made some important changes in the tournament this year. First, we have changed our dates to move a week earlier. Several schools have asked us to do this to avoid conflicts with the West Georgia and George Mason tournaments. We are ADA certified. Second, we have moved to an 8-round tournament. Third, we have moved to a traditional Saturday-Monday format, with elimination rounds on Monday. Finally, we have changed our tournament hotel to an on-campus conference facility ? the same location where the elimination rounds will be held. Our sleeping-room facility this year will be the Miami University Marcum Conference Center and Miami Inn. These properties are very nice conference and hotel facilities in the middle of our campus. They have agreed to an excellent room rate, lower than last year?s off-campus tournament hotel. Registration and elimination rounds will be held at these facilities, so we strongly encourage you to stay there. They are also part of the University?s IT system so their wireless, computing and printing facilities should not be overwhelmed by the debate tournament. Registration will take place at the Miami Inn Tavern Room on Friday night from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. If you are running late please call us at 240-418-5883. We will provide breakfast and lunch on both Saturday and Sunday to all tournament participants, and maintain a judge and coaches lounge. The competition buildings for preliminary and elimination rounds are now fully wireless. If you have any questions please don?t hesitate to contact us. Steve Mancuso Assistant Director of Forensics -- Debate mancussp at muohio.edu 513-529-3050 Ben Voth Director of Forensics vothb at muohio.edu 513-529-2278 Erika Thomas Graduate Debate Assistant 513-529-2524 ELIGIBILITY: The tournament is open to any two-person team of undergraduate students. Teams in all divisions will be expected to engage in switch-sides debating. Maverick entries will not be accepted. Miami University may enter teams, but will not do so if it creates a bye situation, and our teams will not be eligible to clear. Hybrid teams will be accepted. The tournament director Ben Voth will decide additional questions regarding eligibility. Novices should be in their first year of college debate and conform to ADA expectations for Novice. We will make every effort to avoid collapsing the novice division. This year?s CEDA/NDT debate resolution will be used. FORMAT: The tournament will have 8 preliminary rounds; advancement to elimination rounds will be based on (1) win-loss record, (2) total speaker points, (3) adjusted speaker points, and (4) strength of opposition. Speaker points may be given in .5 increments. The first four rounds will be pre-set. Rounds 5 and 6 will be paired off of the first four rounds, with Round 5 high-high and Round 6 high-low. Rounds 7 and 8 will be power-matched high-low. Time limits will be 9-3-6 with 10 minutes prep time. Brackets will be broken in both preliminary and elimination rounds to prevent teams from the same schools from meeting. Elimination round sides will be determined based on (1) reversing sides from a prelim meeting, (2) individual coin flips. FEES: $75 for all divisions. This fee will cover continental breakfast and lunch on both Saturday and Sunday, trophies, room use and administrative expenses. Make checks payable to ?Miami Forensics.? JUDGES: Schools are required to provide four rounds of preliminary judging for each team entered. Each judge is required to hear the first elimination round plus one round beyond her or his school?s elimination. Please do not rely on us for hired judging. Judges are expected to disqualify themselves from hearing any debater, team or school with which they may have a personal or professional conflict. Judges should enter their conflicts through the Bruschke web site. If the pool makes it feasible we will attempt to use a judge preference or strike system. ENTRIES AND DEADLINES: Entries should be received by Wednesday, January 5, by 5:00 pm. There are no limits on the number of teams you may enter in a division. We prefer that you enter using the Bruschke web site at debateresults.com. We will also accept entries via e-mail. Please e-mail your last minute changes to Steve Mancuso at the above address. HOTELS: The Marcum Center and Miami Inn have offered rooms for $76 per room per night for up to 4 people per room. Please note that some of their ?double? rooms feature twin-sized beds, so unless that?s what you want, be sure to ask for their ?double queen? rooms in the Miami Inn. We have reserved the queen doubles for the tournament. Please make your reservations as soon as possible. As usual, mention that you are attending the debate tournament to qualify for the room rate and block. The phone number for reservations is: 513-529-2104 or 513-529-6911. For location and directions see: http://www.hdg.muohio.edu/marcum/ The Marcum Center and Miami Inn have free wireless internet service and a wired large computing facility and printer. These facilities are part of the University system so they will not be overwhelmed by the tournament usage. Bachelor Hall, the primary tournament location on Saturday and Sunday, is now fully wireless and also contains a large wired University computing facility. The Marcum Center and Miami Inn are two short blocks away from Bachelor Hall where most rounds will be held on Saturday and Sunday. CAMPUS/PARKING: Parking at the Marcum Center is plentiful and free. On Saturday and Sunday parking is available in the lot adjacent to Bachelor Hall, which is located at the intersection of Highway 27 and Route 73. Specific driving directions can be obtained at the university web site: http://www.miami.muohio.edu/about_miami/visitingmiami/ TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE Friday, January 6, 2006 7-10 p.m. Registration ? Miami Inn Tavern Room Saturday, January 7, 2006 at Bachelor Hall 8:00 a.m. Breakfast and Pairings, Bachelor Hall 9:00 a.m. Round 1 11:30 a.m. Round 2 1:30 p.m. Lunch break (lunch provided) 2:30 p.m. Round 3 5:00 p.m. Round 4 Sunday, January 8, 2006 at Bachelor Hall 7:00 a.m. Breakfast and Pairings, Bachelor Hall 8:00 a.m. Round 5 10:30 a.m. Round 6 12:30 p.m. Lunch break (lunch provided) 2:00 p.m. Round 7 5:00 p.m. Round 8 TBA Team Clearing Info Released at Marcum Center Monday, January 9, 2006, Marcum Conference Center 7:00 a.m. Pairings, Marcum Center Lobby 8:00 a.m. First Elimination Round TBA Awards Ceremony Remaining Elimination Rounds will follow ASAP -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text/enriched Size: 7639 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051206/9f2bd156/attachment.bin From Alfred.Snider Tue Dec 6 14:24:00 2005 From: Alfred.Snider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:24:00 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] VERMONT & SLOVENIA STAGE LIVE INTERNET DEBATE Message-ID: <20051206152400.qrp8wu5r6hcssk8s@webmail.uvm.edu> VERMONT & SLOVENIA STAGE LIVE INTERNET DEBATE IN GLOBAL DEBATING CHAMBER What: A live debate on the topic, Chechnya should be an independent nation, using the American parliamentary debate format without points of information. You will be able to see and hear both teams live. Who: Staged between Slovenia (Pro) represented by Primoz Karnar and Samo Novak and Vermont (Con) represented by Jake Meany and Ethan Nelson. Primoz is a very successful debater, having been the 3rd best speaker at the 2005 International Debate Academy, while Samo was the 1st speaker at the 2004 Academy. Jake was the 4th speaker at the 2005 Academy, and Ethan is a former Vermont state champion and an experienced debater. Where: http://www.uvm.edu/debate_theater/ When: 2 PM Eastern USA time, 8 PM Central European time, Thursday, 8 December 2005, lasting for approximately one hour. How: You will need a moderate Internet connection and both RealPlayer (http://www.real.com/) and QuickTime (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/mac.html) must be installed on your computer. You can go to the page in advance and click on the test feature to see if your computer is properly configured. This debate is the inauguration of a series of Internet debates taking place in 2006, one each month, where top debate programs from around the world debate in front of a global audience. To find out about how you can join these debates, go to http://debate.uvm.edu/howtointernetdebate.htm. Internet debating can easily and inexpensively dissolve the tyranny of distance and allow all interested citizens in any part of the world to debate important issues in a manner that allows a live visual and audio encounter. The global debating chamber is here. This debate is sponsored by: University of Vermont (USA) http://www.uvm.edu Za in Proti (Slovenia) http://www.ljudmila.org/debata/ One World Debate Blog http://debateoneworld.org Lawrence Debate Union http://debate.uvm.edu/ldu.html World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi.html World Debate Organization http://debate.uvm.edu/wdo.html International Debate Academy Slovenia http://www.ljudmila.org/debata/idas/info.html Debate Central website http://debate.uvm.edu/ From rlevkov Tue Dec 6 15:07:08 2005 From: rlevkov (Roy R. Levkovitz) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:07:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for coast judging (both tournaments) Message-ID: Emory is looking to hire out rounds for boast coast tournaments. If interested contact Lupo @ Jlupo at learnlink.emory.edu Roy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051206/6e2e1f92/attachment.html From dorseyn Tue Dec 6 16:05:13 2005 From: dorseyn (Nicholas Dorsey) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 17:05:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Farmer from Wayne please Message-ID: <200512062205.AGE90017@mpv1.tis.cwru.edu> Please email me back - I have a cite request. Thanks, Nick Dorsey Case Debate dorseyn at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051206/63556c89/attachment.htm From jeffrey.jarman Tue Dec 6 16:20:01 2005 From: jeffrey.jarman (Jeffrey Jarman) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:20:01 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] GTA positions available at Wichita State Message-ID: <000501c5fab3$333a35b0$d3a11a9c@yourf78bf48ce2> We have openings for people who want to help coach our team and attend grad school. We seek bright and enthusiastic people to help our team-people of all debate and argumentation backgrounds are encouraged to apply. Our offer includes full tuition, a scholarship to cover fees, a one-course reduction to work with the debate team, and a stipend of more than $8,000. Coaches work with the team, travel to tournaments, and teach one section (rather than two) of public speaking. And, while we prefer you pursue a degree in Communication, you are free to get any MA degree offered at the University. Our recent grad students have gone on to coach their own programs, PhD programs, law schools, and careers around the country. If you are interested, please let me know. Applications are due in February. Jeff -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051206/7f6a1e7a/attachment.html From dbteam Tue Dec 6 19:57:26 2005 From: dbteam (dbteam) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:57:26 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] $$ opportunity for Ga St, UGA, or Emory debaters Message-ID: <439504F2@cliff.westga.edu> UWG's high school tournament is this weekend. looking for 4 folk who can judge this friday and saturday in carrollton. we can house and feed you. $75 for 5 prelims, and if you judge elims, we'll pay you more. email me (mhester at westga.edu) asap. hester From mizzoudebate Tue Dec 6 21:09:55 2005 From: mizzoudebate (Mizzou Debate) Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 21:09:55 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Need donated judging for the cali swing Message-ID: We're a student run debate program with a very limited budget who would like to get out to the west coast for once; if you could donate a half commitment at both USC and Fullerton we would greatly appreciate it. Mizzou Debate From alfred.snider Wed Dec 7 08:16:41 2005 From: alfred.snider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 09:16:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Sara Leimbach please *urgent* Message-ID: I need to talk to her right away. Can someone who knows her or someone from Long Beach help me out? 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://alfred.snider.name website AIM screenname: xdoctortunax From melissa_anne_edebate Wed Dec 7 10:31:38 2005 From: melissa_anne_edebate (melissa anne newton) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 11:31:38 -0500 (EST) Subject: [eDebate] paging Baylor LO please...... Message-ID: <20051207163138.20CB8AFAE8@xprdmailfe5.nwk.excite.com> would one of the two of you please back channel me at: melissan at ksu.edu, for a cite request? thanks and sorry for the clutter. - melissa www.ksu.edu/debate Melissa A. Newton Melissan at ksu.edu Kansas State University Assistant Director of Debate 129 Nichols Hall Manhattan, KS 66506 ?Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our minds. [?] Won?t you help to sing- these songs of freedom?? - Bob Marley, Redemption Song _______________________________________________ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! From icievents Wed Dec 7 11:54:14 2005 From: icievents (Patty Patchrint) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 09:54:14 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Professional Grantwriting Workshop (University of Houston - January 2006) Message-ID: The Grant Institute's Grants 101: Professional Grant Proposal Writing Workshop will be held at the University of Houston, January 18 - 20, 2006. Interested development professionals, researchers, faculty, and graduate students should register as soon as possible, as demand means that seats will fill up quickly. Please forward, post, and distribute this e-mail to your colleagues and listservs. All participants will receive certification in professional grant writing from the Institute. For more information call (888) 824 - 4424 or visit The Grant Institute website at http://www.thegrantinstitute.com. Please find the program description below: THE GRANT INSTITUTE GRANTS 101: Professional Grant Proposal Writing Workshop to be held at the University of Houston Houston, Texas January 18- 20, 2006 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM University Center, Atlantic Room The Grant Institute?s Grants 101 Course is an intensive and detailed introduction to the process, structure, and skill of professional proposal writing. This course is characterized by its ability to act as a thorough overview, introduction, and refresher at the same time. In this course, participants will learn the entire proposal writing process and complete the course with a solid understanding of not only the ideal proposal structure, but a holistic understanding of the essential factors, which determine whether or not a program gets funded. Through the completion of interactive exercises and activities, participants will complement expert lectures by putting proven techniques into practice. This course is designed for both the beginner looking for a thorough introduction and the intermediate looking for a refresher course that will strengthen their grant acquisition skills. This class, simply put, is designed to get results by creating professional grant proposal writers. Participants will become competent program planning and proposal writing professionals after successful completion of the Grants 101 course. In three active and informative days, students will be exposed to the art of successful grant writing practices, and led on a journey that ends with a masterful grant proposal. Grants 101 consists of three (3) courses that will be completed during the three-day workshop. FUNDAMENTALS OF PROGRAM PLANNING This course is centered on the belief that ?it?s all about the program.? This intensive course will teach professional program development essentials and program evaluation. While most grant writing ?workshops? treat program development and evaluation as separate from the writing of a proposal, this class will teach students the relationship between overall program planning and grant writing. PROFESSIONAL GRANT WRITING Designed for both the novice and experienced grant writer, this course will make each student an overall proposal writing specialist. In addition to teaching the basic components of a grant proposal, successful approaches, and the do?s and don?ts of grant writing, this course is infused with expert principles that will lead to a mastery of the process. Strategy resides at the forefront of this course?s intent to illustrate grant writing as an integrated, multidimensional, and dynamic endeavor. Each student will learn to stop writing the grant and to start writing the story. Ultimately, this class will illustrate how each component of the grant proposal represents an opportunity to use proven techniques for generating support. GRANT RESEARCH At its foundation, this course will address the basics of foundation, corporation, and government grant research. However, this course will teach a strategic funding research approach that encourages students to see research not as something they do before they write a proposal, but as an integrated part of the grant seeking process. Students will be exposed to online and database research tools, as well as publications and directories that contain information about foundation, corporation, and government grant opportunities. Focusing on funding sources and basic social science research, this course teaches students how to use research as part of a strategic grant acquisition effort. REGISTRATION $597.00 tuition includes all materials and certificates. Each student will receive: ? The Grant Institute Certificate in Professional Grant writing ? The Grant Institute?s Guide to Successful Grant Writing ? A to Z Grant Writing ? The Grant Institute Grant Writer?s Workbook with sample proposals, forms, and outlines REGISTRATION METHODS ONLINE -Visit www.thegrantinstitute.com and click on the Registration area. Fill out the online registration form completely. We?ll send your confirmation by e-mail. By Phone - Call toll free (888) 824 - 4424 to register by phone. Our friendly Program Coordinators will be happy to assist you and answer your questions. By E-mail - Send an e-mail with your name, organization, and basic contact information to info at thegrantinstitute.com and we will reserve your slot and send your Confirmation Packet. Professional Grantwriting Workshop (University of Houston - January 2006) _________________________________________________________________ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee? Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963 From jbruschke Wed Dec 7 13:02:55 2005 From: jbruschke (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 11:02:55 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Debateresults update Message-ID: <5B2984031EE67E4ABFE37FB961D24D4C02F0FEC2@e2k1.Fullerton.EDU> JCU, Colorado College, and the KY round robin have all been posted. Thanks to Aaron Kall and Matt Stannard for helping me track down the results. Corrections have been made to a KY octos debate, and JV/Novice divisions at Loyola and Catholic. As always, I would appreciate it if you took a moment to review the results for accuracy. It's easier to correct things now rather than just before the bids are due. If you missed it, there is now a "participation stats" link that includes a host of information about community, regional, and school-by-school participation. Jon From Alfred.Snider Wed Dec 7 13:51:41 2005 From: Alfred.Snider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 14:51:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Employment at Univ. of Vermont Message-ID: <20051207145141.yb6v3t2u2gn4w480@webmail.uvm.edu> This is a completely unofficial and informal message. There MAY be a faculty position at Vermont opening in a few weeks. It will involve teaching and coching debate. An MA is required. If you would like to have an "unofficial" conversation with me about our program that would be nice. I will be at the Texas swing. I will not be in email range between 12/10-12/30 as I will be on vacation in Mexico. Tuna From dave Wed Dec 7 15:05:52 2005 From: dave (Steinberg, David L) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 16:05:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Is there a Cornell Tournament this year? Message-ID: And if so, when...? If you know, please let us know. Thanks. dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051207/5210f03f/attachment.htm From Karla_Leeper Wed Dec 7 15:19:13 2005 From: Karla_Leeper (Leeper, Karla) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 15:19:13 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] A&A Special issue on Visual Argument Message-ID: <3E798250B7BD144D87BF0E7C0667FDCAF98AEB@FS-EXCHANGE2.baylor.edu> >From Randy Lake: Call for Papers: Argumentation and Advocacy, Special Issue on Visual Argument In 1996, Argumentation and Advocacy: The Journal of the American Forensic Association published a special issue asking whether visual images can argue. A profusion of subsequent scholarship suggests strongly that they can and that argumentative perspectives on images enhance not only our understanding of the visual, but of the fundamental processes of human reasoning. For a tenth year anniversary issue on visual argument, guest editors Leo Groarke and David Birdsell invite contributions exploring recent developments in visual argument studies, moving past the question of "whether" to how, to what ends, in what contexts, and involving which visual forms (photography, film, drama, architecture, advertising, dress, etc.)? Papers that illuminate concrete examples of visual persuasion by developing theoretical perspectives on the interpretation and analysis of visual argument are particularly welcome. Contributions are invited from all areas of argumentation studies, including informal logic, pragma-dialectics, philosophy, rhetoric, critical and cultural studies, and the linguistic tradition. Manuscripts conforming to the journal's guidelines for submission (available at http://www.americanforensics.org/AA/aa_info.html#Submission%20Guidelines) should be sent to: David S. Birdsell Interim Dean School of Public Affairs, Box D-0901 Baruch College, CUNY 1 Bernard Baruch Way New York, NY 10010 Manuscripts also may be submitted electronically, in Word (.rtf or .doc format), to: david_birdsell at baruch.cuny.edu. Inquiries may be directed to same. Deadline for submissions: May 1, 2006 From db8coach Wed Dec 7 17:10:13 2005 From: db8coach (db8coach at cox.net) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 18:10:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Need Fullerton Rooms Message-ID: <20051207230822.YQNV17437.fed1rmmtao12.cox.net@[172.18.180.8]> Both blocks are already filled and I need 4 rooms for the Fullerton tournament. Anyone cancelling any rooms at either of the tournament hotels??? Any other suggestions for hotels in the area??? Thanks in advance, Bob Lechtreck Bakersfield College From hansonjb Wed Dec 7 21:15:33 2005 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 19:15:33 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] looking to hire judge for fullerton tournament Message-ID: <01b201c5fba5$ac90e600$ae081b0a@whitmanrrsukez> email me if you are interested. we'd like 6 rounds (full commitment) but we'll take partial commitments. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051207/67ee2841/attachment.html From EricMorris Wed Dec 7 21:46:19 2005 From: EricMorris (Morris, Eric R) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:46:19 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] The Mancuso Proposal - also, Open Source References: <3E798250B7BD144D87BF0E7C0667FDCAF98AEB@FS-EXCHANGE2.baylor.edu> Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899E037BA1@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> I favor the Mancuso proposal, depending on the details. I think that judges, scouts, and non-card cutting individuals (such as parents) should be exempt. I think tub carrying and food runs should not be part of it. I think it should be discussed in ways that do not single out Northwestern as the primary target, as they are not the only ones travelling with a sizeable research contigent (and, are just doing what they can, within current rules, to succeed). The question is whether this should be regulated, and what the regulations should be. I think it should be enforced largely by the honor system (at least unless the honor system clearly was not working). Proposals for revenue sharing are interesting, but a LOT more difficult. In the past, I've been involved with efforts to try to ascertain the size of other programs resources (for the purpose of making a budget argument). I found many people were not interested in sharing the information, even for that purpose. I believe there have been similar problems in trying to collect such data centrally. Collecting that information would be challenging without the sort of STRONG central authority that exists in Major League Baseball. Furthermore, there are some serious comparison problems. Some programs have strong MA or PhD programs, which provides a substantial ability to recruit multiple GAs. Others, lacking that, use expensive hired guns. Some use underpaid / nearly unpaid former debaters waiting to graduate or looking for something to do in addition to their day jobs. Imagine one program pays a hired gun 21k per year to cut cards, and that's their only job. Imagine another one gets a recent former debater 3k a year (in judging fees over time, etc.) to help our as much as they can. How do you compare them? Pure money would suggest the former is 7 times more valuable than the latter, but it might be much closer (or farther) than that. Do we penalize one program more because their institution provides health insurance, while another one does not? I think the issues raised by this go WAY beyond the good faith compliance assumed in the Mancuso proposal, and suggest we do it while perhaps studying this option (since the option does have some merit). I think Ross is right in expecting that the Genie is out of the bottle on the card cutting issue. Keep in mind that people who have been staying in this activity to coach for 20+ years have been, in many cases, the type who enjoy cutting cards. Not only does this make passage of a rule unlikely, but it also might undercut a large reason why they've stuck around. I'm heard people comment that getting serious about such a rule would make them leave. I'm not sure if I care to find out. I do think the open source idea is a interesting one, and suggest that one place to start is case listing. Instead of a norm that case lists are tags and cites, why not move to a norm that case lists are full cards? Perhaps they should be so on both affirmative and negative. Non-internet cards are more of a problem, but that's what scanners are for. Perhaps the norm might include the process of scanning the cards you use to help out (as with the expectation of pre-submitting your cites to Wake, etc.). New arguments are still new, of course. There could be copyright issues, I guess, but no more than with open source files. Plus, it would be MUCH easier to re-locate a card you heard once two years ago and wish you could find - sometimes for non-debate related reasons. Right now, the NDT scouting rules (which are an important norm) lean against full text of cards, and there was an incident where someone was removed for scanning/copying the full text. If there's any sort of community interest in open source/full text, that rule could be changed. I would really like to see more discuss of open source proposals, both on principle and in application, to better develop my opinion about them. Dr. Eric Morris Asst Prof of Communication Director of Forensics Craig Hall 363A Missouri State University Springfield, MO 65897 (O) 417-836-7636 (H) 417-865-6866 (C) 417-496-7141 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051207/30713b57/attachment.htm From FijiPapabear Thu Dec 8 02:32:19 2005 From: FijiPapabear (FijiPapabear at aol.com) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 03:32:19 EST Subject: [eDebate] One of my proudest days Message-ID: Second Cuban senator elates Miami friends The U.S. Senate will get its second Cuban-American member with the elevation of a New Jersey congressman, a Democrat who's a welcome figure in Miami's Cuban-American community. BY LESLEY CLARK _lclark at herald.com_ (mailto:lclark at herald.com) U.S. Rep. Robert Menendez will become the second Cuban-American in the U.S. Senate, with New Jersey governor-elect Jon Corzine expected to name the Democrat today to fill his remaining term in office. The selection of the former mayor of Union City, N.J. -- the second-largest Cuban stronghold in the United States -- carries major significance for Cuban-Americans in Miami. Menendez is a frequent visitor to South Florida, raising money, campaigning for Democrats -- and proving a stalwart voice in efforts to oust Fidel Castro. Said Menendez's Agustin ''Gus'' Garcia, a Miami Democrat who has known Menendez since they were teens in New Jersey, ``For a little island to produce two U.S. senators, for those who work factories and clean floors, it's a great honor.'' Garcia, his voice breaking, said he got a phone call late Tuesday from Menendez, who didn't confirm his selection, telling him only that ''the news'' would probably be announced today. Democratic congressional aides, speaking anonymously because Corzine has not publicly tipped his hand, told the Associated Press that the decision to select Menendez had been expected to be announced as early as Tuesday. Hispanic Democrats across the United States had launched a full-court press on Mendendez's behalf, contending that the party would miss a major opportunity to prove to Hispanics that the party had their best interests at heart if Menendez was passed over. Menendez's selection, Democratic strategist Joe Garcia said, would ``speak volumes about Gov. Corzine and the party's commitment to the future of the party.'' Menendez would be New Jersey's first minority senator and the third current Hispanic in the Senate, along with Republican Mel Martinez of Florida and Democrat Ken Salazar of Colorado. Menendez will have to defend the seat in November against a potential Democratic challenger and what is expected to be an aggressive, well-funded challenge from Republican state Sen. Tom Kean Jr., the son of former New Jersey Gov. Tom Kean. But Menendez's supporters note he has amassed more than $4 million for the effort -- and is scheduled to add to the tally Saturday with a fundraiser at the Biltmore hotel in Coral Gables. According to federal campaign reports, Floridians make up the third largest group of contributors to Menendez, after contributors in New Jersey and New York. Those present are likely to include as many Republicans as Democrats because of Menendez's strong anti-Castro stance, said Miami Republican political consultant Ana Navarro. In 1995 when his fellow Democrat, President Clinton, repatriated several Cuban rafters, Menendez was among a handful of Democrats to protest vociferously. ''On the subject of Cuba, Cuba comes first and then the party,'' Menendez said at the time. BROKERED DEAL In the mid 1990s, Menendez was Clinton's unofficial advisor on Cuba. In 1996, he brokered a deal on the Helms-Burton bill, sweeping legislation that seeks to punish foreign investors in Cuba. Shuttling between the National Security Council and congressional Republicans, Menendez struck a compromise that the once-reluctant president agreed to sign. The efforts earned Menendez praise across the aisle. ''I am convinced that Bob Menendez will go down in Cuban history as one of the great patriots,'' U.S. Rep. Lincoln D?az-Balart, a Miami Republican, said at the time. The two often joined forces with U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, another Miami Republican, to hold the line on Cuban issues. In 1999, the three fasted for a day to show solidarity with Cuban dissidents engaged in a hunger strike in Havana. And in 2000, Menendez was among several lawmakers to push legislation that would have granted Cuban rafter Eli?n Gonz?lez permanent residency in the U.S. LIBERAL RECORD Cuba aside, Menendez is generally strongly aligned with liberals in Congress. He voted against going to war in Iraq and against drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And his supporters note he has been a team player. After endorsing former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean for the Democratic nomination for president last year -- the two men shared an early aversion for the war in Iraq -- Menendez campaigned hard for the eventual nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts. In a visit to Miami, Menendez bashed the Bush administration's crackdown on travel to Cuba and said Kerry would pursue more effective strategies to take down Castro. Menendez was born in New York City on New Year's Day in 1954 -- five years before Castro's rise to power -- to parents who had already left Cuba. He grew up in a tenement in New Jersey's Cuban-rich Union City, and first entered politics when he was elected to the local school board at age 20. ''Bob is one of the few men in American political history who have earned the right to be a senator,'' said Gus Garcia, who has a grandson named after him. ``Bobby did it the American way. He did it from the bottom up. No blessing, no godfathers, no king makers, and that's a hard story to top. He's done it little by little with a grass roots, street organization.'' -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051208/638c5a00/attachment.html From majeredb8 Thu Dec 8 08:20:34 2005 From: majeredb8 (Steve Sawyer) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:20:34 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Someone who runs PlanetDebate - please backchannel Message-ID: <200512081420.jB8EKY001240@hsdebate.com> Hello, I signed up for a free PlanetDebate account a few years ago for the case lists. Soon after filled out the form to unsubscribe from the occasional e-mail announcements. It didn't work. I attempted to do so a this past year, and was unsuccessful. I sent some e-mails via the "contact" form on the website - and was again unsuccessful. I'm not sure if other people had the same experience, but it's getting old. Could someone please backchannel me with a solution? Thanks, Steve From Zompetti Thu Dec 8 08:20:59 2005 From: Zompetti (Zompetti at aol.com) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:20:59 EST Subject: [eDebate] receive one of the BEST comm masters degrees for FREE* (plus coach debate!) Message-ID: Hi potential graduate students -- I know you're busy and you may think applications for graduate school are way off in the distance so you don't have to think about them yet, but you are sadly mistaken. The time is NOW for you to not only think about where you want to go, but also apply to those places! For example, you should be asking your professors for letters of recommendation BEFORE the holiday break! Now, to the issue at hand -- you should apply to Illinois State University for your Master's work. It is one of the best terminal master's degree-granting programs in the country. And, you can be a graduate assistant with our growing CEDA/NDT debate team. Here's what the assistantship covers*: 1. FULL TUITION waiver (even if you're from out of state) 2. A monthly STIPEND (nearly $900/month in your pocket!) 3. Opportunities to make extra cash when you do extra tournament judging and research projects for professors 4. Office space 5. Computer, printing & scanning capabilities 6. University-related health care package 7. You get to work with me!!! The assistantship does not cover room/board, student fees, and non-tournament related transportation costs; but, that is not uncommon for graduate assistantships and you should have money making opportunities to cover most if not all of your other expenses. Here is the official post. PLEASE EMAIL ME (_zompetti at aol.com_ (mailto:zompetti at aol.com) ) or call me (309.532.4976) if you have questions or concerns. Illinois State University is accepting application for our debate graduate assistantship for next year, beginning in Fall 2006. Our School of Communication is extremely supportive of college forensics in general, and debate in particular. We are in our second transition year of rebuilding our debate program, so our team is currently small, but energized. Plus, we have one of the best terminal Master's programs in the country, where you can study various types of communication subfields, including rhetoric, political communication, intercultural communication, small group, organizational communication, interpersonal communication, mass media studies, etc. Our graduate assistants also have the opportunity to teach courses in the School, which is particularly helpful if you plan on pursuing a Ph.D. in the future. ISU is located in Normal, Illinois (adjacent to Bloomington) and is 45 minutes East of Peoria, 45 minutes West of Champagne, 2 hours South of Chicago, 2 hours East of St. Louis, and 2 1/2 hours West of Indianapolis. While Bloomington/Normal is a small Midwestern city, we have all of the comforts of a typical college town with a low violent crime rate and extremely affordable cost of living. If you have questions regarding our graduate program, you may contact me or our Director of Graduate Studies, Dr. Mark Comadena, at _mecomad at ilstu.edu_ (mailto:mecomad at ilstu.edu) , or 309.438.7977. Also, feel free to browse our website at: _www.communication.ilstu.edu_ (http://www.communication.ilstu.edu/) . All applications will go to Dr. Mark Comadena (but please email me that you are applying) at: Dr. Mark Comadena Director of Graduate Studies School of Communication Illinois State University Campus Box 4480 Normal, IL 61790-4480 Thanks! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051208/373fac74/attachment.htm From Samnelson4 Thu Dec 8 10:14:11 2005 From: Samnelson4 (Samnelson4 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 11:14:11 EST Subject: [eDebate] Is there a Cornell Tournament? Another CEDA East Innovation! Message-ID: Dear Dave: Thanks for asking! There is no Cornell tournament this year. Neither is there a Vermont tournament. There was not a Rochester tournament this year. West Virginia was also not originally scheduled to host a tournament either, but is now hosting Novice and JV Nationals because Georgetown decided, late in the game, not to host that tournament again this year. Our region decided last year that it would be ideal to support some of the newer programs in our region by helping them in their effort to host tournaments. This year in the CEDA East tournaments will be held for the first time at Bard and Western Connecticut. We also elected to support the second ever Buffalo tournament during the fall. This positive sharing of the tournament hosting experience has many advantages and is just one more innovative way our region has excelled in promoting all levels of policy debate: novice, jv, and open. The latest Bruschke debateresults.com participation numbers seem to illustrate that something we are doing up here is working. I encourage Miami and others to send teams to Bard and Western Connecticut. The Bard tournament will even have a debate featuring policy debate cult hero, Walter Mead, of the famous Mead card. Our region promises good hospitality and an appreciative welcoming to those from out of the region. All divisions will be healthy in size and attitude. I especially want to encourage others to attend Novice and JV Nationals at West Virginia University in Morgantown. It is not far from the Pittsburgh airport, Neil Berch is a superb host, and there are no entry fees this year! It truly will be the novice and JV policy debate tournament of love for this year. Finally, don't give up on never being on the beautiful Cornell campus ever again for a debate tournament. We may host again as soon as next year. Stay tuned! Best to all, Sam Nelson Director of Forensics Cornell University From eber Thu Dec 8 10:46:48 2005 From: eber (Michael Eber) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 11:46:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] USC Hotel Message-ID: <003001c5fc16$fb94f310$0600a8c0@EBER> MSU needs one more room at the Sheraton. Does anyone have a spare? Thanks, Mike -- Michael Eber Interim Director of Debate Michigan State University 10 Linton Hall East Lansing, MI 48824 517.432.9667 (w) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051208/35e7e9d8/attachment.html From antonucci23 Thu Dec 8 15:17:12 2005 From: antonucci23 (Michael Antonucci) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 13:17:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] open source? resp to Morris Message-ID: <20051208211712.56960.qmail@web61014.mail.yahoo.com> Professor Morris says: "I do think the open source idea is a interesting one, and suggest that one place to start is case listing...If there's any sort of community interest in open source/full text, that rule could be changed. I would really like to see more discuss of open source proposals, both on principle and in application, to better develop my opinion about them." 1. I'm curious as to how this topic was broached. Are minutes online? 2. I've initiated discussions of an open source system before, with varying degrees of hyperbole and irony (ie, I haven't always been totally serious about it.) I've written a version of this as a debate argument. My briefs were obviously way over the top, but it seemed worthwhile to start an inevitable discussion. 3. There are some propositions about open source evidence systems that seem obvious and that I'd defend. I'll outline controversial propositions I'd hesitate to defend further down; please read those before lambasting me. Here's what I'd defend: a. Open source systems are preferable to the various punishment proposals in circulation. It's better to share the wealth than limit production or participation. Various flavors of argument communism appeal to different people, but banning interesting or useful research(ers) seems like the most destructive solution possible. Indeed, open systems may be the only structural, rule-based answer to resource inequities. Every other proposal I've seen obviously fails at the level of enforcement. Revenue sharing (illegal), salary caps (unenforceable and possibly illegal) and personnel restrictions (circumvented faster than you can say 'information is fungible') don't work. This would - for better or worse. b. With the help of a middling competent archivist, an open source system would reduce entry barriers. This is especially true on the novice or JV level. Young teams could plausibly subsist entirely on a diet of scavenged arguments. A novice team might not wish to do so, but the option can't hurt. c. An open source system would fundamentally change the evidence economy without targetting anyone or putting anyone out of a job. It seems much smarter (and less bilious) to change the value of a professional card-cutter's work than send the KGB after specific counter-revolutionary teams. Most systems would indeed revalue evidence. The extent of this revaluation depends upon the nature of the open source system adopted. A real dividing line is the disclosure issue. Two basic 'disclosure' variations: Variation i [weak version]: Your evidence enters the collective pool *after* you read it. You lose intellectual property claims to an argument or card by virtue of using it. This system revalues, but retains some pro card-cutter value, given the rate of argument innovation in the upper echelons. It's basically a mixed evidence economy, sort of a European socialist model. Variation ii [strong version]: Your evidence enters the collective pool *before* you read it. In fact, entry in the collective pool is a *precondition* for the reading of any specific piece of evidence. This system isn't just a revaluation. This system would set money on fire. Cards (and new arguments) lose all of their economic value overnight. Employing a card cutter would obviously be a ridiculous investment, although employing (a) debate teacher(s) would still make a lot of sense. d. "Voluntary" open source systems (evidence collectives) don't work very well. People have proposed various regional collective evidence pools as an "alternative". I'm sure they've been helpful and interesting opportunities for intellectual cross-pollination. As a genuine equity proposal, though, get real. Do you really think you can beat a top-notch unified machine with a loose network (over a hundred repetitions)? I don't. First, the labor involved in co-ordination tends to suck up whatever marginal time savings you'd hope to achieve. Distributing assignments across five college teams is pretty tough - a single squad has a much better idea of who's a beast on what, who's going to flake, etc. Secondly, pro card cutters are pro for a reason - they're pretty sweet. It's a qualitative question. They don't cut more cards, necessarily - they set higher standards for evidence. They recognize the small number of cards that actually get read, and thus prize the distinction between an A and an A+ card. Collective X can match any pro card cutter card for card, but it can never control the signal/noise ratio as well. e. A public open source system would change college - high school policy debate interaction (especially the strong system). You don't need to pay a coach or private company to transfer college briefs and backfiles when they're already widely available. f. This is technically feasible, especially when viewed tournament by tournament. Here's a sample system: Tournament X chooses to implement an open source system. Participation in this system is a precondition to attendance. Teams must send a scanned version of their 1AC in order to participate. If you break a new aff, you must send it to tournamentxnewaff at gmail.com after the fact. Teams agree to relinquish all intellectual property interest in any arguments read. The tournament will provide for scanning full text. Of course, full text scanning of every single brief would be too time and labor intensive. If a tournament devoted five minions and five scanners to this purpose, they should follow the top five top teams (defined by guesswork in presets and seeding rounds 3-8 throughout elims. There's some arg for tracking middle seeds instead through prelims, but whatever.) Basically, if you're succeeding at the tournament, your intellectual property gets taxed. After the tournament, the tournament would post brief sets to a server. All interested observers would have access to Awesome Team X's cards throughout a round. The website would present a fairly accurate snapshot of the functional argument sets for top squads, in pdf form. Briefs would just be organized temporally: Tournament X/Round 3/Awesome University [A] vs. Kickass College [N]/2NCcards.pdf Individual teams would be responsible for their own archiving and OCR. The potential workings of the strong system are pretty obvious. Every participating team gets their own section of a collective server, where they must post any and all evidence they intend to read in round. Scanning costs and the hassles of OCR are entirely passed onto participants. Reading proprietary (unreleased) evidence would constitute a violation of community norms on par with fabrication and cross-reading (although teams can obviously read from the collective pool.) "Dumping" - holding off on disclosing evidence until Sunday night - might be frowned upon as a venial sin. g. Talking about this is a good idea. Here's what I WON'T defend. a. This is a good idea when compared with the squo. I have no idea. Maybe it's better to have the current proprietary system. Doesn't bother me, but it seems to bother a lot of people. b. Any position on the relative merits of the weak vs. strong proposals. c. You can get an archivist, server space and a fair number of scanners for free. (I will defend that the net cost is appreciably lower than the salary of a single top assistant, presuming that tournaments donate the scanning labor in the weak system. If push came to shove, any top squad faced with a revenue sharing proposal would save money by just footing the whole bill - not that they should.) d. This will lead to total equity. I actually think that debate coaches have value as debate teachers, card-cutting aside. When everyone has the same cards, the premium shifts to expertise and skills, but there are gaps there too. It's still good to have money in any system. e. You can find people in the debate community with the chops handle the collective archive and the spirit to do it on the cheap. I imagine they're available, but I don't know - interesting question, but not really my issue. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From scottaherndon Thu Dec 8 17:57:59 2005 From: scottaherndon (Scott Herndon) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 17:57:59 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Matt Kalin or Kyle Zeck from West Point Message-ID: Hello, Could one of you please backchannel me. Thanks, Scott Herndon UTD -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051208/153fa424/attachment.htm From kstatedebate Thu Dec 8 19:33:23 2005 From: kstatedebate (Justin Green) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 19:33:23 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Coach debate, free graduate school, teaching experience - $10, 000 - Kansas State Message-ID: <5a6e2a80512081733hd2d2c43ved50bebf34e15df5@mail.gmail.com> We have Graduate Teaching/Coaching opportunities. The position offers the candidate the possibility of coaching debate, teaching classes, and attaining a graduate degree in Communications. The compensation includes: a 10k living stipend and a tuition waiver. There are only minor fees you will incur for attending school - less than $500 a semester. Kansas State will travel a regional and national schedules, compete in all three divisions, host numerous public debates, and offer the opportunity to travel to high school tournaments to recruit. No one person is expected to do it all, but numerous opportunities are available. Our Squad: We work hard and have fun: 20 members strong and diverse in many ways a team can be. Sarah Snider, Melissa Newton, and myself will also work with you. We plan on having all types of debaters and look for coaches who can offer a unique expertise to the squad and more importantly a positive-minded individual to help us all learn. If you are interested in an application email Dr. David Proctor, Department Chair, at dproctor at ksu.edu or myself with an address. I will also be at the Texas tournaments, feel free to find me. Justin Green p.s. feel free to email me with any further questions From suniea Thu Dec 8 22:01:52 2005 From: suniea (suniea at whitman.edu) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 20:01:52 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Open Source Evidence...? Message-ID: <1134100912.439901b015fb1@www.whitman.edu> I'm a little confused. Are the proposals for open source evidence that ALL evidence that a school produces would have to be available or that ONLY evidence produced by a school's coaches would have to be freely available? If it's the former, what's the incentive for innovative research? It seems to me that the reason for strategic research and argument innovation is the ability to gain a competitive advantage. (Just like IP rights are key to drug research...maybe I have been reading a "conviction" aff all along...) If all the research is just out there and the only question is how well you put it to use, I think we lose some of the best parts of debate that make it more educational than Knowledge Bowl (such as learning how to do original research or how to generate a strategy, from the brainstorming stage to finding evidence to actual execution in a debate). I'm all for attempts to equalize the playing field and a lot of the monetary advantages in debate. But I guess I don't understand why we'd try to level the playing field so much as to remove the competitive advantage given to the _students_ (not just coaches) who bust their ass doing research--am I missing something? One final note: I wrote this (and it got bounced from edebate) before Antonucci's post on the subject. I think his post clearly draws out the wide-range of controversial issues that would surface in trying to seriously move to open source. Eric -------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through Whitman College Webmail 3.1 From EricMorris Thu Dec 8 23:42:08 2005 From: EricMorris (Morris, Eric R) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 23:42:08 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Open Source Evidence...? References: <1134100912.439901b015fb1@www.whitman.edu> Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899E037BAC@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> My interest is currently limited to the "weak" version of open source, as laid out by Antonucci's post. I am extremely hesitant about the destruction of incentive in a system that would require pre-disclosure of arguments. I'm more interested in the "weaker than weak" expansion of case lists toward a "full text" format, particularly on the affirmative and to some degree on the negative. I suppose that I could just do this (with our tournament), but it might not be well received. Hence, the benefit of discussion. There have been references to doing this with backfiles. I certain would agree there are free rider issues, technological logistics, etc. In many ways, these issues are faced by case lists, but to a lesser degree. There are larger issues related to evidence ethics, if people viewed it as less necessary to "stand behind" cards they read which have come from elsewhere. Those sorts of issues could probably be worked out if people liked the idea philosophically, and are sometimes used as excuses when people dislike an idea philosophically. All that said, my sense is that Antonucci may be correct that such proposals, even in a weak form, might bother a lot of people on principle. Certainly, the current "cites good / full text bad" policy for NDT scouting procedures reflects this position. I'm interested in better understanding the opinions of people on various sides. For those who aren't interested in a public discussion, I would find backchannels interesting as well. One final note: In response to Antonucci's question, the issue was most recently broached by Ross' post about coaches cutting cards, in response to JW's post. I may be jumping the gun, since Ross promised to develop the idea later, but it seems to me an extension of case lists and an idea with benefits similar to the Mancuso proposal. These is, so far as I know, no formal proposal for any mandatory form of OSD. I suspect we're a long way from one, but might be wrong. >From conversations I've had with some small programs, I think that OSD might lower entry barriers and lure folks both into policy debate and also into a model of policy debate where one clashes more directly with the other team's arguments. I'm not sure whether OSD would be effective, or if the drawbacks would overwhelm those benefits. That's why I seek to better understand the views of individuals with opinions about the full text exclusion in the current NDT scouting rules. Dr. Eric Morris Asst Prof of Communication Director of Forensics Craig Hall 363A Missouri State University Springfield, MO 65897 (O) 417-836-7636 (H) 417-865-6866 (C) 417-496-7141 ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of suniea at whitman.edu Sent: Thu 12/8/05 10:01 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Open Source Evidence...? I'm a little confused. Are the proposals for open source evidence that ALL evidence that a school produces would have to be available or that ONLY evidence produced by a school's coaches would have to be freely available? If it's the former, what's the incentive for innovative research? It seems to me that the reason for strategic research and argument innovation is the ability to gain a competitive advantage. (Just like IP rights are key to drug research...maybe I have been reading a "conviction" aff all along...) If all the research is just out there and the only question is how well you put it to use, I think we lose some of the best parts of debate that make it more educational than Knowledge Bowl (such as learning how to do original research or how to generate a strategy, from the brainstorming stage to finding evidence to actual execution in a debate). I'm all for attempts to equalize the playing field and a lot of the monetary advantages in debate. But I guess I don't understand why we'd try to level the playing field so much as to remove the competitive advantage given to the _students_ (not just coaches) who bust their ass doing research--am I missing something? One final note: I wrote this (and it got bounced from edebate) before Antonucci's post on the subject. I think his post clearly draws out the wide-range of controversial issues that would surface in trying to seriously move to open source. Eric -------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through Whitman College Webmail 3.1 _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051208/c3cba9e6/attachment.html From hansonjb Fri Dec 9 02:03:31 2005 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 00:03:31 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Open Source Evidence...? References: <1134100912.439901b015fb1@www.whitman.edu> <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899E037BAC@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> Message-ID: <004901c5fc97$11ecf3d0$ae081b0a@whitmanrrsukez> [eDebate] Open Source Evidence...?as an empirical matter--we in two different years offered our evidence to several programs interested in starting up/continuing policy debate. both times--no one actually took us up on the offer--they did not to debate. i did it again this year but in nfa-ld debate (one on one policy debate) and have had maybe 4 or 5 takers who have each attended one tournament that we attended. not exactly a success. draw whatever conclusions you want from that but the one i draw is that open source is not going to draw in new programs. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: Morris, Eric R To: suniea at whitman.edu ; edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 9:42 PM Subject: Re: [eDebate] Open Source Evidence...? My interest is currently limited to the "weak" version of open source, as laid out by Antonucci's post. I am extremely hesitant about the destruction of incentive in a system that would require pre-disclosure of arguments. I'm more interested in the "weaker than weak" expansion of case lists toward a "full text" format, particularly on the affirmative and to some degree on the negative. I suppose that I could just do this (with our tournament), but it might not be well received. Hence, the benefit of discussion. There have been references to doing this with backfiles. I certain would agree there are free rider issues, technological logistics, etc. In many ways, these issues are faced by case lists, but to a lesser degree. There are larger issues related to evidence ethics, if people viewed it as less necessary to "stand behind" cards they read which have come from elsewhere. Those sorts of issues could probably be worked out if people liked the idea philosophically, and are sometimes used as excuses when people dislike an idea philosophically. All that said, my sense is that Antonucci may be correct that such proposals, even in a weak form, might bother a lot of people on principle. Certainly, the current "cites good / full text bad" policy for NDT scouting procedures reflects this position. I'm interested in better understanding the opinions of people on various sides. For those who aren't interested in a public discussion, I would find backchannels interesting as well. One final note: In response to Antonucci's question, the issue was most recently broached by Ross' post about coaches cutting cards, in response to JW's post. I may be jumping the gun, since Ross promised to develop the idea later, but it seems to me an extension of case lists and an idea with benefits similar to the Mancuso proposal. These is, so far as I know, no formal proposal for any mandatory form of OSD. I suspect we're a long way from one, but might be wrong. From conversations I've had with some small programs, I think that OSD might lower entry barriers and lure folks both into policy debate and also into a model of policy debate where one clashes more directly with the other team's arguments. I'm not sure whether OSD would be effective, or if the drawbacks would overwhelm those benefits. That's why I seek to better understand the views of individuals with opinions about the full text exclusion in the current NDT scouting rules. Dr. Eric Morris Asst Prof of Communication Director of Forensics Craig Hall 363A Missouri State University Springfield, MO 65897 (O) 417-836-7636 (H) 417-865-6866 (C) 417-496-7141 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of suniea at whitman.edu Sent: Thu 12/8/05 10:01 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Open Source Evidence...? I'm a little confused. Are the proposals for open source evidence that ALL evidence that a school produces would have to be available or that ONLY evidence produced by a school's coaches would have to be freely available? If it's the former, what's the incentive for innovative research? It seems to me that the reason for strategic research and argument innovation is the ability to gain a competitive advantage. (Just like IP rights are key to drug research...maybe I have been reading a "conviction" aff all along...) If all the research is just out there and the only question is how well you put it to use, I think we lose some of the best parts of debate that make it more educational than Knowledge Bowl (such as learning how to do original research or how to generate a strategy, from the brainstorming stage to finding evidence to actual execution in a debate). I'm all for attempts to equalize the playing field and a lot of the monetary advantages in debate. But I guess I don't understand why we'd try to level the playing field so much as to remove the competitive advantage given to the _students_ (not just coaches) who bust their ass doing research--am I missing something? One final note: I wrote this (and it got bounced from edebate) before Antonucci's post on the subject. I think his post clearly draws out the wide-range of controversial issues that would surface in trying to seriously move to open source. Eric -------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through Whitman College Webmail 3.1 _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051209/d60cdc6a/attachment.htm From matt_gerber27 Fri Dec 9 10:36:46 2005 From: matt_gerber27 (Matt Gerber) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 10:36:46 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Baylor Invitation Re-Post Message-ID: Friends & Colleagues, The Glenn R. Capp Debates at Baylor will be held on January 21-23. We have a block of 50 rooms reserved at the Clarion Inn. The hotel has been completely renovated, and now has a full restaurant/bar inside. They also free wireless internet throughout the property. We have the rooms on hold at $74.95 per night for doubles. Ask for the Glenn R. Capp Debates block. The number at the Clarion is (254)757-2000. At last year's Capp, the University of Kansas team of Todd Jordan and Jordan Tinsley defeated the Wayne State University team of Gabe Murillo and Matt Farmer in the final round. The Top Speaker was Alex More of UT-Austin. We have awesome awards. Anyone who got a T-shirt or trophy last year can testify. There will also be a District 3 meeting during Round 2 of the tournament. We hope the tournament will be bigger and even more competitive than last year. We are up on the Bruschke site, www.debateresults.com, and are anxioulsy awaiting your entries. ~The Bears From debate Fri Dec 9 10:44:55 2005 From: debate (debate at ou.edu) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 10:44:55 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] New Rules! Message-ID: <7356cbbc8fe7.43996027@ou.edu> Hello, These are new rules are really a joke right? There is no way that more disclosure requirements etc. is going to level the playing field. Every new rule seems to endorse a upper class status of assuming everyone has scanners, and laptops etc and has access to these things. Do new rules really help those less privileged. In all my complaints about debate, you never hear me say "they win because they have more money", i might say that this gives teams an advantage, but honestly I think it is more about the argument. Those Northwestern debaters are good. Their arguments are good and their evidence is good. Really really good. They could spend 200K on the NDT and not win if they had no talent and no arguments. This is still college debate, and the students are still colllege debaters. Everyone has their own style, theirs comes in numbers and monetary privileges. Get over it. How about a level playing field with the resolution rather than shuffling cites and evidence back and forth, along with money and researchers. Reopen the debate about debate. This makes everyone competitive rather seeing who can read the same evidence better. Peace, Massey From mharris02 Fri Dec 9 13:47:18 2005 From: mharris02 (Martin Harris) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 13:47:18 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] open source? resp to Morris Message-ID: I will probably get called an elitist, but I don't care. For years now, I have honestly wondered why some people want to try and make NDT/CEDA be all things to all people. What is wrong with staking out ground on what you think is good (specializing) and if folks don't like it, let them vote with their feet? I like debate, I like socializing with people in debate, I also realize there are about 6 or more debate organizations/styles of intercollegiate debate. Some emphasize communication, some emphasize creativity, some evidence and research. If resources make it unfair in one organization, find one where it is easier to compete. To make it so that people with less resources are more comfortable in staying I think does them a disservice. The free rider problem isn't a drawback because of fairness, which is what the name implies, but more because it makes the sharers enablers. Every year for the fifteen years I have been in Missouri I have listened to some students in high school complain about wanting debate to be "better." They want to be able to go fast, read k's and counterplans, disads with crazy impacts and complain about the isms. That is, they think they want to debate like most do in NDT/CEDA. They are part of a captive audience, so I feel for them. This is what I see out of a good chunk of the rest of those students though. They go to camp get tons of evidence, buy a couple of handbooks and don't cut one update for the rest of the year. They do hardly any work at all, and say they are "debaters." It saps the value of the activity when it is that easy. They are robbed of the opportunity to be challenged, because we give them an easy out. Success without corresponding effort. Things should be hard, it should be tough, and competition should be damn near impossible to keep up. Why, because that is what makes it feel so good when you pop some arrogant sob in the proverbial mouth. I don't want some rich ass whiner thinking this directional state school kid beat him because (s)he "gave" me the evidence against their case. I want them to know they tried as best as possible to buy a win and some redneck hick from a directional state school just tagged that ass. Someone they don't respect just rocked their world because he was smarter then them, and I like watching them try to deal with that as their stereotypes about who they are and their place in the world comes crashing down around them. I don't have any problem with schools dumping resources behind their efforts to be the best. Everyone has to use what they got. It makes it all the sweeter if they get beat in doubles. No, it isn't resource disparity that torques me off. It is when the little guy finally puts them on the ropes and some panel of scaried cats won't pull the trigger because they can't believe the hicks from the sticks just TKO'd some first round prima donnas. Martin Harris Computer and Graphics Support Specialist Hammons School of Architecture, Drury University Office Phone: (417) 873-7497 From stables Fri Dec 9 14:54:46 2005 From: stables (Gordon Stables) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:54:46 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA email confirmations Message-ID: <4399EF16.8070701@usc.edu> If you are a coach at a CEDA program and you did not receive a 'test' email from me this morning, please let me know. I am checking to make sure that all CEDA programs are subscribed to the CEDA email list. Thanks Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 http://usctrojandebate.com From smithr Fri Dec 9 16:00:38 2005 From: smithr (smithr) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 17:00:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Open Source Debate (OSD) Message-ID: <4399FE86.6010602@wfu.edu> Housekeeping: 1) I am not ready with a complete opus on Open Source Debate (OSD). 2) There are no secret minutes of any meetings, folks. There is no formal rule proposal. This is, at most, a thought experiment for now. 3) Michael: would you mind sending me your OSD file? Yes, folks, Antonucci, the man who helped inspire me to go on my NDT/CEDA shared topic crusade (dunno if the archives go back that far but I think I have a saved message somewhere on our school's PINE system). His team read an OSD argument in a round I saw at St. Marks. I let the idea go but somehow it popped back in my head when a stray synapse connected OSD to the discussion about personnel limits at NDT. IMAGINE 1) Please, attack Antonnuci's "stronger versions." Please. That's the version where every card you read must be posted before you read it or, at latest, immediately after you have used it the first time. All such evidence is then available for use by everyone forever. Do attack. The only way to really explore the idea is to try to rip it to shreds. Imagine the horrors of technological malfunctions, free riders, hackers, and public exposure of our sophistry. I'm serious, go for it. 4) I'm a day late with the tribute, but remember John Lennon. IMAGINE. Imagine if each new topic began with the collected backfiles of all time already in everyone's possession. Imagine deans, professors in other departments, policy makers and politicians, thousands of citizens in the netroots using our edifice or argument. Imagine our professional card cutters being offered an actual living wage for the jobs they vicariously work in now by a "real world" of journalism, activism, and politics that can recognize their worth (but still able to contribute their research to OSD with the click of a button). Yes, I am talking about a RADICAL change. Highly restrictive intellectual property rights are culturally powerful and enjoy presumption. I expect (and desire) open hostility to the idea. At this point I only HOPE the idea might actually revolutionize our activity in a powerfully positive way. I am not ready to embrace nor advocate adoption. But neither am I ready to reject. Are you? From Kelly.McDonald Fri Dec 9 17:43:00 2005 From: Kelly.McDonald (Kelly McDonald) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 16:43:00 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] asu invite Message-ID: <573F49EC9809E84DBEA02A14BBEF378956F718@EX05.asurite.ad.asu.edu> Here is the invite for Asu's 2006 edition of the forensic fiesta. I will be posting to www.debateresults.com to setup the entry over the weekend. Best, Kelly Kelly M. McDonald, Ph.D. Director of Forensics & Assistant Professor 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://hdshc.asu.edu/forensics/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051209/2b2f0604/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 06 fiesta invite.10591DEFANGED-doc Type: application/defanged Size: 57344 bytes Desc: 06 fiesta invite.doc Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051209/2b2f0604/attachment.bin From drwiese1 Fri Dec 9 20:59:46 2005 From: drwiese1 (DANIELLE WIESE) Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 21:59:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NCA follow-up: Women Judges Panel Message-ID: I'm writing to thank all of you who participated in the NCA forum on female judges in debate. Our disucssion was vibrant, and productive, and I am excited about moving forward with a research agenda designed to investigate the discrepancy in preference between male and femal critics. In particular, I want to thank Matt Grindy for organizing the panel. I expect to make a proposal to our campus IRB this Spring. This proposal will reflect many of the suggestions put forth during our meeting. I will also make a copy of the proposal available on edebate. Best, Danielle R. Wiese FSU Debate From antonucci23 Fri Dec 9 23:13:15 2005 From: antonucci23 (Michael Antonucci) Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2005 21:13:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Open Source response to Eric/Hanson/Massey/Morris/Smith Message-ID: <20051210051315.57057.qmail@web61014.mail.yahoo.com> I haven't determined the extent of my 'personal' advocacy. This really isn't my battle; at the end of the day, these determinations will be made by people who aren't me. I certainly can't take up the burden of defending controversial propositions at a 5-1 clip. It's just too much typing. Previous discussions of an open source argument can be found here: http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=39492 A full set of briefs for a *deliberately over-the-top and inflammatory* Open Source critique/theory argument can be found here: http://www.ossdebate.org/ Please - I'm really begging here - read the ndtceda post before coming after me for playing around with tongue-in-cheek, experimental advocacies. I have carefully laid out what I think I'm genuinely willing to defend. It's limited. I also tend to write HS level briefs melodramatically, because I'm not always sure y'all are paying attention :). It's sometimes necessary to anticipate 8am rounds. That said, I'll respond to some of the more interesting emails, partially in a spirit of play. Eric says: "I'm a little confused. Are the proposals for open source evidence that ALL evidence that a school produces would have to be available or that ONLY evidence produced by a school's coaches would have to be freely available?" The former. Evidence is a fungible commodity. It would be impossible to disentangle coach inputs into research efforts, even if we bracket off the obvious enforcement issues. I speak from experience here; I do cut some cards for the high school I help out. I tend to leave assignments in a pretty rough form, though, for reasons of both pedagogy and amazingly short attention span. Figuring out where my work leaves off and student work begins on a few issues would be somewhere between difficult and impossible. "If it's the former, what's the incentive for innovative research? It seems to me that the reason for strategic research and argument innovation is the ability to gain a competitive advantage. (Just like IP rights are key to drug research...maybe I have been reading a "conviction" aff all along...)" Well, I have two categories of response to this objection. a. Weak system turns the innovation args - like whoa. Remember, a weak system would require entry into the common pool *after* you crack open a new arg. The tactical value of a new argument doesn't evaporate - it just has a considerably shortened shelf life. No one would have to spend any time hunting down cites or otherwise reinventing the wheel. It just eliminates research redundancy. A weak system would inflate the value of new arguments. Rivalries between contenders would always drive the engine of new research, and the community as a whole would then immediately benefit without having to hassle the innovators on a listserv. In an interesting equity development, the team that breaks a new case to win their 4-3 round doesn't actually fall under the "tax" (in a five-scanner world). They might get taxed if they clear low, which was the previously implied argument for taxing the 16-17 instead of the 1-32. (Middle elim taxing also expands the range of the database, because the 1 was necessarily taxed in prelims and will likely get caught again in semis.) Thus, argument shelf life is potentially longer in the middle than the top. b. A strong system also has a number of defenses. A strong system obviously changes the economic value of evidence. However, it doesn't change the underlying pedagogy. Debaters who actually read articles and books will still win more rounds, because, hopefully, reading things about China makes you smarter about China. The value simply shifts from widgets (cards) to genuine expertise. Top teams would still change cases because they can stay ahead of the learning curve, outpacing teams in their ability to process and absorb information. Open source systems exist. They work pretty well. Play Battle of Wesnoth, use Wikipedia, use Linux, use a peer to peer distribution system (Soulseek is my favorite music provider, by far. Debaters who get all tetchy about someone snaking their cards ditch their IPR purism when there's a movie or album at stake.) They innovate quickly and efficiently. Open source code developers aren't slacking. OpenLaw was considered a success, although they lost the Supreme Court case. (The suit was probably a lost cause from the outset.) Programmers continue to innovate and debug because it's cool, and because they want their innovations acknowledged (ego-boosting.) There is such a thing as a pure academic. Some have questioned the applicability of some of these analogies. I'll tell you this, though - software development is a much better analogy to debate than big pharma developers. "If all the research is just out there and the only question is how well you put it to use, I think we lose some of the best parts of debate that make it more educational than Knowledge Bowl (such as learning how to do original research or how to generate a strategy, from the brainstorming stage to finding evidence to actual execution in a debate)." Well, yes, that may be an accurate if...then statement. Of course, this is all irrelevant if you concede some of the "inevitable death of policy debate due to entry barriers" posts that have been kicking around this list. If it's a try-or-die, all bets are off. Do you believe those posts? (Yeah, me neither, but there they are.) I strongly disagree with the premise, however, that "all the research is just out there" in an open source world. In a weak system, of course, this objection is meaningless. PAST research is out, but new research is still a competitive advantage. In a strong system, teams still need to have strategies that cater to their area of expertise. You would still have a strong incentive to wrestle the debate onto your ground, even if that ground's delimited by expertise or style instead of accumulated widgets. "I'm all for attempts to equalize the playing field and a lot of the monetary advantages in debate. But I guess I don't understand why we'd try to level the playing field so much as to remove the competitive advantage given to the _students_ (not just coaches)who bust their ass doing research--am I missing something?" I'm not really trying to level the playing field. I'm playing with some proposals that might shift the playing field in beneficial ways. I don't think it would remove that advantage. I've already rehearsed the defenses of a weak system. A strong system would still retain that competitive advantage. It shifts the value to expertise and knowledge instead of the fetishization of widgets that makes hiring a puppeteer plausible in the first place. Two thought experiments within an open source world: a. Eric rocks everyone. Let's assume for a moment that the *entire* country is free riding off you. There's one researcher in the country - you - and everyone else is playing video games or whatever while you slave away. You would be faced with a situation in which *everyone you're debating is reading your briefs*. SLAM DUNK. You would crank everyone. It wouldn't even be close. b. Eric's coach wants to rock everyone. If, on the other hand, you hired a gun and went to join the crew playing video games, this wouldn't work as well for you. Everyone would have the same widgets, so you'd lose your whole edge. Jim Hanson says: "Open Source Evidence...?as an empirical matter--we in two different years offered our evidence to several programs interested in starting up/continuing policy debate. both times--no one actually took us up on the offer--they did not to debate. i did it again this year but in nfa-ld debate (one on one policy debate) and have had maybe 4 or 5 takers who have each attended one tournament that we attended. not exactly a success. draw whatever conclusions you want from that but the one i draw is that open source is not going to draw in new programs." I think that this proves that an open source system isn't a magic bullet. I don't think these experiments flopped *because* you spotted them some cards. An available set of starter briefs is a *necessary* condition to novice debate. It is certainly not a *sufficient* condition. Counterexamples abound. I have personally known some debaters from top level college programs who continue to go to tournaments because they're able to do it without onerous card cutting requirements. An internal 'weak open source' system sustains their careers. They have other priorities and commitments, but they're still able to go to some tournaments, make intellectual contributions, and *sustain numbers.* How could it hurt a new debater to have the entirety of Awesome University X's files at their disposal, especially at the JV level when they're able to understand how awesome the awesome is? Massey says: "These are new rules are really a joke right?" Of course they're jokes! I hope you enjoy them. The negative restrictions aren't very funny jokes, however, because they would directly limit the available intellectual inputs into debate. That, in my mind, would be very unfortunate. They would put people out of jobs or limit the ability of enterprising young students from large squads to experience the scholarly joys of the NDT. My 'rules' - if you can call them that - are entirely positive. They don't stop anyone from attending, researching or learning. Information isn't a finite commodity, so sharing it only represents a tax in relative terms. It can be favorably contrasted with proposals that do attempt to limit learning or tax finite commodities (ie, money.) As stated in my post, I don't know if I'm serious about this as an improvement over the squo, but I'm totally serious when I say this is a much better proposal than scouting or personnel restrictions. Sharing the wealth is better than burning the wealth. "There is no way that more disclosure requirements etc. is going to level the playing field." got warrant? If you mean an absolutely levelling total Maoist revolution, you're probably right. I did disavow just that proposition in my original post. "Every new rule seems to endorse a upper class status of assuming everyone has scanners, and laptops etc and has access to these things." I don't understand. 1. My weak sauce proposal advocates that major tournaments [or some committee or whatever] provide 5 scanners and 5 laptops, without any necessary inputs from the competing teams. The teams don't need them. 2. If it came right down to it, I probably do assume that every college debate team can obtain access to a wired computer and a scanner. Am I wrong? I was under the impression that almost all American colleges and universities provided some sort of computer access. If I goofed there, my bad, but... It costs more in gas to drive to one tournament than the price of a scanner. 3. A number of institutions in debate already presume access to the Internet - for example... a. The list you're on as we speak b. Online registration c. Online judge philosophies d. The Wake casebook project e. debateresults, which can be easily parsed for voting and pointing patterns, it's sweet f. The whole 'having cards' thing? Any way you slice it, having a computer is a massive advantage.Lack of internet access is a difficult barrier to overcome in any version of debate. 4. The community will spot you. If there's a strong sauce version of this proposal put into effect, it would be painfully easy to print out a copy of the database and mail it to any college team who can't put together the (very relatively) minimal access requirements. I guarantee that those computerless teams will be 100 times better off evidence wise than they were before the project. They'll go from no cards to a hundred thousand cards. "Those [deleted] debaters are good. Their arguments are good and their evidence is good. Really really good. They could spend 200K on the NDT and not win if they had no talent and no arguments. This is still college debate, and the students are still colllege debaters. Everyone has their own style, theirs comes in numbers and monetary privileges. Get over it." They're OK, I guess. My proposal has absolutely nothing to do with targetting any specific college or university (I developed it for high school, remember?). I think targetting any specific college or university is very silly - indeed, it's beneath mention. "How about a level playing field with the resolution rather than shuffling cites and evidence back and forth, along with money and researchers. Reopen the debate about debate. This makes everyone competitive rather seeing who can read the same evidence better." 1. I think my proposal produces a number of benefits totally external to a "level playing field." Read FAQ. 2. Evidence is...what we do. I mean, I know there's other stuff, but I don't think you can dismiss the fundamental relationship between this activity and our valuation of proprietary evidence. 3. I can't conceive of a resolution would render relative card quality irrelevant. If there were such a resolution, it would be some resolution like "cheese" or "green ideas sleep furiously" and no one would want to debate it. (Actually, is GISF such a terrible rez? That might be sweet. Well, I'll take that cause up some other time.) Your previous posts refer to a "resolution without ideological bias." Bracketing questions of how fundamentally that deviates from my understanding of language, wouldn't you still need a lot of sweet cards about whatever ideological spin you ultimately chose to insert? Morris says: "My interest is currently limited to the "weak" version of open source, as laid out by Antonucci's post. I am extremely hesitant about the destruction of incentive in a system that would require pre-disclosure of arguments. I'm more interested in the "weaker than weak" expansion of case lists toward a "full text" format, particularly on the affirmative and to some degree on the negative. I suppose that I could just do this (with our tournament), but it might not be well received." Yeah. I really can't imagine a good argument against your proposal (which I'll call the "extremely weak" version.) Any reaction against it is, in my mind, knee jerk Luddism. I mean, if you're reading the argument in a round, and you're allowing the judge and opposition to see all this evidence, you've already put it in the public domain. What's the possible *educational* value of letting people write down the citation and first and last words but denying them access to the text? Do you really just want to make people get your database and mindlessly replicate your work? Is it a "typing for its own sake" argument? Proudly training the data entry whizzes of the future? Carpal tunnel good? Who could possibly enjoy or profit from the robotic exercise of punching in search terms for pre-cut arguments? Debate is onerous enough. Can't we minimize the amount of boring stuff we have to do? Also, increasing raw labor inputs for no reason accentuates resource disparities. It puts a premium on the gross number of minions at your disposal to do mindless repetitive work. Sorry for ranting; I'm ranting with you or possibly near you, but not at you :). "I certain would agree there are free rider issues, technological logistics, etc." I'd impact turn free riders. *Let them ride.* The smartest/hardest working debaters will still have a huge edge. Policy debate can be insanely labor intensive. We should minimize initial entry barriers. Plenty of debaters free ride within their squad - it may be kind of annoying, but it boosts numbers. Big Deal Debaters frequently spot their younger proteges some args, and it isn't hurting anyone. Face facts, people - if debate requires that every single participant eat, sleep and breathe the activity, it will keep dropping numbers. Rule systems should allow broad participation while still rewarding the students who are all-in. The logistics are cake. It just poses a simple question: "who has the chops to do this?" Scanning a bunch of cards and putting them on a bare-bones site seems pretty easy if you know your way around a computer. If any organization offered a bounty on this work (100 bones a pop, say) you'd find a hundred tech-savvy debaters clamoring to do an easy job for fast cash. "One final note: In response to Antonucci's question, the issue was most recently broached by Ross' post about coaches cutting cards, in response to JW's post." Yeah, I just missed it, my bad. No conspiracy theories here, just didn't catch the original. Ross says: "3) Michael: would you mind sending me your OSD file?" No problem. (It would be ironic if I withheld it.) It's on the website: http://www.ossdebate.org/ Again, though, I gotta reiterate that it's written from the standpoint of a provocateur - my actual advocacy is much more limited. I disavow any absurdities. "I let the idea go but somehow it popped back in my head when a stray synapse connected OSD to the discussion about personnel limits at NDT." It's an interesting connection. I disagree with the conclusions of personnel limiters, but their premises actually seem to compel this conclusion. "Please, attack Antonnuci's "stronger versions...Do attack. The only way to really explore the idea is to try to rip it to shreds." ahhhh I've mellowed considerably and I've lost my flame-proof suit over the years, so, please, people, keep all attacks low-key and targetted directly at idea/system. I can't answer every attack, so a full dialogue would probably involve someone else flying the OSD flag. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From SSbauschard2 Fri Dec 9 23:55:01 2005 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 00:55:01 EST Subject: [eDebate] Satan's card cutters Message-ID: <29c.17552a4.30cbc7b5@aol.com> No matter what you call them -- "professional card cutters, "vicarious competitors," "committed alums" -- these individuals make a contribution to the activity that is positive -- they are coaching debate and I generally think coaching debate is good (more on that later). Different coaches have different approaches that have pedagogical and competitive advantages and disadvantages for sure. But associating coaches who cut cards with Satan is off the mark and unfair. Do these people enjoy cutting cards? Yes. Do they link to win? Yes. But most of them also enjoy judging (at least some of the time), working with students, socializing with friends at debate tournaments, celebrating victories with friends and programs, flying and driving 50,000 miles a year, trying to envision ways to improve the activity, teaching students at summer camps, etc. Card cutting is not necessary, but it is ENTWINED with all of these -- it is an integral, though albeit not necessary, part of the experience and I honestly think it makes debate a richer experience for all. Debate is an interactive cooperative learning adventure played by everyone *from high school students to educational and legal professionals of all ages and abilities and all at the same time*. I think that is awesome and that it is a borderline travesty that its model is not replicated in all environments where learning occurs. It's the ultimate "town hall meeting" -- all the smartest and most industrious people of all ages show-up to debate-out an issue 22 hours a day, leaving no stone un-turned -- not the website of Tejinder's sister. Over the years I have had the opportunity to work with many great HS and college debaters. Along the way I cut an awful lot of cards and strategies. Some of the cards and strategies were great and others were terrible. But I honestly believe that the students who got the most out of the activity were the ones who debated in the years when I put everything I had into it that positively *reflected on my strengths* AND THEY DID TO. There were years when I did and they didn't and other years they did and I didn't. But the years when EVERYONE DID are the years to remember -- in those years we were in better debates than we otherwise would have, had greater victories and more bitter defeats, and learned more about researching, argument writing, debating, and strategizing than in the years when only the debaters played. Did my efforts competitively disadvantage some other students? Sure. Did those same students learn less? No. Did they give up? Maybe. They shouldn't have. You don't get a damned thing out of quitting and this makes as much sense as saying you should just drop out of school if you go to a bad one. Were my students competitively disadvantaged when they debated students coached by an insomniac who was also a full-time employees of the DOJ Yes. Did they learn less? No. Did they give up? No. All students were pushed harder and faster than they otherwise would have been and I was pushed harder and faster than I otherwise would have been. Debates against teams who are coached by individuals actively involved in the argument construction process are much richer, more challenging, and more fulfilling. What about debaters who don't have coaches to push them to play at the next level? They are educationally disadvantaged and would only be more so (not less so) if they weren't competing against other well coached teams. They should demand better educational experiences from their families, their schools, and their government and take whatever measures they can to improve their own experiences. They should demand learning environments where everyone from high school students to educational, legal, and scientific professionals of all ages and abilities participate in various ways at the same time. The competition is more exhilirating and I honestly believe that the students learn more when the coaches are involved in argument construction. That's why I love to "COACH" and don't really enjoy 'TEACHING' -- one is interactive and the other is me telling people how to do stuff. Most people spend 22+ years in school -- they are not short-changed on the "teaching" end of experience, but they are short-changed on the interactive coaching end. They don't need to demand much more teaching. Most people can't wait to stop going to class, but many don't want to leave debate. I enjoy interacting by showing up with a bunch of cards, blocks, ideas, strategies and working with debaters to produce the best possible outcome. Ya, I could ONLY tell them how to get the cards, have them return with something, and then come up with the best strategy we can with what is there, but it's not the same. It's not as challenging, it's not a stressful, it's not as exhilirating, it's not as tiring, it's usually not as motivating for my debaters, it's not as interactive, I wouldn't learn as much, and it wouldn't as much fun (I have no guilt about having fun or learning). Does that mean that coaches who don't cut cards and engage in THAT FORM OF COACHING are doing a disservice to their students? NO. Those good coaches will find other ways to create similar competitive and interactive experiences for their students -- by emphasizing strategy and tactics, teaching them how to cut the Martin '90 article on their own, by teaching debate theory until the students collapse :), by pushing the limits of the topic, by strategizing with available evidence, by listening to hours of rebuttal redos, etc. Those coaches want to win just as much as the "professional card cutters"-- they just use different approaches. Do their abilities, talents, and efforts disadvantage other students their students compete against? Yes. Nonetheless, those approaches are ones that they enjoy, play to their strengths, believe are educationally sound, and work for their team. I don't think they are going to destroy anyone's education with a pile of theory args, and I don't think I will destroy anyone's education with a pile of cards. Certainly debaters who have debated in programs with vicarious professional card cutters have done well in their adult lives and so have those who haven't. Perhaps the AFA "rule" should read: Coaches are responsible for sustaining an educational environment and coaching in a way that is pedagogically sound. Note: My only point is that coaches who cut cards shouldn't be disparaged. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051210/5143f3d7/attachment.html From SSbauschard2 Sat Dec 10 00:14:06 2005 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:14:06 EST Subject: [eDebate] motivation, osd, and community-building alternatives Message-ID: <25d.340b788.30cbcc2e@aol.com> For a number of years I have made efforts to collect basic caselist information -- tags, cites, etc (the stuff everyone recognizes as caselist information) and have created various venus -- secondarysources.com (a static text site where I'd post information that people sent me), one with a funny URL number that was hosted at BC and created by Bryon Gill, former U Pitt debater and OS advocate (I used to call him a Communist), where people could post case list info themselves, Planet Debate, which has a similar architecture, and finally, the ndtcaselist site, where the NDT caselist exists. A couple things stand out from my experience with those sites: *When it is voluntary ALMOST no individuals or programs contribute information. Despite incredibly high USE of both secondarysources.com and the one hosted at BC by people seeking information, there was VERY LITTLE contribution of caselist information by anyone other than people I knew well at a program and personal level. Some of the programs that were the most extensive users of both of those sites contributed absolutely nothing. *When it is mandatory, or relatively mandatory, people do contribute but it is still difficult. Efforts to extract this information prior to the Wake tournament and the NDT are obviously more successful. It is successful when other people go into the debates (like at Wake and the NDT) and copy down people's information. Self-disclosure forms are not quite so successful. While people generally laude and appreciate such joint information sharing, it is very difficult to get most to contribute despite the leadership efforts of some of the most prominent members of the community. A few tentative conclusions relevant to OSD: *In my experience the attitude/culture of information sharing/collective debating beyond individual squad work, does not really exist. Absent relatively extreme rules or a radical culture change, IMMEDIATELY taking this to the next potential level seems very difficult. This could be a great idea (as at least most agree caselists are), but when push comes to shove, I honestly don't see contributions coming in. *If someone (a committed individual or a large program seeking to share information) were to get behind this it may work, but it involves a large commitment of time -- resource requirements are relatively limited. Pooled resources of large programs could make a difference, however. Mosly, as Anton suggests in his last post, it may involve paying someone to do it. 2) I'm not making an argument against OSD. I am pointing one of its difficulties based on experience. A larger point is that COLLECTIVE SOLUTIONS take a lot of WORK and EFFORT, regardless as to what those solutions are. Passing more rules takes relatively less work and effort, but collective solutions expand the community's potential rather than limit it. At the very least, these ideas need more airing. I thought OSD was relatively crazy until I read Anton's last post. I hope more efforts are made to discuss solutions along this line before people decide to "burn the money." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051210/48d7a8ea/attachment.htm From korryharvey Sat Dec 10 03:22:20 2005 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:22:20 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] anti-biodiesel article, and friendly energy/fuel cite request Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051210/d87f9e29/attachment.html From korryharvey Sat Dec 10 03:26:59 2005 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:26:59 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] pentagon admits it keeps iraqi casualty records Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051210/0f8799e4/attachment.htm From korryharvey Sat Dec 10 03:29:39 2005 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 01:29:39 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] torture (even of innocent civilians) common in "new" iraq Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051210/9fb04470/attachment.html From korryharvey Sat Dec 10 04:19:53 2005 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 02:19:53 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] new proof that pre-war iraqi terror claims were based quite literally on lies Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051210/f910d101/attachment.htm From anabaptist Sat Dec 10 22:05:01 2005 From: anabaptist (Donald Bryson) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:05:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] new proof that pre-war iraqi terror claims were based quite literally on lies Message-ID: <000501c5fe08$0f8b2d60$6401a8c0@Donald> Okay, the links on this message are the only ones that work on your recent tear of politically charged verbiage. Donald Bryson "God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." - Daniel Webster (Speech, June 3, 1834. Vol. iv. p. 47) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051210/47061c7f/attachment.html From andy.edebate Sun Dec 11 13:26:48 2005 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:26:48 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] pentagon admits it keeps iraqi casualty records In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9368bc9b0512111126h2657cb0jbfe82e4e54d57874@mail.gmail.com> Korry, the iht and the pentagon only seem to care about the civilians, what about the countless thousands of civilians who have decided that they will relinquish that status and fight the occupier for their freedom? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051211/64f8231e/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Sun Dec 11 13:28:13 2005 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:28:13 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] pentagon admits it keeps iraqi casualty records In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0512111126h2657cb0jbfe82e4e54d57874@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0512111126h2657cb0jbfe82e4e54d57874@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0512111128u664946b1jb2417d6bebd6245f@mail.gmail.com> sorry not the iht... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051211/ddda3cdc/attachment.html From forensics Sun Dec 11 13:42:59 2005 From: forensics (LACC Forensics) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 11:42:59 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Open Source Evidence... Message-ID: Silly, silly, silly. While I applaud (at some level) the ongoing attempts to level the playing field for poor and small programs (especially having always been one) I really think these discussions continually miss the point. How many times have we tried to pass rules to accomplish this goal? And how many times have they worked? If it were possible to level the playing field through rule-making, it would have happened long ago. While I won?t claim that resource disparity doesn?t add to the difficulties that small programs face in being competitive, they are neither the sole nor even the primary cause. In old-school speak, I guess I would be running a PMN here. The fundamental problem of elitism is that the drive to win overwhelms the drive to learn. All you need to do is read this list and you will see plenty of posts and discussions that show that many, if not most, of the people posting are far more concerned with their students winning debates and tournaments than the opportunities for learning. Don?t get me wrong, I don?t have any magic solutions to this problem either. In fact, I think it is one of the fundamental problems with ?project? oriented debate. I really think that if we, as coaches and members of the community, were focused primarily on the educational value of debate instead of the competitive drive, things would be much different in our world. Unfortunately, the drive to win leads people to do things like vote the list and vote for bad arguments like politics because their teams run them and they need legitimacy on the circuit. I think the history of our activity has shown that even a small program with committed debaters and coaches can be competitive. But there will never be a rule or set of rules that can level the competitive playing field. Only a culture of education over competition could accomplish this goal. If people were committed to learning first and winning second, a lot of the issues that spur such discussions, would not occur. I eagerly await the ad-hom attacks that I know are coming my way. Ken Sherwood | Director ____________________________ LACC Forensics Program 855 N. Vermont Ave. CC184 Los Angeles, CA 90029 p. 323 .953 .4000 xt 2962 f. 323 .953 .4013 e. forensics at lacitycollege.edu w. http://www.lacitycollege.edu/academic/departments/speech/forensics/Forensics /indexx.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051211/dd06dc10/attachment.htm From mariesa Sun Dec 11 14:16:42 2005 From: mariesa (mariesa at mail.utexas.edu) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 14:16:42 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] GLB Help Needed! Message-ID: <1134332202.439c892a9f75a@webmailapp3.cc.utexas.edu> As some of you may know, in lieu of debating this year, I am completing a research project on the experiences of gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals in the labor market. GLB participants are need to answer a quick survey about the workplace experience in order to determine how the workplace experience of GLB individuals might differ from those of heterosexual individuals. Your participation helps increase our understanding of issues related to GLB in the workplace. Responses are confidential and cannot be linked to participants since no personally identifiable information (name, address, email address, etc. is solicited. This research has been approved by the Institutional Review Board (which regulates ethical research on human subjects) and can be found at http://unspecified.net/survey. It should take less than 10 minutes to complete. I am happy to make the results available when my research is completed or to discuss this research to those interested. I can be reached at mariesa at mail.utexas.edu. Please also feel free to refer others to the survey. Thanks in advance for your participation. -Mariesa Herrmann University of Texas at Austin From jamesherndon3 Sun Dec 11 15:56:00 2005 From: jamesherndon3 (James Herndon) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 16:56:00 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Chattahoochee High School seeks Debate Coach Position Message-ID: There is an opening for an additional coaching position at Chattahoochee High School in Alpharetta, GA [a northern suburb of Atlanta] starting the 2006-2007 school year. Chattahoochee is a large 5A public school with a strong history of debate. The program has tremendous administrative and parental support and works with many Emory, UGA, and Georgia State debaters throughout the year. We have also enjoyed a recent run of national success; in order to continue this streak, Chattahoochee needs to replace one of the current coaches. The administration has already expressed a willingness to add more than one new coach to the faculty, and we want people who are excited about debate. The debate coach will be asked to coach, judge, and travel with the Chattahoochee debate team. Minimally, this person would be expected to work with the team after school and travel to multiple tournaments per year. The job includes *NO* administrative duties: the budget, forms, etc. are all handled by the current returning coach. The position is currently held by a teacher who chooses to work with the novice debaters only and has restricted his travel mostly to within Georgia. The current coach of the Varsity and JV teams plans on returning. If one chooses to simply replace the current novice coach, then that is fine. However, if a prerequisite for interest in the job assumes a change in the schedule, travel arrangements, or duties to include more national travel or any other aspect of the squad - all is negotiable. For instance, if someone is interested in being more active on a national level, that too is obviously an option. The major requirement for the job is *a teaching degree or certificate*. Current openings are reserved in the Social Studies department for a debate position. However, there are usually openings in virtually every department, and prospective math teachers, for example, should not be deterred from applying. For details about obtaining a teaching certificate, pay, or other information about Fulton County, please visit: http://www.fultonschools.org If you enjoy debate, have a history with debate, like working with good kids, and want to travel, then you are *EXTREMELY* qualified. For general information about Chattahoochee High School visit: http://chattcougar.com/ All other questions should be directed to James H. Herndon: Jamesherndon3 at gmail.com or herndonj at fultonschools.org Thanks for your interest, -- James H. Herndon III Director of Speech & Debate Chattahoochee High School 5230 Taylor Rd. Alpharetta, GA 30022 (770) 596-1559 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051211/115462d5/attachment.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: job opening letter.4312DEFANGED-doc Type: application/defanged Size: 27648 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051211/115462d5/attachment.bin From antonucci23 Sun Dec 11 18:08:24 2005 From: antonucci23 (Michael Antonucci) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 16:08:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Open Source: Response to Sherwood Message-ID: <20051212000824.80524.qmail@web61014.mail.yahoo.com> I don't think there are any forthcoming ad homs? If I ever level an argument that stoops to that level, let me know so that I can retract it. I disagree with some of your propositions, but I'm pretty sure that none of them constitute a reason to disagree with mine. In a word: perm? Sherwood says: "While I applaud (at some level) the ongoing attempts to level the playing field for poor and small programs (especially having always been one) I really think these discussions continually miss the point." 1. My extended proposal is not exclusively for the purpose of helping out poor programs. I think it does. (How could a boatload of free evidence hurt?) However, I'm at least willing to hypothetically defend that it would improve debate even if it isn't the next Maoist revolution. 2. *There is more than one point.* Maybe there isn't a single solution to every problem in debate that will cut the Gordian knot with a blow. I object to the urge to look for a grand unified field theory. I know that a number of people on this listserv are extremely invested in a particular project. It would be unfortunate if those passionate and well-intentioned investments became barriers to any other reform. (A caricature: How can you propose such a thing when resolutions are bad? How does open source address the needs of every identity group? How does an open source proposal address the imminent im/explosion of the Sun? WHAT ABOUT THE REPTOIDS?) Links of omission prohibit engagement. I don't think that every proposal or reform should be put through some sort of plan-plan test, in which it has to prove that it is the *absolutely most important* idea out there. I strongly believe in competition burdens - how would this proposal negatively impact your project thing? "How many times have we tried to pass rules to accomplish this goal? And how many times have they worked? If it were possible to level the playing field through rule-making, it would have happened long ago. While I won?t claim that resource disparity doesn?t add to the difficulties that small programs face in being competitive, they are neither the sole nor even the primary cause. In old-school speak, I guess I would be running a PMN here." 1. My proposal *isn't a rule* in the negative sense. I strongly agree that it's counterproductive to limit coaching or personnel support. This is a positive proposal - it does something without stopping people from doing stuff. It taxes an infinite commodity. 2. Some measures are sweet. The weak version is closely analogous to caselisting - which is awesome. (Morris' super-weak version is just caselisting plus.) Does the Wake caselist level all inequities by itself? Well, no, but it's a good thing. 3. I would never claim that the proprietary system is either "sole" or "primary". *This is a PMN to an advantage that I didn't claim.* Open source will not completely level the playing field - this is Disavowed Claim D in the original post. At the same time, I have personally known debaters from large programs who keep debating because they don't have to cut too many cards. They can get a fairly decent brief set from internal sharing, roll into a fair number of tournaments, and sustain participation. I have also spoken with debaters from smaller programs who quit because fo the frustrations inherent in shouldering such a large cardcutting workload just to imagine catching up. I graduated a debater last year with some interest in starting a policy team at some school in Connecticut. He decided that assembling all the cards himself in addition to pushing for admin startup would be too much of a pain in the ass. He's doing parli now. I feel confident that Open Source would create an evolving backfile system for new teams that would appreciably reduce entry barriers. Defensive questions about the precise scope of this reduction don't really matter in the absence of a DA. "The fundamental problem of elitism is that the drive to win overwhelms the drive to learn." 1. That may be - I don't see either the relevance or the disad to the perm. 2. Ross Smith said that "highly restrictive intellectual property rights are culturally powerful and enjoy presumption." I find no stronger proof of this proposition than the fact that I'm answering opposite sets of arguments. Everyone bags on the strong sauce proposal by saying that it would hurt competitive incentives to work, leaving only the pure joy of research. You're going in the opposite direction. Do you think the strong version would depress or inflame the competitive drive? 3. If you took away the gaming aspects, I don't think the activity would have the same draw. I don't think they're going to research that deep out of pure joy. The possibility of winning or losing is a powerful engine. That's a random side note, though. Perm perm perm. " In fact, I think it is one of the fundamental problems with ?project? oriented debate." I don't know exactly what you define as "project oriented" debate. I know that your past posts have expressed some hostility to critical debate...which I find slightly ironic in the context of your current approach. You're arguing that my formal and rule-based approach couldn't possibly work. It risks masking the root cause of most social ills within debate. Instead of discussing changes in some juridical structure, we should envision individual culture shifting. This line of argument sounds familiar, doesn't it :)? peace antonucci __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From antonucci23 Sun Dec 11 20:34:29 2005 From: antonucci23 (Michael Antonucci) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:34:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Mechanics: Response to Stefan Message-ID: <20051212023429.36861.qmail@web61019.mail.yahoo.com> I think I agree with every or almost every word that Stefan writes. I want to extend on a few points. That's the last I can say on this subject for a while because I have other stuff to do. Stefan says: "Absent relatively extreme rules or a radical culture change, IMMEDIATELY taking this to the next potential level seems very difficult. This could be a great idea (as at least most agree caselists are), but when push comes to shove, I honestly don't see contributions coming in." I think that 'next potential level' in this context means strong variation, right? The weak variation requires that you consent to a 'tax' as a precondition to participation in major tournament X. Basically, it doesn't require that any debater do anything other than stand there and shuffle her feet as the Scan Squad snakes all the cards she read. The contributions don't come in. Scouts go out and take them. It's a bit of a hassle to get your cards taxed, but, under the scheme I proposed, it's also a prestige marker. I'll address how to generate the necessary labor inputs below. "If someone (a committed individual or a large program seeking to share information) were to get behind this it may work, but it involves a large commitment of time -- resource requirements are relatively limited. Pooled resources of large programs could make a difference, however. Mosly, as Anton suggests in his last post, it may involve paying someone to do it." It seems to me that there are two major necessary inputs for a weak variant system. 1. Site and site maintenance. Every 'taxed' tournament generates a set of PDFs (or word files if y'all get your OCR goin' on.) Someone needs to put them on a web page in some comprehensible pattern. Who would do such an onerous task? I don't think you need to find a 'committed' ideologue to do this. You would need to find someone who wants free money. If I were to host such a site, I would agree to a certain number of postings a season. I put them up and pay for the space. I would expect some minor compensation for my efforts. More importantly, though, I would reserve the right to sell advertising space on the highest-traffic debate site ever. I'll go ahead and guess that the high schoolers would be pretty eager to immediately gank 40+ sets of up-to-the-minute college briefs? Anyone could attach links to pay projects and immediately devastate whatever brand name recognition advantages their competitors might enjoy. I'm not trying to be mercenary or threaten established projects; they can step up too, and the ultimate agent doesn't really affect me. I'm just saying...if everyone else thinks that organizing and slapping up some PDFs is a hassle, then I'd be happy to work for a cut-rate fee and advertising/linkage rights. If someone owns the hosting site under an exclusive contract, they'd also have some finanical incentive to provide more scanners in order to contribute to the whole project's success - buying scanners becomes a capital investment. That's more speculative, of course. The whole thing might flop; I'd want it to succeed for a year with a heavy stream of traffic before even considering giving away a scanner. 2. Scanning inputs. You need five or more scanners. Scanners aren't very expensive, though. If this were implemented at the highest attendance tournaments, I think it would be fairly easy to assemble the tech without paying for it. (You would also need key drives to control for people reading cards off laptops.) Someone has to do the scanning, though. That's the big pain-in-the-ass part of the whole thing. Who is going to sit through the round to flow each card, then collect them afterwards for scanning? The tournament would have to contribute at least one person toward this effort, to supervise it. I think most major tournaments can spare that. Can tournaments spare 5 people, though? I dunno. What else might produce such labor? Well, if the 'intellectual luxury tax' targets 1-5, 6-10 should have a powerful incentive to make the system work, if they 'get it.' If you have a round off, don't you *want* Goliath's cards? Also, everyone complains about these judges who get cut because of MPJ. Taxing those programs financially seems lame - but if people just don't want you to judge, you can still contribute to the pedagogical success of the tournament, right? Scan to cover the commitment. If you're covering eight rounds of judging, you could also be covering eight rounds of watching and scanning. I don't know if that's such a hot idea (might drafted scanners rebel, deserting or sabotaging their equipment?), but it at least seems plausible. "Passing more rules takes relatively less work and effort, but collective solutions expand the community's potential rather than limit it." Agreed. I think the system I'm proposing requires one basic push from rulemakers. Essentially, major tournaments need to agree to some version of it simultaneously in order to solve a 'collective action' dilemma. If the tournaments with the heaviest impact on the Copeland (Kentucky, Wake, Harvard, and Northwestern all spring to mind) all agreed to insert a condition into their invitation, community building efforts would do the rest. The condition - *By attending the [tournament of awesome] you agree to send a full text version of any and all 1ACs read to [tournament_of_awesome at gmail.com] You also agree to full scanning of any evidence read by designated [tournament of awesome] representatives.* "I hope more efforts are made to discuss solutions along this line before people decide to "burn the money."" Agreed. 'Burn the money' could mean one of two things. There's personnel/scouting restrictions, which would directly destroy available intellectual capital goods. They burn USE value, which is inexcusable in a situation of scarcity. I was thinking of the other sense, paraphrasing a favorite section of anti-Oedipus. The strong version wouldn't burn use value - it would simply disrupt exchange value so fundamentally as to destroy the current evidence economy. Analogously, peer-to-peer mesic exchange 'torches' the music economy, but it's different than going over to your house and breaking your ABBA records because I don't have as many. Then, of course, the suits die off and Pepperland will be free again. :) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From i_pastrana Sun Dec 11 23:04:17 2005 From: i_pastrana (Israel Pastrana) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 21:04:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] GSL? Message-ID: <20051212050417.24388.qmail@web34708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> i heard a rumor that the GSL tournament was going to have a policy division. can anyone confirm this for me? thanks, israel --------------------------------- Yahoo! Shopping Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051211/848efaba/attachment.html From korryharvey Mon Dec 12 00:02:57 2005 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:02:57 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] ans bryson, new links Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051211/7ddea61d/attachment.htm From korryharvey Mon Dec 12 00:42:48 2005 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:42:48 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] pentagon admits it keeps iraqi casualty records In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0512111126h2657cb0jbfe82e4e54d57874@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051211/6eff9b71/attachment.html From mr.chester.copperpot Mon Dec 12 02:23:44 2005 From: mr.chester.copperpot (Chester Copperpot) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 03:23:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ans bryson - was Re: new proof that pre-war iraqi terror claims were based quite literally on lies Message-ID: Hey Bryson - I'm glad to see that you couldn't handle copying and pasting those URLs into the address bar in your Internet Explorer. Must really screw you up when people send you links that your mail server/client misinterprets. I guess when you look at a CITE on a CARD that comes from a URL you must really be furious because those "links" don't work either! "Your links don't work so clearly your politically charged verbiage has no meaning." What a shitty argument. Regardless, props to Korry for supplying even more evidence that supports his "politically charged verbiage." Some of us actually understand how to use the Internet. Thanks Korry. Chester Copperpot Bryson wrote: Okay, the links on this message are the only ones that work on your recent tear of politically charged verbiage. Donald Bryson "God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." - Daniel Webster (Speech, June 3, 1834. Vol. iv. p. 47) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051212/8fea07a0/attachment.htm From let_the_american_empire_burn Mon Dec 12 04:13:21 2005 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 04:13:21 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] open source / creative commons / how long will you folks keep this stuff locked? Message-ID: gordon mitchell writes (in his book 'strategic deception', xvi-xvii) : Perhaps the most strange and idiosyncratic aspect of the contemporary intercollegiate debate community is that, by and large, it keeps to itself. Contrary to the populist tradition of debate as the quintessential genre of public discourse, contemporary intercollegiate debate is an insular and specialized academic activity. The research products generated by thousands of debaters nation-wide are generally put toward a singular end: winning tournament competitions. Sometimes this insularity appears absurd to those who stumble across a slice of the debate community for the first time. In the summer of 1990, Madison Laird (then captain of the Loyola University debate squad) was assigned the task of entertaining Earth Day organizer Bill Keepin during Keepin's visit to the Loyola campus in Los Angeles, California. After Keepin delivered a speech on nuclear power to the student body, Laird led him on a campus tour that ended up in the debate squad room, where yards and yards of argument briefs were stowed away in filing drawers. When Keepin asked to see the files containing research on nuclear power, Laird pulled open one file drawer stuffed to the gills with high-quality research. Keepin was stunned, asking incredulously "how long have you folks kept this stuff locked up?!" In a small way, this vignette illustrates the folly associated with the intercollegiate debate community's insular nature. Indeed, it would not be surprising to find countless other Bill Keepins out there who could make tremendous use of the research and knowledge generated out of intercollegiate policy debate competition. To reach them, debaters need only to realize that they can make vital contributions to public arguments swirling beyond the rarefied confines of debate tournament sites. __ in the spirit of the above, i'd ask those concerned to consider the following in response to stefan bauschard's reservations regarding 'open-sourcing' debate (which he elaborated in this post (among others): http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200512/0080.html) : at the n.d.t., many teams chose to post their first constructive speeches on an accessible website -- that's the internet disclosure which stefan has worked hard to achieve. yet some debaters chose not to do so, although they may've likely read the blocks of their opponents prior to the round. (i even recall stefan and others stopping just short of calling such free-riders 'cheaters'.) this begs the question, how does this community intend to enforce this norm? i'd suggest that the short-term answer is not top-down punishment from tourney directors, but debaters themselves taking ballots away from free-riders, fair and square. everyone knows there are dominant players who benefit immensely from the status quo: teams which can afford to hire extra staff, students who can afford to go to pricey institutes, companies which can afford to sue you if you share their evidence. despite the lipservice paid to the educational mission of debate, until this competitive incentive changes, nothing will magically 'level the playing field'. so how do participants alter competitive incentive? again, by winning ballots. blatantly non-topical cases, for example, are liabilities. if/when the 'open source / creative commons' position wins more ballots, it will more likely compel debaters to put their briefs online. quite simply, the 'solvency mechanism' - at least for the immediate future - is winning the position itself. with this in mind i offer the following first draft of a shell for your consideration. print it out, take some notes on it, prod at the points you find naive and weak, re-write the tags, add something to the on-going discussion (http://www.debatecooperative.net/forums/showthread.php?t=189, http://cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=39492). why waste your time?, you ask. well... who wants to get their asses handed to them by losing to something so 'silly'? .kevin.sanchez at gmail.com _ http://ossdebate.org/index.php?title=Creative_Commons _ CONTENTION ONE: DIGITAL PEER REVIEW ENHANCES THE QUALITY OF BRIEFS AND FILES, FOSTERING MORE EFFICIENT NETWORKS FOR ARGUMENT DEVELOPMENT. In the status quo, the typical debate position is only seen by the team running it, their coaching staff, and the judges and opponents who happen to hear it in-round - plus, any modification is usually done in secret. Harvard's OpenLaw project, on the other hand, offers specific, empirical proof that an online process can help debaters craft higher quality arguments and disseminate their work to concerned citizens elsewhere. Open source, in addition to making better software, takes a political stand against propetiary control over knowledge by openly inviting others to find and fix bugs as well as advancing public licenses which prevent subsequent cooption. This round is now a test of the value of this experiment. New Scientist. July 2002. (Graham Lawton, Features Editor. 'The Great Giveaway'. Available here : http://fossforum.tacticaltech.org/node/114.) _ What started as a technical debate over the best way to debug computer programs is developing into a political battle over the ownership of knowledge and how it is used, between those who put their faith in the free circulation of ideas and those who prefer to designate them "intellectual property". No one knows what the outcome will be. But in a world of growing opposition to corporate power, restrictive intellectual property rights and globalisation, open source is emerging as a possible alternative, a potentially potent means of fighting back. And you're helping to test its value right now. The open source movement originated in 1984 when computer scientist Richard Stallman quit his job at MIT and set up the Free Software Foundation. His aim was to create high-quality software that was freely available to everybody. Stallman's beef was with commercial companies that smother their software with patents and copyrights and keep the source code--the original program, written in a computer language such as C++--a closely guarded secret. Stallman saw this as damaging. It generated poor-quality, bug-ridden software. And worse, it choked off the free flow of ideas. Stallman fretted that if computer scientists could no longer learn from one another's code, the art of programming would stagnate (New Scientist, 12 December 1998, p 42). Stallman's move resonated round the computer science community and now there are thousands of similar projects. The star of the movement is Linux, an operating system created by Finnish student Linus Torvalds in the early 1990s and installed on around 18 million computers worldwide. What sets open source software apart from commercial software is the fact that it's free, in both the political and the economic sense. If you want to use a commercial product such as Windows XP or Mac OS X you have to pay a fee and agree to abide by a licence that stops you from modifying or sharing the software. But if you want to run Linux or another open source package, you can do so without paying a penny--although several companies will sell you the software bundled with support services. You can also modify the software in any way you choose, copy it and share it without restrictions. This freedom acts as an open invitation--some say challenge--to its users to make improvements. As a result, thousands of volunteers are constantly working on Linux, adding new features and wrinkling out bugs. Their contributions are reviewed by a panel and the best ones are added to Linux. For programmers, the kudos of a successful contribution is its own reward. The result is a stable, powerful system that adapts rapidly to technological change. Linux is so successful that even IBM installs it on the computers it sells. To maintain this benign state of affairs, open source software is covered by a special legal instrument called the General Public License. Instead of restricting how the software can be used, as a standard software license does, the GPL--often known as a "copyleft"--grants as much freedom as possible (see http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl.html). Software released under the GPL (or a similar copyleft licence) can be copied, modified and distributed by anyone, as long as they, too, release it under a copyleft. That restriction is crucial, because it prevents the material from being co-opted into later proprietary products. It also makes open source software different from programs that are merely distributed free of charge. In FSF's words, the GPL "makes it free and guarantees it remains free". Open source has proved a very successful way of writing software. But it has also come to embody a political stand--one that values freedom of expression, mistrusts corporate power, and is uncomfortable with private ownership of knowledge. It's "a broadly libertarian view of the proper relationship between individuals and institutions", according to open source guru Eric Raymond. But it's not just software companies that lock knowledge away and release it only to those prepared to pay. Every time you buy a CD, a book, a copy of New Scientist, even a can of Coca-Cola, you're forking out for access to someone else's intellectual property. Your money buys you the right to listen to, read or consume the contents, but not to rework them, or make copies and redistribute them. No surprise, then, that people within the open source movement have asked whether their methods would work on other products. As yet no one's sure--but plenty of people are trying it. {...} Another experiment that's proved its worth is the OpenLaw project at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. Berkman lawyers specialise in cyberlaw--hacking, copyright, encryption and so on--and the centre has strong ties with the EFF and the open source software community. In 1998 faculty member Lawrence Lessig, now at Stanford Law School, was asked by online publisher Eldritch Press to mount a legal challenge to US copyright law. Eldritch takes books whose copyright has expired and publishes them on the Web, but new legislation to extend copyright from 50 to 70 years after the author's death was cutting off its supply of new material. Lessig invited law students at Harvard and elsewhere to help craft legal arguments challenging the new law on an online forum, which evolved into OpenLaw. Normal law firms write arguments the way commercial software companies write code. Lawyers discuss a case behind closed doors, and although their final product is released in court, the discussions or "source code" that produced it remain secret. In contrast, OpenLaw crafts its arguments in public and releases them under a copyleft. "We deliberately used free software as a model," says Wendy Selzer, who took over OpenLaw when Lessig moved to Stanford. Around 50 legal scholars now work on Eldritch's case, and OpenLaw has taken other cases, too. "The gains are much the same as for software," Selzer says. "Hundreds of people scrutinise the 'code' for bugs, and make suggestions how to fix it. And people will take underdeveloped parts of the argument, work on them, then patch them in." Armed with arguments crafted in this way, OpenLaw has taken Eldritch's case--deemed unwinnable at the outset--right through the system and is now seeking a hearing in the Supreme Court. There are drawbacks, though. The arguments are in the public domain right from the start, so OpenLaw can't spring a surprise in court. For the same reason, it can't take on cases where confidentiality is important. But where there's a strong public interest element, open sourcing has big advantages. Citizens' rights groups, for example, have taken parts of OpenLaw's legal arguments and used them elsewhere. "People use them on letters to Congress, or put them on flyers," Selzer says. _ In contrast to a tightfisted approach, the Open Source developmental model promises rapid improvement. The OpenLaw project proves this model can work for debate - producing better briefs, sharing a mountain of information, and bolstering the depth and breadth of argument. As this position starts winning ballots, it'll snowball to widespread adoption until participants become intrinsically motivated to contribute solid work. Linus Torvalds. Creator of Linux. & David Diamond. Freelance contributor to the New York Times and Business Week. November/December 2001. ('Why Open Source Makes Sense'. Educause Review. p71-2.) _ In its purest form, the open source model allows anyone to participate in a project's development or commercial exploitation. Linux is obviously the most successful example. What started out in my messy Helsinki bedroom has grown to become the largest collaborative project in the history of the world. It began as an ideology shared by software developers who believed that computer source code should be shared freely, with the General Public License--the anticopyright--as the movement's powerful tool. It evolved to become a method for the continuous development of the best technology. And it evolved further to gain widespread market acceptance, as seen in the snowballing adoption of Linux as an operating system for Web servers, and in its unexpectedly generous IPOs. What was inspired by ideology has proved itself as technology and is working in the marketplace. Now open source is expanding beyond the technical and business domains . At Harvard University Law School, professors Larry Lessig (who is now at Stanford) and Charles Nelson have brought the open source model to law. They started the Open Law Project, which relies on volunteer lawyers and law students posting opinions and research to the project's Web site to help develop arguments and briefs challening the United States Copyright Extension Act. The theory is that the strongest arguments will be deyeloped when the largest number of legal minds are working on a project, and as a mountain of information is generated through postings and repostings. The site nicely sums up the tradeoff from the traditional approach: "What we lose in secrecy, we expect to regain in depth of sources and breadth of argument." (Put in another context: With a million eyes, all software bugs will vanish.) It's a wrinkle on how academic research has been conducted for years, but one that makes sense on a number of fronts. Think of how this approach could speed up the development of cures for disease, for example. Or how, with the best minds on the task, international diplomacy could be strengthened. As the world becomes smaller, as the pace of life and business intensifies, and as the technology and information become available, people realize the tightfisted approach is becoming incresingly outmoded. The theory behind open source is simple. In the case of an operating system, the source code--the programming instructions underlying the system--is free. Anyone can improve it, change it, and exploit it. But those improvements, changes, and exploitations have to be made freely available. Think Zen. The project belongs to no one and to everyone. When a proiect is opened up, there is rapid and continual improvement. With teams of contributors working in paraIlel the results can happen far more speedily and successfully than if the work were being conducted behind closed doors. That's what we experienced with Linux. Imagine: Instead of a tiny cloistered development team working in secret, you have a monster on your side. Potentially millions of the brightest minds are contributing to a project, and are supported by a peer-review process that has no, er, peer. The first time people hear about the open source approach, it sounds ludicrous. That's why it has taken years for the message of its virtues to sink in. Ideology isn't what has sold the open source model. It started gaining attention when it was obvious that open source was the best method of developing and improving the highest quality technology. And now it is winning in the marketplace, an accomplishment has brought open source its greatest acceptance. Companies were able to be created around numerous value-added services, or to use open source as a way of making a technology popular. When the money rolls in, people get convinced. One of the least understood pieces of the open source puzzle is how so many good programmers would deign to work for absolutely no money. A word about motivation is in order. In a society where survival is more or less assured, money is not the greatest of motivators. It's been well established that folks do their best work when they are driven by a passion. When they are having fun. This is as true for playwrights and sculptors and entrepreneurs as it is for software engineers. The open source model gives people the opportunity to live their passion. To have fun and to work with the world's best programmers, not the few who happen to be employed by their company. Open source developers strive to earn the esteem of their peers. That's got to be highly motivating. _ Academic citations conclusively demonstrate that publishing online increases readership - debate should join the numerous disciplines that've switched to open access. Eric von Hippel. Head of the Innovation and Entrepreneurship Group in the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 2005. (Democratizing Information. p88-9. Available online here: http://web.mit.edu/evhippel/www/books.htm.) _ In the case of academic publications, we see evidence that free revealing does increase reuse?a matter of great importance to academics. A citation is an indicator that information contained in an article has been reused: the article has been read by the citing author and found useful enough to draw to readers' attention. Recent empirical studies are finding that articles to which readers have open access?articles available for free download from an author?s website, for example?are cited significantly more often than are equivalent articles that are available only from libraries or from publishers? fee-based websites. Antelman (2004) finds an increase in citations ranging from 45 percent in philosophy to 91 percent in mathematics. She notes that "scholars in diverse disciplines are adopting open-access practices at a surprisingly high rate and are being rewarded for it, as reflected in [citations]." _ Debate scholars like legal scholars are prisoners of obsolete data structures. At your camp or squad, as in mine, there are coaches whose primary metric of success is the quantity of evidence cut per week. This leads to poorly-cut files filled with blippy cards, which a year later everyone has forgotten about. To remedy this, network publication creates a way to continuously revise and update your work. It also offers unprecendented opportunities for collaboration. This means fewer tubs full of redundant information and higher quality scholarship. Eben Moglen. Professor of Law & Legal History at Columbia Law School. 5 January 1995. ('The Virtual Scholar and Network Liberation'. http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/nospeech.html.) _ The organization of information determines what kinds of learning are practicable given limited time and resources. In addition, the prevailing systems of information organization give rise to the social customs that define what kinds of scholarly activity are appropriate and useful. Until the beginning of the digital revolution, "data structures" meant primarily the physical organization of written information. How data were preserved affected what could be learned. For the authors of the book we call Bracton, for example--working in the middle of the 13th century--information about the laws and customs of England was contained--in dilute sequential form--in the mass of the plea rolls, to which they had preferential access. Scholarship, in that context, meant epitomizing the plea rolls, to communicate to others in compressed form how their contents did and did not reflect the more familiar conceptual categories of the Romanized European law. To a significant extent, our legal scholarship has remained fixed within this model of converting sequentially-stored dilute information into useful epitomes conforming to the intellectual prepossessions of the era. Littleton, Coke, Blackstone and Story--as I labor to make my students understand in my seminar on the intellectual history of the treatise tradition--all attempted to articulate the loose bones of the English law into a skeleton recognizable given the fashions of the time. Though the forms changed significantly with the eras, each of these types of scholarship was aimed at overcoming the same fundamental constraint. In modern jargon, the material of the law is produced and stored sequentially; the primary goal of legal scholarship has been to access that material associatively, by linking temporally displaced segments in topical relations. The scholar, however awkward it may sound, has been a specialized device for the performance of a sort and merge operation, either using internal memory or sorting externally, using whatever equivalent his generation offered for the three-by-five card. If the information-theoretic significance of scholarship did not much change between the time of Bracton and our contemporaries, the primary problem in the intellectual organization of the law has been to get the scholar to the raw data to be sorted. In the beginning, as with those of us who must still make annual journeys to the English Public Record Office, the solution was to move the scholar around. Since the European adoption of movable-type printing at the end of the 15th century, however, the technical infrastructure of scholarship has largely depended on the hope that the distribution of books could replace the peregrinations of scholars. Scholarship became, as much as possible, the consultation of static volumes of printed information, or the rendering of unprinted information suitable for reprocessing by the printing press. The emphasis was still upon making associative links between previously compiled sources of more dilute information. Along with the process for consultation of sources, scholarship has consisted also of the process for consultation of other scholars. This meant either personal travel or the exchange of written correspondence until the development of technologies for voice transmission at the turn of the twentieth century. As we all know, however, the telephone has been more of a barrier to scholarship than an assistance, and only the development of the answering machine, I think, has prevented the telephone from extirpating scholarship altogether. So, let us now consider what has happened to the media of scholarly communication. In principle, the infrastructural problems that have beset scholarship for one thousand years can now be eliminated. Already digital media directly replacing older analog media are coming into existence. Email is replacing the point-to-point media such as snail mail and telephone calls. Broadcast media--including primitive list servers and the more sophisticated structure of Usenet news--are beginning to serve some of the purposes previously served by scholarly pilgrimage, including organizational meetings, collaborative inquiry, exchange of notes and queries, and the like. Unfortunately, the poor design and low quality of commercial software threatens the vitiation of these new media, a point to which I return below. In addition to new media of personal communication, the network has begun to resolve a few other problems of data organization. The linking of library catalogs has made traditional bibliographic research a trivial task. The fulltext retrieval services, though inadequate in many important respects, have at least rendered the basic sources of most legal scholarship accessible from anywhere in the world where a pair of copper wires is connected to a telephone switching office. Experiments with more extensive digitization of library collections, such as Columbia Law School's Project Janus, may within another generation make possible the global frictionless consultation of the entire existing body of our legal culture. Here the primary impediment is mindless adherence to the antiquated conception of "intellectual property," to whose well-deserved destruction I shall return in a few minutes. But these new media are not just inadequately implemented in the existing technological and legal context. While they substantially reduce the friction in scholarly communication, avoiding the need to move people to data, they are not designed to solve the other primary problem that has beset the scholarship of the past. Even given email, netnews, automated catalogs and the virtual library--and assuming away the ridiculous limitations on use posed by rules protecting the non-productive middlemen called publishers--the scholar is still engaged in using carbon-based intelligence to make static links among existing sources, thus predetermining the obsolescence of her enterprise in the face of future developments. We are still the prisoners of outmoded data structures, and it is time to reconsider the essence of what we do. As Albert Einstein said, our experience in the 20th century is that everything has changed except the nature of men's minds. Fortunately, what we do has become so altogether foolish that it should not be difficult to change. {...} But can the network provide an appropriate alternative for the resuscitation of legal scholarship? The answer is most certainly yes. The first step is the elimination of publication as presently understood. Placing on the network a version of my work in a portable page-description language (such as PostScript) allows anyone caring to read my scholarship, whether online or in a permanent form, to receive it with no loss in production values over the present system of physical reproduction. The digital broadcast media like netnews and the listservs, or their more usable successors, will then replace the existing finding aids. But we will do more by network publication than saving the costs of law review publication and reversing the noxious effect of the middlemen on the culture of scholarship. Network publication will for the first time directly confront the static quality of all prior scholarly data structures. Placing my work in the net means that I can continuously revise and expand it. In addition, our cumbersome citation mechanisms can be replaced by direct active links to other materials on the net, so that the footnote--which is surely the bane of legal scholarship--can be replaced by proliferated cross-linkages of the kind primitively modeled in the current world by the citation links of the commercial fulltext systems, and slightly more sophisticatedly by the existing webform hypertext formats, such as the World Wide Web. Such links can be created by machine control as well as human intervention, so that case citations, legislative updates, and other purely mechanical incorporations can occur without my having to do more than make occasional editorial foray to prune back the accretion of new links. The webform systems also model for us, in a fairly simple way, the unprecedented opportunities for collaborative work that the network has created. Within the next generation we shall see the successors of the webform hypertext systems facilitating collaborative projects in the humanities on a scale previously only dreamed of. The conception of the History Workshop or the Sixieme Section will be revitalized, for example, along with kindred conceptions in many disciplines. For the common lawyers, too, limitations in place for centuries will suddenly give way. The low quality of the common law's encyclopedic sources {such as debate handbooks!!!}, largely the consolidated output of headnote writers working like Grub Street hacks for the booksellers, should be replaced by a far richer literature, achieving the breadth of scale of the Romanist tradition without its limited conceptual categories. Primary sources, commentary, counter-commentary and scholarly debate should all be joined in a single dynamic web, collaboratively edited. Our contributions to this web will be much less bulky than our existing screeds, reflecting the higher priority given to the making of links over the self-assertive announcement of one's own brilliant conceptualizations. But the result will be finally to concentrate the activity of scholars where the need has always been: on the human mind's unparalleled capacity to connect apparently disparate materials. This is what carbon-based intelligence is for; the rest, may I say, is silicon. _ Debate continues to operate on an industrial model of closed workshops with separate assembly lines. Internet technology has paved the way for a new broadly applicable informational model of peer-to-peer networks dedicated to shared resources and reciprocal collaboraton. This serves as a revolutionary alternative - an ant colony of creative debaters working better together. Wired. November 2003. (Thomas Goetz, Editor. 'Open Source Everywhere'. Available here: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...source_pr.html.) _ Cholera is one of those 19th-century ills that, like consumption or gout, at first seems almost quaint, a malady from an age when people suffered from maladies. But in the developing world, the disease is still widespread and can be gruesomely lethal. When cholera strikes an unprepared community, people get violently sick immediately. On day two, severe dehydration sets in. By day seven, half of a village might be dead. Since cholera kills by driving fluids from the body, the treatment is to pump liquid back in, as fast as possible. The one proven technology, an intravenous saline drip, has a few drawbacks. An easy-to-use, computer-regulated IV can cost $2,000 - far too expensive to deploy against a large outbreak. Other systems cost as little as 35 cents, but they're too complicated for unskilled caregivers. The result: People die unnecessarily. "It's a health problem, but it's also a design problem," says Timothy Prestero, a onetime Peace Corps volunteer who cofounded a group called Design That Matters. Leading a team of MIT engineering students, Prestero, who has master's degrees in mechanical and oceanographic engineering, focused on the drip chamber and pinch valve controlling the saline flow rate. But the team needed more medical expertise. So Prestero turned to ThinkCycle, a Web-based industrial-design project that brings together engineers, designers, academics, and professionals from a variety of disciplines. Soon, some physicians and engineers were pitching in - vetting designs and recommending new paths. Within a few months, Prestero's team had turned the suggestions into an ingenious solution. Taking inspiration from a tool called a rotameter used in chemical engineering, the group crafted a new IV system that's intuitive to use, even for untrained workers. Remarkably, it costs about $1.25 to manufacture, making it ideal for mass deployment. Prestero is now in talks with a medical devices company; the new IV could be in the field a year from now. ThinkCycle's collaborative approach is modeled on a method that for more than a decade has been closely associated with software development: open source. It's called that because the collaboration is open to all and the source code is freely shared. Open source harnesses the distributive powers of the Internet, parcels the work out to thousands, and uses their piecework to build a better whole - putting informal networks of volunteer coders in direct competition with big corporations. It works like an ant colony, where the collective intelligence of the network supersedes any single contributor. Open source, of course, is the magic behind Linux, the operating system that is transforming the software industry. Linux commands a growing share of the server market worldwide and even has Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer warning of its "competitive challenge for us and for our entire industry." And open source software transcends Linux. Altogether, more than 65,000 collaborative software projects click along at Sourceforge.net, a clearinghouse for the open source community. The success of Linux alone has stunned the business world. But software is just the beginning. Open source has spread to other disciplines, from the hard sciences to the liberal arts. Biologists have embraced open source methods in genomics and informatics, building massive databases to genetically sequence E. coli, yeast, and other workhorses of lab research. NASA has adopted open source principles as part of its Mars mission, calling on volunteer "clickworkers" to identify millions of craters and help draw a map of the Red Planet. There is open source publishing: With Bruce Perens, who helped define open source software in the '90s, Prentice Hall is publishing a series of computer books open to any use, modification, or redistribution, with readers' improvements considered for succeeding editions. There are library efforts like Project Gutenberg, which has already digitized more than 6,000 books, with hundreds of volunteers typing in, page by page, classics from Shakespeare to Stendhal; at the same time, a related project, Distributed Proofreading, deploys legions of copy editors to make sure the Gutenberg texts are correct. There are open source projects in law and religion. There's even an open source cookbook. In 2003, the method is proving to be as broadly effective - and, yes, as revolutionary - a means of production as the assembly line was a century ago. ... If the ideas behind it are so familiar and simple, why has open source only now become such a powerful force? Two reasons: the rise of the Internet and the excesses of intellectual property. The Internet is open source's great enabler, the communications tool that makes massive decentralized projects possible. Intellectual property, on the other hand, is open source's nemesis: a legal regime that has become so stifling and restrictive that thousands of free-thinking programmers, scientists, designers, engineers, and scholars are desperate to find new ways to create. We are at a convergent moment, when a philosophy, a strategy, and a technology have aligned to unleash great innovation. Open source is powerful because it's an alternative to the status quo, another way to produce things or solve problems. And in many cases, it's a better way. Better because current methods are not fast enough, not ambitious enough, or don't take advantage of our collective creative potential. Open source has flourished in software because programming, for all the romance of guerrilla geeks and hacker ethics, is a fairly precise discipline; you're only as good as your code. It's relatively easy to run an open source software project as a meritocracy, a level playing field that encourages participation. But those virtues aren't exclusive to software. Coders, it could be argued, got to open source first only because they were closest to the tool that made it a feasible means of production: the Internet. The Internet excels at facilitating the exchange of large chunks of information, fast. From distributed computation projects such as SETI at home to file-swapping systems like Grokster and Kazaa, many efforts have exploited the Internet's knack for networking. Open source does those one better: It's not only peer-to-peer sharing - it's P2P production. With open source, you've got the first real industrial model that stems from the technology itself, rather than simply incorporating it. "There's a reason we love barn raising scenes in movies. They make us feel great. We think, 'Wow! That would be amazing!'" says Yochai Benkler, a law professor at Yale studying the economic impact of open source. "But it doesn't have to be just a romanticized notion of how to live. Now technology allows it. Technology can unleash tremendous human creativity and tremendous productivity. This is basically barn raising through a decentralized communication network." ... "Open source can build around the blockages of the industrial producers of the 20th century," says Yale's Benkler. "It can provide a potential source of knowledge materials from which we can build the culture and economy of the 21st century." If that sounds melodramatic, consider how far things have come in the past decade. Torvalds' hobbyists have become an army. Britannica's woes are Wikipedia's gains. In genetics and biotech, open source promises a sure path to breakthroughs. These early efforts are mere trial runs for what open source might do out in the world at large. The real test, the real potential, lies not in the margins. It lies in making something new, in finding a better way. Open source isn't just about better software. It's about better everything. _ The Internet Engineering Task Force (ITEF) proves that open documentation standards are a catalyst for significant progress while restricting access only adds to flaws and fragmentation. Voluntarily-enforced standards help to keep everyone on the same page. Scott Bradner. Data Network Designer at Harvard University. 1999. ('The Internet Engineering Task Force'. Opensources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution. Pages 47, 51-2.) _ For something that does not exist, the Internet Engineering Task Force (lETF) has had quite an impact. Apart from TCP/lP itself, all of the basic technology of the Internet was developed or has been refined in the IETF. IETF working groups created the routing, management, and transport standards without which the Internet would not exist. IETF working groups have defined the security standards that will help secure the Internet, the quality of service standards that will make the Internet a more predictable environment, and the standard for the next generation of the Internet protocol itself. These standards have been phenomenally successful. The Internet is growing faster than any single technology in history, far faster than the railroad, electric light, telephone, or television, and it is only getting started. All of this has been accomplished with voluntary standards. No government requires the use of IETF standards. Competing standards, some mandated by governments around the world, have come and gone and the IETF standards flourish. But not all IETF standards succeed. It is only the standards that meet specific real-world requirements and do well that become true standards in fact as well as in name. The IETF and its standards have succeeded for the same sorts of reasons that the Open Source community is taking off. IETF standards are developed in an open, all-inclusive process in which any interested individual can participate. All IETF documents are freely available over the Internet and can be reproduced at will. In fact the IETF's open document process is a case study in the potential of the Open Source movement. {...} Open Standards, Open Documents, and Open Source It is quite clear that one of the major reasons that the IETF standards have been as successful as they have been is the IETF's open documentation and standards development policies. The IETF is one of the very few major standards organizations that make all of their documents openly available, as well as all of its mailing lists and meetings. In many of the traditional standards organizations, and even in some of the newer Internet-related groups, access to documents and meetings is restricted to members or only available by paying a fee. Sometimes this is because the organizations raise some of the funds to support themselves through the sale of their standards. In other cases it is because the organization has fee-based memberships, and one of the reasons for becoming a member is to be able participate in the standards development process and to get access to the standards as they are being developed. Restricting participation in the standards development process often results in standards that do not do as good a job of meeting the needs of the user or vendor communities as they might or are more complex than the operator community can reasonably support. Restricting access to work-in-progress documents makes it harder for implementors to understand what the genesis and rational is for specific features in the standard, and this can lead to flawed implementations. Restricting access to the final standards inhibits the ability for students or developers from small startups to understand, and thus make use of, the standards. The IETF supported the concept of open sources long before the Open Source movement was formed. Up until recently, it was the normal case that "reference implementations" of IETF technologies were done as part of the multiple implementations requirement for advancement on the standards track. This has never been a formal part of the IETF process, but it was generally a very useful by-product. Unfortunately this has slowed down somewhat in this age of more complex standards and higher economic implications for standards. The practice has never stopped, but it would be very good if the Open Source movement were to reinvigorate this unofficial part of the IETF standards process. It may not be immediately apparent, but the availability of open standards processes and documentation is vital to the Open Source movement. Without a clear agreement on what is being worked on, normally articulated in standards documents, it is quite easy for distributed development projects, such as the Open Sources movement, to become fragmented and to flounder. There is an intrinsic partnership between open standards processes, open documentation, and open sources. This partnership produced the Internet and will produce additional wonders in the future. _ CONTENTION TWO: FAIRER RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION MITIGATES INEQUALITY, BUILDING AN EDUCATIONAL COMMONS FOR DEMOCRATIC EMPOWERMENT. In debate today, only insiders can afford expensive evidenciary resources - such as Lexis codes, institute files, and card-cutting assisant coaches. Open Source projects, on the contrary, initiate a communal development style based on providing access to everyone. Eric von Hippel. Head of the Innovation and Entrepreneurship Group in the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. & Georg von Krogh. Director of the Institute of Management at the University of St. Gallen. March-April 2003. ('Open Source Software and the "Private-Collective" Innovation Model'. Organization Science. Volume 14; Number 2. Pages 210-1. Also available here: http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/hippelkrogh.pdf.) _ Software can be termed open source independent of how or by whom it has been developed: The term denotes only the type of license under which it is made available. However, the fact that open source software is freely accessible to all has created some typical open source software development practices that differ greatly from commercial software development models?and that look very much like the ?hacker culture? behaviors described earlier. Because commercial software vendors typically wish to sell the code they develop, they sharply restrict access to the source code of their software products to firm employees and contractors. The consequence of this restriction is that only insiders have the information required to modify and improve that proprietary code further (see Meyer and Lopez 1995, also Young et al. 1996, Conner and Prahalad 1996). In sharp contrast, all are offered free access to the source code of open source software. This means that anyone with the proper programming skills and motivations can use and modify any open source software written by anyone. In early hacker days, this freedom to learn and use and modify software was exercised by informal sharing and codevelopment of code?often by the physical sharing and exchange of computer tapes and disks upon which the code was recorded. In current Internet days, rapid technological advances in computer hardware and software and networking technologies have made it much easier to create and sustain a communal development style at ever-larger scales. Also, implementing new projects is becoming progressively easier as effective project design becomes better understood, and as prepackaged infrastructural support for such projects becomes available on the Web. _ No traditional case can prevent the proprietary control of ideas from widening the digital divide and excluding thousands of idea-rich students from policy debate. Now imagine if open-sourcing debate catches on - the backfiles of big budget schools and handbook companies will be open to the world at no cost, thereby empowering currently marginalized folks to achieve greater possibilities for intellectual growth. Ganesh Prasad. Software Design Specialist. 29 May 2001. ('Open Source-onomics: Examining some pseudo-economic arguments about Open Source'. FreeOS.com: The Resource Center for Free Operating Systems. Available here: http://www.freeos.com/articles/4087.) _ To play in a market, you need to have money. That automatically excludes all the people who can't pay. It's a shame that in a world of over 6 billion people, about half are just bystanders watching the global marketplace in action. There are brains ticking away in that half-world of market outcasts that could contribute to making the world better in a myriad little ways that we fortunate few don't bother to think about. There are problems to be solved, living standards to be raised, yes, value to be created, and the "market" isn't doing it fast enough. God, Government, Market and Community There are millions who have been waiting for generations for their lot to improve. Religion has promised them a better afterlife, but no God has seen fit to improve their present one. In a world where socialism has been humiliatingly defeated, governments seem ashamed to spend money on development. Everyone now seems to believe that governments must be self-effacingly small. The market is now the politically correct way to solve all problems. But the market, as we have seen, doesn't recognize the existence of those who have nothing to offer as suppliers and nothing to pay as consumers. They are invisible people. Therefore it falls to the miserable to improve their lot themselves. Given the tools, they can raise themselves out of their situation. They will then enter the market, which will wholeheartedly welcome them (though it hadn't the foresight to help them enter it in the first place). Where will such tools come from? In a world where intellectual property has such vociferous defenders that people must be forced to pay for software, information technology widens the gap between the haves and the have-nots, a phenomenon known as the digital divide. If producers of software deserve to be paid, then that means hundreds of thousands of people will never have access to that software. That's a fair market, but a lousy community. Open Source is doing what God, government and market have failed to do. It is putting powerful technology within the reach of cash-poor but idea-rich people. Analysts could quibble about whether that is creating or merely releasing value, but we could do with a bit of either. And yes, that is revolutionary. Conclusion Is it possible to make money off Open Source? In the light of all that we have discussed, this now seems a rather petty and inconsequential question to ask. There is great wealth that will be created through Open Source in the coming months and years, and very little of that will have anything to do with money. A lot of it will have to do with people being empowered to help themselves and raise their living standards. No saint, statesman or scholar has ever done this for them, and certainly no merchant. If this increase in the overall size of the economic pie results in proportionately more wealth for all, then that's the grand answer to our petty question. Economics is all about human achievement. It wasn't aliens from outer space who raised us from our caves to where we are today. It was the way we organized ourselves to create our wealth, rather like the donkey with a carrot dangling before it that pulls a cart a great distance. Open Source gives means to human aspiration. It breaks the artificial mercantilist limits of yesterday's software market and unleashes potentially limitless growth. _ Treating information as a proprietary finite resource holds back efforts to increase minority participation in debate; it reinforces inequalities between well-off and not-so-well-off skools by creating dependency on costly knowledge-manufacturers. Building an Open Source debate community, on the other hand, amplifies the voices of everyone. Danny Yee. Board member of Electronic Frontiers Australia. December 1999. ('Development, Ethical Trading and Free Software'. First Monday. Volume 4; Number 12. http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue4_12/yee/.) "This is the context for intellectual property rights enforcement. This world market in knowledge is a major and profoundly anti-democratic new stage of capitalist development. The transformation of knowledge into property necessarily implies secrecy: common knowledge is no longer private. In this new and chilling stage, communication itself violates property rights. The WTO is transforming what was previously a universal resource of the human race - its collectively, historically and freely-developed knowledge of itself and nature - into a private and marketable force of production." - Allan Freeman, Fixing up the world? GATT and the World Trade Organisation A good deal of the world's primary resources are located in the poorer countries of the world's "South", even if their exploitation is often in the hands of external corporations. Systems for controlling the distribution of information, on the other hand, are (like possession of capital) overwhelmingly centralised in the rich "North". This should be of great concern to organisations {like debate!} such as Oxfam International members which take a long-term perspective in their attempts to reduce the inequitable distribution of resources. {...} Proprietary software increases the dependence of individuals, organisations, and communities on external forces - typically large corporations with poor track records on acting in the public interest. There are dependencies for support, installation and problem fixing, sometimes in critical systems. There are dependencies for upgrades and compatibility. There are dependencies when modification or extended functionality is required. And there are ongoing financial dependencies if licensing is recurrent. Political dependencies can result from the use of proprietary software, too. For example, an Irish ISP under attack for hosting the top level East Timor domain .tp was helped by hackers and community activists in setting up a secure Linux installation. Given that this attack was probably carried out with the connivance of elements of the Indonesian government, it is hard to imagine a commercial vendor with a significant market presence in Indonesia being so forthcoming with support. Nearly exact parallels to this exist in agriculture, where the patenting of seed varieties and genome sequences and the creation of non-seeding varieties are used to impose long-term dependencies on farmers. An Analogy: Baby-milk Powder : The effects of baby-milk powder on poor infants (which has sparked a Nestle campaign/boycott) provide an analogy to the effects of proprietary software. Sending information in Microsoft Word format to correspondents in Eritrea is analogous to Nestle advertising baby milk powder to Indian mothers. It encourages the recipients to go down a path which is not in their best interests, and from which it is not easy for them to recover. The apparent benefits (the doctor recommended it; we will be able to read the documents sent to us) may be considerable and the initial costs involved (to stop breast-feeding and switch to milk powder; to start using Microsoft Office) may be subsidised, hidden, or zero (with "piracy"), but the long-term effects are to make the recipients dependent on expensive recurrent inputs, and to burden them with ultimately very high costs. Moreover, because documents can be easily copied and because there are strong pressures to conform to group/majority standards in document formats, pushing individuals towards proprietary software and document formats can snowball to affect entire communities, not just the individuals initially involved. Proprietary software not only creates new dependencies: it actively hinders self-help, mutual aid, and community development. Users cannot freely share software with others in the community, or with other communities. The possibilities for building local support and maintainance systems are limited. Modification of software to fit local needs is not possible, leaving communities with software designed to meet the needs of wealthy Northern users and companies, which may not be appropriate for them. An Example: Language Support : Language support provides a good example of the advantages of free software in allowing people to adapt products to their own ends and take control of their lives. Operating systems and word processing software support only a limited range of languages. Iceland, in order to help preserve its language, wants Icelandic support added to Microsoft Windows - and is even willing to pay for it. But without access to the source code - and the right to modify it - they are totally dependent on Microsoft's cooperation. See, for example, an article in the Seattle Times and an article by Martin Vermeer which argues that lack of software localisation is a threat to cultural diversity. Whatever the outcome of this particular case, it must be noted that Iceland is hardly a poor or uninfluential nation. There is absolutely no hope of Windows being modified to support Aymara or Lardil or other indigenous languages. The spread of such proprietary software will continue to contribute to their marginalisation. In contrast, the source code to the GNU/Linux operating system is available and can be freely modified, so groups are able to add support for their languages. See, as an example, the KDE Internationalization Page - KDE is a desktop for GNU/Linux. Access to source code also allows experiments like the the Omega Typesetting System, a modification of the TeX typesetting system "designed for printing all of the world's languages, modern or ancient, common or rare". This sort of extension or modification is simply not possible with proprietary word-processing packages. Sustainable development should favour unlimited resources over finite ones. But while software appears to be a renewable resource, its control by profit-making corporations, as intellectual property, effectively turns it into a finite resource. {...} Free software both encourages learning and experimentation and in turn benefits from it. Free software is widespread in educational institutions, since access to the source code makes free software an ideal tool for teaching; indeed much free software began as learning exercises. Due to low start-up costs and rapid change, software development and the information economy more generally offer a possible way for the South to build high value industries, leapfrogging older technologies and even modes of production. The flourishing Indian software industry provides an obvious example. But if these industries are built on proprietary products and protocols owned by multinational corporations, then this will only reinforce one-sided dependencies. Free software has obvious advantages here. Free software lends itself to collaborative, community-based development at all scales from cottage industry to world-wide efforts involving the collaboration of thousands of people. Internet access potentially offers the poor the ability to communicate directly with the rest of the world, to directly present their own ideas and perspectives. Combined with the free software development model, it allows them to participate in creating and moulding the technologies and systems that will determine their future. _ Creating an innovative commons serves the core pedagogical mission of debate. Online textbooks prove that scholars from across the globe can collaborate to review and update informational resources, free-of-charge. This empowers educators and provides fresh learning opportunities for students. Since the more skools participate, the better, use your ballot to encourage active contribution. Gary Hepburn. Assistant Professor at Acadia University's School of Education. August 2004. ('Seeking an educational commons: The promise of open source development models'. First Monday. http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_8/hepburn/.) _ Most of us have at least a passing familiarity with the concept of a commons. According David Bollier (2003), the term refers to "a wide array of creations of nature and society that we inherit freely, share and hold in trust for future generations." Well?known examples of commons that exist or have existed include grazing land, the Internet, fresh water supplies, and roadways. Lawrence Lessig (2001) pushes the concept of a commons further in his book, The Future of Ideas, as he describes the role of an innovative commons in society: "They create the opportunity for individuals to draw upon resources without connections, permission, or access granted by others. They are environments that commit themselves to being open. Individuals and corporations draw upon the value created by this openness. They transform that value into other value, which they then consume privately."[1] The fact that society has always used the value of that which we hold in common to build greater value allows us to see an important reason why maintaining common resources is good for all. Even private enterprises benefit from that fact that we hold some resources in common. To appreciate this point, all we need to do is consider the value of roadways to individual and commercial activities. Recognizing the importance of common resources is not anti?private or anti?commercial. Providing some common resources and seeking a reasonable balance between that which is privately owned and that which is held in common benefits society. Public institutions, such as schools, can be thought of as a type of cultural commons (Bollier, 2001, 2002; Reid, 2003). Societies around the world recognize the importance of providing education for all and have made substantial investments to do so. Thought of as a commons, schools ideally ought to be able to provide the resources needed to support optimal learning experiences for students. Our societal investment in education is an attempt to enable this, but we often encounter limitations as providing education is complicated and costly. In reality, schools have trouble living up to the ideal of an educational commons. Clearly, schools do not meet some of the criteria Lessig described above for an innovative commons to exist. There are many cases in which schools are not able "to draw upon resources without connections, permission, or access granted by others" [2]. Assuming we want to establish an educational commons that supports innovation, we need to reconsider some of the conditions under which education is conducted. Exploring the concept of an educational commons can bring about a fresh perspective, revealing current blind spots as well as future strategies that may lead us closer to an educational commons. Recent technological developments and, in particular, the Internet have provided some ways in which we can draw upon common resources to aid us in our educational activities. Before I explore these developments further, I will briefly discuss the principle threat to our ability to realize an educational commons. {...} There are many other types of open source projects emerging in addition to those aimed at software development (Stalder and Hirsh, 2002) that can benefit schools. Internet?based collaborative technologies are being used to develop online, text?based materials that are intended for educational purposes. Such projects allow subject experts from around the world to work together to produce materials that are freely available to download, modify, print and distribute. Like software projects, these content development projects are noted for their rigorous review process and ability to be quickly updated as the need arises. Many examples of text?based, content development projects are emerging. There are initiatives underway to develop online textbooks that can be used in subject areas commonly taught in schools. Wikibooks is a project "dedicated to developing and disseminating free, open content textbooks and other classroom texts." It currently hosts over 50 textbooks in varying stages of development. A similar project that is at earlier stages of development is the Open Textbook Project. It has the goal of developing "openly copyrighted (copylefted) textbooks using the free software development model." In addition to textbooks, an encyclopedia development project has proven very successful. Wikipedia has recently surpassed the Internet traffic received by the online version of Encyclopaedia Britannica. Schools, in particular, can benefit from these projects as they get the chance to obtain high quality text?based resources, free of cost or usage restrictions. Unlike open source software projects that may prove technically challenging to educators who wish to participate in development, textbook and encyclopedia projects are closely aligned with the expertise of educators. Once educators become aware of these projects as users and contributors, a resource of immense value will be available to schools to be used as they see fit. Open source models can become a revolutionary source of innovation and opportunity for schools. Returning to the notion of schools as a commons, open source development has the potential to place resources in the hands of educators and students that can be used in ways that best support educational processes. One of the main advantages of using the products of open source development is that schools are able to avoid market enclosure. Commercial products are no longer an obligatory passage point (Callon, 1986; Latour, 1987) in obtaining many resources that are required in education. By eliminating the expense and constraints that accompany commercial products, educators and students gain greater control over the ways in which education is conducted. Open source products can be used by anyone, at anytime, in most any way they choose. The money that is no longer required for commercial products that have been replaced by open source products can be used to support other areas of need within the school. Interestingly, an important advantage of schools using open source resources appears to be a reversal of one of the problems that has confronted traditional commons. One of the fundamental problems with most commons is overuse of the resources. Indeed, this concern is the basis of Hardin?s (1968) well?known essay, "The Tragedy of the Commons." As more consumers of the resources provided by a particular commons take advantage of it, the resource can become depleted. In order to preserve the resource in a traditional commons, some sort of management strategy needs to be put in place. In contrast to traditional commons, open source projects can actually benefit from increased numbers of users. Software and Web sites are not depleted by those who copy or view the resources. Indeed, users can become co?developers as they provide feedback, suggestions, and improvements (Raymond, 1998). As Raymond (2000) points out, "widespread use of open-source software tends to increase its value ... In this inverse commons, the grass grows taller when it?s grazed upon." As schools begin to use open source products they will move closer to the ideal of a commons, while solving many problems that have confronted them in the past. As more schools move in this direction, the value and quality of the resources are likely to increase rather than be depleted. There are, however, several challenges that must be considered in order to begin taking advantage of open source products in a productive way. Beginning to use open source products requires educators to revisit some of their basic assumptions about the types of resources we use in schools and from where those resources should come. I am assuming that few educators would object to the concept of an educational commons, but many may have some anxiety about giving up many of the commercial products with which they have become comfortable. Commercial products are often useful and of high quality, but using them in cases where open source alternatives exist tends to lead to many of the problems I have been discussing in this article. Knowing this, educators need to become familiar with open source resources and explore their appropriateness for teaching and learning. If the resources are found to be appropriate, they should be used in place of commercial resources. In the case of software, for example, I would challenge educators to explain why OpenOffice could not replace the commercial office suites that are currently used on most school computers. Unless there is an excellent reason, the open source software should be used due to its overall suitability, low cost, and better alignment with educational values. The sort of mindset that would move education toward greater use of open source resources is not currently in place. Most educators are not outraged by the corporate intrusion in the educational commons. We have a long history of such intrusions, although they seem to have intensified in recent times. Educators have become resigned to the necessity of some corporate involvement in education. From this perspective, it may appear more extreme to consider making use of open source resources than to continue using commercial ones. The ideal of an educational commons may serve to highlight that which is being lost as we hand more control over the educational enterprise to corporate interests. Becoming involved with open source resources offers more than just a way to cut costs: it contributes to returning the control of education back to the educators. The new mindset that will take education in the direction of leveraging open source development to support a commons is one that will come about partly as a result of educating educators and partly as an educational policy direction. A second challenge faced in implementing open source resources is in educators taking on roles in open source development processes. To have high quality resources that meet the educational needs, it is important that educators be willing to participate in the development of various products. It is not uncommon that educators give feedback to producers of commercial products, particularly when opinions are solicited, but they must be more proactive about participating in open source projects. These projects do not typically have resources to solicit extensive feedback and contributions. Educators must understand the nature of open source development and seek ways to become involved. The development of software and other types of educational resources requires a wide variety of contributions and competencies. Becoming an active contributor to projects will ensure that a broad array of resources is produced that is educationally appropriate. The ultimate beneficiaries of such involvement will be students and schools. The vision of an educational commons characterized by easily available resources that are flexible, affordable, and high quality is an appealing one. Further, reducing corporate intrusion into education at the resource level is desirable. By providing the medium that enables collaborative, open source projects to thrive, the Internet is emerging as a key technological innovation that will allow schools to overcome some significant challenges. Already, resources are available that can be used in schools immediately. Others are under active development and will soon be ready for mainstream use. Perhaps most exciting are those that have not been developed yet. As educators learn about open source development models and re?consider some long held assumptions about how educational resources are produced, they can leverage open source processes to take control of meeting educational needs. In addition to producing substitutes for commercial resources, educators are likely to begin producing resources that are new and innovative. Education can quickly move toward the ideal of a commons and, perhaps more importantly, embrace the ideal of fostering a true innovative commons. _ An information commons fosters democratic empowerment for 6 reasons : it produces better policies, draws on localized decision-making, values diversity, democratizes resources, creates social trust, and re-invigorates markets. David Bollier. Cofounder of Public Knowledge. Spring 2004. ('Why We Must Talk about the Information Commons'. Law Library Journal. p275: 36-42. www.aallnet.org/products/2004-17.pdf.) _ As a concept, the commons has much to commend to any democratic assessment of our nation?s media and information infrastructure because it emphasizes values that market discourse largely ignores. Just as economic analyses tend to focus on efficiency, productivity, and profitability (among other economic and market indices), students of the commons tend to focus on a range of social, civic, and humanistic concerns. These include: Openness and feedback. As scholars of common-pool resources have shown, people living under a successful commons regime tend to know what is going on. When there is open feedback and a sharing of ideas, the community is more likely to discover flaws, debate different options, and choose the best policies. Such transparency lies at the root of science, the democratic process (hence the First Amendment), and free software and open source software development. Shared decisionmaking. A commons is flexible yet hardy precisely because it draws intelligence from everyone in a bottom-up flow. This means that rules are smarter because they reflect knowledge about highly specific, local realities. By contrast, centralized power tends to have less democratic accountability and to be less responsive to conditions that are local and particular. Diversity within the commons. Diversity combined with openness can yield phenomenal creativity and innovation. This is the story of the United States (E pluribus unum), the Internet, the free software movement, and the evolution of species. The greater the diversity in a democratic polity, cyberspace, a programming community, or a gene pool, the more likely it is that better, more adaptive innovations will materialize and prevail. Society equity within the commons. While a commons need not be a system of strict egalitarianism, it is predisposed to honor a rough social equity and legal equality among its members. A key goal of commons management is to democratize social benefits that can otherwise be obtained only through private purchase. The free market, of course, has little interest in social equity. Sociability in the commons. In gift economies, such as an online community or a professional discipline, transactions take on a more personal, social dimension. This can be tremendously powerful in creating certain kinds of wealth (e.g., the Linux operating system, genealogical databases) while fostering social connections among people. Having sketched the contrasting field of vision that a commons analysis provides, it bears emphasizing that the commons is not necessarily hostile to the market. We need both. The point is that there must be an appropriate equilibrium between the two. They must be separated by a semi-permeable barrier that allows both to retain their essential integrity while invigorating each other. _ In debate, there's little space for citizen deliberation, and extremist rhetoric abounds. Yet blogs prove that the web can serve as an efficient, multimedia tool for promoting public discourse. Not only will writing arguments online qualify as an essential skill for future decision-makers, but debaters today can use the net to distill their own ideas through internet peer review and link to a broader range of sources, as well as criticize politicans and raise awareness. Open-source software is the best example of this collaborative approach, helping 21st-century ecologies for education grow. Every new website offers a tiny chance to increase learning and improve democracy, realistically outweighing the most gigantic of impacts which only occur on the flow. Lawrence Lessig. Law Professor at Stanford Law School. 2004. (Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. p40-5. Also available here: http://libreria.sourceforge.net/libr...CHAPTER02.html.) _ When two planes crashed into the World Trade Center, another into the Pentagon, and a fourth into a Pennsylvania field, all media around the world shifted to this news. Every moment of just about every day for that week, and for weeks after, television in particular, and media generally, retold the story of the vents we have just witnessed. The telling was a retelling, because we had seen the events that we described. The genius of this awful act of terrorism was that the delayed second attack was perfectly timed to assure that the whole world would be watching. These retellings had an increasingly familiar feel. There was music scored for the intermissions, and fancy graphics that flashed across the screen. There was a formula to interviews. There was "balance," and seriousness. This was news choreographed in the way we have increasingly come to expect it, "news as entertainment," even if the entertainment is tragedy. But in addition to this produced news about the "tragedy of September 11," those of us tied to the Internet came to see a very different production as well. The Internet was filled with accounts of the same events. Yet these Internet accounts had a very different flavor. Some people constructed photo pages that captured images from around the world and presented them as slide shows with text. Some offered open letters. There were sound recordings. There was anger and frustration. There were attempts to provide context. There was, in short, an extraordinary worldwide barn raising, in the sense Mike Godwin uses the term in his book Cyber Rights, around a news event that had captured the attention of the world. There was ABC and CBS, but there was also the Internet. I don't mean simply to praise the Internet - though I do think the people who supported this form of speech should be praised. I mean instead to point to a significance in this form of speech. For like Kodak, the Internet enables people to capture images. And like in a movie by a student on the "Just Think!" bus, the visual images could be mixed with sound or text. But unlike any technology for simply capturing images, the Internet allows these creations to be shared with an extraordinary number of people, practically instantaneously. This is something new in our tradition - not just that culture can be captured mechanically, and obviously not just that events are commented upon critically, but that this mix of captured images, sound, and commentary can be widely spread practically instantaneously. September 11 was not an aberration. It was a beginning. Around the same time, a form of communication that has grown dramatically was just beginning to come into public consciousness: the Web-log, or blog. The blog is a kind of public diary, and within some cultures, such as in Japan, it functions very much like a diary. In those cultures, it records private facts in a public way - it's a kind of electronic Jerry Springer, available anywhere in the world. But in the United States, blogs have taken on a very different character. There are some who use the space simply to talk about their private life. But there are many who use the space to engage in public discourse. Discussing matters of public import, criticizing others who are mistaken in their views, criticizing politicians about the decisions they make, offering solutions to problems we all see: blogs create the sense of a virtual public meeting, but one in which we don't all hope to be there at the same time and in which conversations are not necessarily linked. The best of the blog entries are relatively short; they point directly to words used by others, criticizing with or adding to them. They are arguably the most important form of uncoreographed public discourse that we have. That's a strong statement. Yet it says as much about our democracy as it does about blogs. This is the part of America that is most difficult for those of us who love America to accept: Our democracy has atrophied. Of course we have elections, and most of the time the courts allow those elections to count. A relatively small number of people vote in those elections. The cycle of these elections has become totally professionalized and rountinized. Most of us think this is democracy. But democracy has never just been about elections. Democracy means rule by the people, but rule means something more than mere elections. In our tradition, it also means control through reasoned discourse. This was the idea that captured the imagination of Alexis de Tocqueville, the nineteenth-century French lawyer who wrote the most important account of early "Democracy in America." It wasn't popular elections that fascinated him - it was the jury, an institution that gave ordinary people the right to choose life or death for other citizens. And most fascinating for him was that the jury didn't just vote about the outcome they would impose. They deliberated. Members argued about the "right" result; they tried to persuade each other of the "right" result, and in criminal cases at least, they have to agree upon an unanimous resolt for the process to come to an end. [15] Yet even this institution flags in American life today. And in its place, there is no systematic effort to enable citizen deliberation. Some are pushing to create ust such an institution. [16] And in some towns in New England, something close to deliberation remains. But for most of us for most of the time, there is no time or place for "democratic deliberation" to occur. More bizarrely, there is generally not even permission for it to occur. We, the most powerful democracy in the world, have developed a strong norm against talking about politics. It's fine to talk about politics with people you agree with. But it is rude to argue about politics with people you disagree with. Political discourse becomes isolated, and isolated discourse becomes more extreme. [17] We say what our friends wnat to hear, and hear very little beyond what our friends say. Enter the blog. The blog's very architecture solves one part of this problem. People post when they want to post, and people read when they want to read. The most difficult time is synchronous time. Technologies that enable asynchronous communication, such as e-mail, increase the opportunity for communication. Blogs allow for public discourse without the public ever needing to gather in a single public place. But beyond architecture, blogs also have solved the problem of norms. There's no norm (yet) in blog space not to talk about politics. Indeed, the space is filled with political speech, on both the right and the left. Some of the most popular sites are conservative or libertarian, but there are many of all political stripes. And even blogs that are not political cover political issues when the occasion merits. The significance of these blogs is tiny now, though not so tiny. The name Howard Dean may well have faded from the 2004 presidential race but for blogs. Yet even if the number of readers is small, the reading is having an effect. One direct effect is on stories that had a different life cycle in the mainstream media. The Trent Lott affair is an example. When Lott "misspoke" at a party for Senator Strom Thurmond, essentially praising Thurmond's segregationist policies, he calculated correctly that this story would disappear from the mainstream press within forty-eight hours. It did. But he didn't calculate its life cycle in blog space. The bloggers kept researching the story. Over time, more and more instances of the same "misspeaking" emerged. Finally, the story broke back into the mainstream press. In the end, Lott was forced to resign as senate majority leader. [18] This different cycle is possible because the same commericial pressures don't exist with blogs as with other ventures. Television and newspapers are commercial entities. They must work to keep attention. If they lose readers, they lose revenue. Like sharks, they must move on. But bloggers don't have a similar constraint. They can obsess, they can focus, they can get serious. If a particular blogger writes a particularly interesting story, more and more people link to that story. And as the number of links to a particular story increases, it rises in the ranks of stories. People read what is popular; what is popular has been selected by a very democratic process of peer-generated rankings. There's a second way, as well, in which blogs have a different cycle from the mainstream press. As Dave Winer, one of the fathers of this movement and a software author for many decades, told me, another difference is the absence of a financial "conflict of interest." "I think you have to take the conflict of interest" out of journalism, Winer told me. "An amateur journalist simply doesn't have a conflict of interest, or the conflict of interest is so easily disclosed that you know you can sort of get it out of the way." These conflicts become more important as media becomes more concentrated (more on this below). A concentrated media can hide more from the public than an unconcentrated media can - as CNN admitted it did after the Iraq war because it was afraid of the consequences to its own employees. [19] It also needs to sustain a more coherent account. (In the middle of the Iraq war, I read a post on the Internet from someone who was at that time listening to a satellitle uplink with a reporter in Iraq. The New York headquarters was telling the reporter over and over that her account of the war was too bleak: She needed to offer a more optimistic story. When she told New York that wasn't warranted, they told her that they were writing "the story.") Blog space gives amateurs a way to enter the debate - "amateur" not in the sense of inexperienced, but in the sense of an Olympic athlete, meaning not paid by anyone to give their reports. It allows for a much broader range of input into a story, as reporting on the Columbia disaster revealed, when hundreds from across the southwest United States turned to the Internet to retell what they had seen. [20] And it drives readers to read across the range of accounts and "triangulate," as Winer puts it, the truth. Blogs, Winer says, are "communicating directly with our constituency, and the middle man is out of it" - with all the benefits, and costs, that might entail. Winer is optimistic about the future of journalism infected with blogs. "It's going to become an essential skill," Winer predicts, for public figures and increasingly for private figures as well. It's not clear that "journalism" is happy about this - some journalists have been told to curtail their blogging. [21] But it is clear that we are still in transtition. "A lot of what we are doing now is warm-up exercises," Winer told me. There is a lot that must mature before this space has its mature effect. And as the inclusion of content in this space is the least infringing use of the Internet (meaning infringing on copyright), Winer said, we will be the last thing that gets shut down." This speech affects democracy. Winer thinks that happens because "you don't have to work for somebody who controls, [for] a gate-keeper." That is true. But it affects democracy in another way as well. As more and more citizens express what they think, and defend it in writing, that will change the way people understand public issues. It is easy to be wrong and misguided in your head. It is harder when the product of your mind can be criticized by others. Of course, it is a rare human who admits that he has been persuaded that he is wrong. But it is even rarer for a human to ignore when he has been proven wrong. The writing of ideas, arguments, and criticism improves democracy. Today there are probably a couple million blogs where such writing happens. When there are ten million, there will be something extraordinary to report. John Seely Brown is the chief scientist of the Xerox Corporation. His work, as his Web site describes it, is "human learning and ... the creation of knowledge ecologies for creating ... innovation." Brown thus looks at these technologies of digital creativity a bit differently from the perspectives I've sketched so far. I'm sure he would be exicted about any technology that might improve democracy. But his real excitement comes from how these technologies affect learning. As Brown believes, we learn by tinkering. When "a lot of us grew up," he explains, that tinkering was done "on motorcycle engines, lawn-mower engines, automobiles, radios, and so on." But digital technologies enable a different kind of tinkering - with abstract ideas though in a concrete form. The kids of Just Think! not only think about how a commercial portrays a politician; using digital technology, they can take the commercial apart and manipulate it, tinker with it to see how it does what it does. Digital technologies launch a kind of bricolage, or "free collage," as Brown calls it. Many get to add to or transform the tinkering of many others. The best large-scale example of this kind of tinkering so far is free software or open-source software (FS/OSS). FS/OSS is software whose source code is shared. Anyone can download the technology that makes a FS/OSS program run. And anyone eager to learn how a particular bit of FS/OSS technology works can tinker with the code. This opportunity creates a "completely new kind of learning platform," as Brown describes. "As soon as you start doing that, you ... unleash a free collage on the community, so that other people can start looking at your code, tinkering with it, trying it out, seeing if they can improve it." Each effort is a kind of apprenticeship. "Open source becomes a major apprecenticeship platform." In this process, "the concrete things you tinker with are abstract. They are code." Kids are "shifting to the ability to tinker in the abstract, and this tinkering is no longer an isolated activity that you're doing in your garage. You are tinkering with a community platform. ... You are tinkering with other people's stuff. The more you tinker the more you improve." The more you improve, the more you learn. This same thing happens with content, too. And it happens in the same collaborative way when that content is part of the Web. As Brown puts it, "the Web [is] the first medium that truly honors multiple forms of intelligence." Earlier technologies, such as the typewriter or word processors, helped ampilfy text. But the Web amplifies much more than text. "The Web ... says if you are musical, if you are artistic, if you are visual, if you are interested in film ... [then] there is a lot you can start to do on this medium. [It] can now amplify and honor these multiple forms of intelligence." Brown is talking about what Elizabeth Daley, Stephanie Barish, and Just Think! teach: that this tinkering with culture teaches as well as creates. It develops talents differently, and it builds a different kind of recognition. Yet the freedom to tinker with these objects is not guaranteed. Indeed, as we'll see through the course of this book, that freedom is increasingly highly contested. While there's no doubt that your father had the right to tinker with the car engine, there's great doubt that your child will have the right to tinker with the images she finds all around. The law and, increasingly, technology interfere with a freedom that technology, and curiousity, would otherwise ensure. These restrictions have become the focus of researchers and scholars. Professor Ed Felten of Princeton (whom we'll see more of in chapter 10) has developed a powerful argument in favor of the "right to tinker" as it applies to computer science and to knowledge in general. [22] But Brown's concern is earlier, or younger, or more fundamental. It is about the learning that kids can do, or can't do, because of the law. "This is where education in the twenty-first century is going," Brown explains. We need to "understand how kids who grow up digital think and want to learn." "Yet, as Brown continued, and as the balance of this book wil evince, "we are building a legal system that completely suppresses the natural tendencies of today's digital kids. ... We're building an architecture that unleashes 60 percent of the brain [and] a legal system that closes down that part of the brain." We're building a technology that takes the magic of Kodak, mixes moving images and sound, and adds a space for commentary and an opportunity to spread that creativity everywhere. But we're building the law to close down that technology. "No way to run a culture," as Brewster Kahle, whom we'll meet in chapter 9, quipped to me in a rare moment of despondence. _ CONTENTION THREE: CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSING CONSTITUTES AN ETHICAL IMPERATIVE, ENDORSING A FREER DEBATE CULTURE FOR BOTH COOPERATIVE INNOVATION AND COMPETITIVE EXHILIRATION. Our opponents' briefs are covered under traditional copyright and are not avaialble on the web. The example of Linux software proves that Internet access to everyone's work and protection under public licenses are two indispensible components of distributed networks. Formal incentives systems, such as ballots, must discourage hoarding and persistently remind debaters to share, otherwise collaborative projects fail. Your ballot sets down the rules of the road. Jae Yun Moon. Doctoral candidate in Information Systems at New York University. & Lee Sproull. Stern School Professor of Business at NYU. 2000. ('Essence of Distributed Work: The Case of the Linux Kernel'. First Monday. Volume 5; Number 11. http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/is...oon/index.html.) _ Others have written about lessons from Linux for commercial software development projects (e.g., Raymond, 1999). Here we consider how factors important in the Linux case might apply more generally to distributed work in and across organizations (also see Markus, Manville and Agres, 2000). It might seem odd to derive lessons for formal organizations from a self-organizing volunteer activity. After all, the employment contract should ensure that people will fulfill their role obligations and act in the best interest of the organization. Yet, particularly in distributed work, employees must go beyond the letter of their job description to exhibit qualities found in the Linux developers: initiative, persistence, activism. We suggest that the enabling conditions for Linux (the Internet and open source) usefully support these conditions. We then consider how factors emphasized in each of the three versions of the Linux story (great man and task structure, incentives for contributors, and communities of practice) can facilitate organizational distributed work. Clearly easy access to the Internet or its equivalent is a necessary precondition for the kind of distributed work represented by Linux. Developers used the Internet both for easy access to work products (to upload and download files) and for easy communication with other developers (to ask and answer questions, have discussions, and share community lore). Both capabilities are surely important. And they are simple. It is noteworthy that, despite the technical prowess of Linux developers, they relied upon only the simplest and oldest of Internet tools: file transfer, e-mail distribution lists, and Usenet discussion groups. Even with today's wider variety of more sophisticated Web-based tools, Linux developers continue to rely on these tools for coordinating their efforts. These tools are simple; they are available worldwide; they are reliable. The organizational equivalent of copyleft is a second precondition for the kind of distributed work represented by Linux. Both the formal and informal reward and incentive systems must reward sharing and discourage hoarding (See Constant, Kiesler and Sproull, 1996, and Orlikowski, 1992, for discussions of incentives for information sharing in organizations). Moreover work products should be transparently accessible so that anyone can use and build upon good features and anyone can find and fix problems. We do not underestimate the difficulty of creating the equivalent of copyleft for organizational work products. Failing to do so, however, can hobble distributed work. {...} Finally, Linux developers were members of and supported by vigorous electronic communities of practice. Creating and sustaining such communities can importantly contribute to distributed work. Electronic communities require both (simple) computer tools and social tools. We discussed computer tools under enabling conditions, above. The social tools include differentiated roles and norms. It is not enough to enable electronic communication among people working on a distributed project. In a project of any size people must understand and take on differentiated electronic roles. These roles, with their corresponding obligations and responsibilities, should be explicitly designated and understood by all. Indeed, one category of community norms is the expectations associated with role behaviors. More generally, norms are the "rules of the road" for the particular electronic community. Because distributed projects cannot rely upon the tacit reinforcements that occur in face-to-face communications, persistent explicit reminders of norms are necessary in the electronic context (See Sproull and Patterson, 2000 for more on this topic). _ Before 1989, in order to copyright a work, you had to register with the copyright office, and display the circle c symbol. Today, however, unless you specifically designate that a work resides in the public domain, everything from a grocery list to a debate file is automatically copyrighted. 'All rights reserved' protections are applied to all the work you do in debate, with or without your consent. And 'fair use' / 'public domain' provisions are increasingly limited and vulnerable to reappropriation. The Creative Commons copyright offers the most reasonable, practical alternative - 'share and share alike' - which ensures the freedom to innovate with the work of others. The computer-readable tags allow debaters to search for debate-related content specifically, while the human-readable tags are a gesture of solidarity to the movement. Lawrence Lessig. Law Professor at Stanford Law School. 2004. (Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity. p282-6. Also available here: http://libreria.sourceforge.net/libr...ure/USNOW.html.) _ The Creative Commons is a nonprofit corporation established in Massachusetts, but with its home at Stanford University. Its aim is to build a layer of reasonable copyright on top of the extremes that now reign. It does this by making it easy for people to build upon other people's work, by making it simple for creators to express the freedom for others to take and build upon their work. Simple tags, tied to human-readable descriptions, tied to bullet-proof licenses, make this possible. Simple?which means without a middleman, or without a lawyer. By developing a free set of licenses that people can attach to their content, Creative Commons aims to mark a range of content that can easily, and reliably, be built upon. These tags are then linked to machine-readable versions of the license that enable computers automatically to identify content that can easily be shared. These three expressions together-?a legal license, a human-readable description, and machine-readable tags-?constitute a Creative Commons license. A Creative Commons license constitutes a grant of freedom to anyone who accesses the license, and more importantly, an expression of the ideal that the person associated with the license believes in something different than the "All" or "No" extremes. Content is marked with the CC mark, which does not mean that copyright is waived, but that certain freedoms are given. These freedoms are beyond the freedoms promised by fair use. Their precise contours depend upon the choices the creator makes. The creator can choose a license that permits any use, so long as attribution is given. She can choose a license that permits only noncommercial use. She can choose a license that permits any use so long as the same freedoms are given to other uses ("share and share alike"). Or any use so long as no derivative use is made. Or any use at all within developing nations. Or any sampling use, so long as full copies are not made. Or lastly, any educational use. These choices thus establish a range of freedoms beyond the default of copyright law. They also enable freedoms that go beyond traditional fair use. And most importantly, they express these freedoms in a way that subsequent users can use and rely upon without the need to hire a lawyer. Creative Commons thus aims to build a layer of content, governed by a layer of reasonable copyright law, that others can build upon. Voluntary choice of individuals and creators will make this content available. And that content will in turn enable us to rebuild a public domain. This is just one project among many within the Creative Commons. And of course, Creative Commons is not the only organization pursuing such freedoms. But the point that distinguishes the Creative Commons from many is that we are not interested only in talking about a public domain or in getting legislators to help build a public domain. Our aim is to build a movement of consumers and producers of content ("content conducers," as attorney Mia Garlick calls them) who help build the public domain and, by their work, demonstrate the importance of the public domain to other creativity. The aim is not to fight the "All Rights Reserved" sorts. The aim is to complement them. The problems that the law creates for us as a culture are produced by insane and unintended consequences of laws written centuries ago, applied to a technology that only Jefferson could have imagined. The rules may well have made sense against a background of technologies from centuries ago, but they do not make sense against the background of digital technologies. New rules?with different freedoms, expressed in ways so that humans without lawyers can use them?are needed. Creative Commons gives people a way effectively to begin to build those rules. Why would creators participate in giving up total control? Some participate to better spread their content. Cory Doctorow, for example, is a science fiction author. His first novel, Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, was released on-line and for free, under a Creative Commons license, on the same day that it went on sale in bookstores. Why would a publisher ever agree to this? I suspect his publisher reasoned like this: There are two groups of people out there: (1) those who will buy Cory?s book whether or not it?s on the Internet, and (2) those who may never hear of Cory?s book, if it isn?t made available for free on the Internet. Some part of (1) will download Cory?s book instead of buying it. Call them bad-(1)s. Some part of (2) will download Cory?s book, like it, and then decide to buy it. Call them (2)-goods. If there are more (2)-goods than bad-(1)s, the strategy of releasing Cory?s book free on-line will probably increase sales of Cory?s book. Indeed, the experience of his publisher clearly supports that conclusion. The book?s first printing was exhausted months before the publisher had expected. This first novel of a science fiction author was a total success. The idea that free content might increase the value of nonfree content was confirmed by the experience of another author. Peter Wayner, who wrote a book about the free software movement titled Free for All, made an electronic version of his book free on-line under a Creative Commons license after the book went out of print. He then monitored used book store prices for the book. As predicted, as the number of downloads increased, the used book price for his book increased, as well. These are examples of using the Commons to better spread proprietary content. I believe that is a wonderful and common use of the Commons. There are others who use Creative Commons licenses for other reasons. Many who use the "sampling license" do so because anything else would be hypocritical. The sampling license says that others are free, for commercial or noncommercial purposes, to sample content from the licensed work; they are just not free to make full copies of the licensed work available to others. This is consistent with their own art?they, too, sample from others. Because the legal costs of sampling are so high (Walter Leaphart, manager of the rap group Public Enemy, which was born sampling the music of others, has stated that he does not "allow" Public Enemy to sample anymore, because the legal costs are so high [2]), these artists release into the creative environment content that others can build upon, so that their form of creativity might grow. Finally, there are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons license just because they want to express to others the importance of balance in this debate. If you just go along with the system as it is, you are effectively saying you believe in the "All Rights Reserved" model. Good for you, but many do not. Many believe that however appropriate that rule is for Hollywood and freaks, it is not an appropriate description of how most creators view the rights associated with their content. The Creative Commons license expresses this notion of "Some Rights Reserved," and gives many the chance to say it to others. In the first six months of the Creative Commons experiment, over 1 million objects were licensed with these free-culture licenses. The next step is partnerships with middleware content providers to help them build into their technologies simple ways for users to mark their content with Creative Commons freedoms. Then the next step is to watch and celebrate creators who build content based upon content set free. These are first steps to rebuilding a public domain. They are not mere arguments; they are action. Building a public domain is the first step to showing people how important that domain is to creativity and innovation. Creative Commons relies upon voluntary steps to achieve this rebuilding. They will lead to a world in which more than voluntary steps are possible. Creative Commons is just one example of voluntary efforts by individuals and creators to change the mix of rights that now govern the creative field. The project does not compete with copyright; it complements it. Its aim is not to defeat the rights of authors, but to make it easier for authors and creators to exercise their rights more flexibly and cheaply. That difference, we believe, will enable creativity to spread more easily. _ Living up to democratic ideals is about more than just protecting one's right to free speech - it's about actively creating free culture and new spaces for mutual understanding. This is a civic duty vital to the success of our republic; now it's time to get to work. Cass Sunstein. Professor of Jurisprudence at the University of Chicago Law School and Department of Political Science. 2001. (Republic.com. Afterword. Page 212.) _ WORK At this point in our history, most industrialized nations are blessed to have little reason to fear tyranny; and in many areas, such nations need more markets, and freer ones, too. But in the domain of communications, the current danger is that amidst all the celebration of freedom of choice, we will lose sight of the requirements of a system of self-government. From the standpoint of democracy, the Internet is far more good than bad. In most ways, things are better, not worse. Nostalgia and pessimism are truly senseless. But it is not senseless to suggest that in thinking about new communications technologies, we should keep democratic ideals in view. The notion of "consumer sovereignty," suitable though it is for market contexts, should not be the only basis on which we evaluate a system of communications. If we emphasize democratic considerations as well, we will have a series of novel inquiries about the social role of the Internet. We should be getting to work. One final note. The democratic ideal comes with its own internal morality. That morality calls for certain kinds of legal rights and institutions: strong rights of freedom of speech, the right to vote, an independent judiciary, checks and balances, protection of property rights. But democracy's internal morality also calls for a certain kind of culture, one in which people do not live in gated communities, or cocoon themselves, or regard their fellow citizens as enemies in some kind of holy war. Of course people are free, within broad limits, to say and do what they want. Gates and cocoons and enmities are not against the law. But if democracies are to work well, they will create spaces that increase the likelihood that citizens will actually see and hear one another, and have some chance to achieve a measure of mutual understanding. If we are to keep it, a twenty-first-century republic would do well to keep this point in plain view. _ You're welcome to access this position online at www.ossdebate.org. We appreciate any and all bug reports, new feature suggestions, patches, and other feedback there. _ From andy.edebate Mon Dec 12 07:10:47 2005 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 07:10:47 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] pentagon admits it keeps iraqi casualty records In-Reply-To: References: <9368bc9b0512111126h2657cb0jbfe82e4e54d57874@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0512120510o6b985770xe7d0472a519d21d2@mail.gmail.com> hello, as always appreciating the rantings, but im getting at two things, one i thought the intial aritcle you posted indicated that the pentagon was keeping track of the number of civilins killed by the insurgnts and two the pentagon blurs lines in revealing casulty numbers classifying people as they choose but often shifting people into catagories that easily dissapear. My concern is not simply for the civillians killed but for the people killed, and that number is probably something approaching 200,000(i expect that korcok will say that number has no material basis and meticulosly prove that really its only something like 85,000-as if that somehow became acceptable)....i guess my point is that the civillian toll is distracting from the human toll On 12/12/05, Korry Harvey wrote: > > hi andy, i'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. the pentagon has > clearly shown that it keeps numbers on "insurgents", "enemy combatants", > "terrorists", etc. they have thrown numbers at the press about "x number > of insurgents killed" on an almost daily basis for over the past year (ever > since it became general knowledge that the insurgency was more serious than > was being acknowledged). the fact that some, if not many, of those > so-labeled people were simply common civilians driven to join the insurgency > and fight against the abuses of the occupier is one more compelling reason > to argue that the US has made a hellish mess of iraq. our methods have made > the situation worse. > > further, it seems to me that the pentagon doesn't necessarily care much > about the civilians, either (at least not on a strategic level, perhaps on > an operational level). as i wrote in my reply to bryson, it scares me that > the people in the pentagon know FAR better than any of us how many iraqi > civilians are being lost or maimed in this conflict, yet it continues. much > has been written/said over the past couple of years about how > civilian-friendly the us military is. and while i'll readily admit that our > forces are at least making an effort not to target civilians, our record is > still pretty unsightly. war's messy, that's why they should be the option of > very last resort, to be engaged in only after ALL other options are > completely and entirely exhausted. in iraq, the military has used > carpet/cluster bombs and incendiary devices that kill indiscriminately. cars > approaching checkpoints are fired upon with little to no warning. faulty > information is taken as credible intell from rival iraqi factions who use us > firepower to their advantage. the shi'ite militias kidnap and torture > sunnis; sunnis blow up car bombs at shi'ite mosques; the kurds ruthlessly > oppress the minority turkomen and christian populations in their areas of > control; and all this is stuff the us should have known would come to pass > if it were not able to secure the peace. > > and this is not, as some have tried to make it, a case of hindsight being > 20-20. there were plenty of credible critical voices saying these things > PRIOR to the invasion. this administration made its mind up well before the > actual invasion (there is plenty of evidence to substantiate this point), > cherry-picked intelligence to support its position (the evidence here is > growing by the day), then rammed it down the public and congress' throats > using the cloak of 9/11 as cover. > > the bastards in the inner circle at the pentagon, the white house, and the > cia should be tried as war criminals. they're also not very good at > achieving their goals: > > -free the iraqi people from oppression: meet the new boss, same as the > old boss. torture, kidnappings, assassinations, car bombs, etc, rock iraq > like never before. pre-war iraq was the most secular and progressive arab > nation in the world. now, maybe that's not saying much, but under us > occupation, radical conservative islam has seen a tremendous surge in > popularity and power, much to the dismay of women, educators, etc. further, > the new iraq will be much more closely aligned with the conservative > hardliners in iran... not what the us wanted. > -break ties to terror: iraq is now not only a primary recruiting tool for > violent militant groups, it is also the preferred training ground for those > new recruits; and the ties we were trying to break were based on lies in the > first place. > -remove wmd's: gee, looks like the UN pretty much took care of that, like > they said they did. > > anyway, andy, if i missed the point of your post (as i'm sure my > additional rantings did ;-), i apologize. take care- > > korry > > ------------------------------ > From: *Andy Ellis * > To: *Korry Harvey * > CC: *edebate at ndtceda.com* > Subject: *Re: [eDebate] pentagon admits it keeps iraqi casualty records* > Date: *Sun, 11 Dec 2005 13:26:48 -0600* > > Korry, the iht and the pentagon only seem to care about the civilians, > what about the countless thousands of civilians who have decided that > they will relinquish that status and fight the occupier for their > freedom? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051212/0b085d26/attachment.html From Karla_Leeper Mon Dec 12 09:19:41 2005 From: Karla_Leeper (Leeper, Karla) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 09:19:41 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] NDT DUES - 4th POSTING Message-ID: <3E798250B7BD144D87BF0E7C0667FDCA014EB1C1@FS-EXCHANGE2.baylor.edu> The Standing Rules of the NDT require that schools must have paid their NDT subscription to apply for a first or second round at large bid and to submit for the district qualification process. In order to fairly apply the deadlines for qualification to the NDT and district bid allocations, it is important to ensure that all schools who submit for a first or second round at large bid or who submit for the district bid allocation process have paid their NDT dues in a timely fashion. At the Gonzaga NDT Committee meeting, the Committee unanimously passed the following standing rule relating to payment of NDT dues: NDT dues must be paid by Nov. 1. Schools subscribing between Nov. 2 and Dec. 1 will be charged double the regular subscription fee. Schools subscribing between Dec. 2 and January 1 will be charged triple the regular subscription fee. Schools subscribing after January 1 will not be eligible for that year's NDT. If you pay your NDT dues by November 1, the cost is $45.00. If you pay between Nov. 2 and Dec. 1, the cost is $90.00. If you pay between December 2 and January 1, the cost is $135.00. If you pay your dues after January 1, you will not be eligible to qualify for the 2006 NDT. You may pay your NDT dues via the AFA website at www.americanforensics.org or you may pay your dues to Brett O'Donnell. You may pay with cash, check, money order or approved credit card. The AFA website uses PayPal. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051212/c6e78897/attachment.htm From majeredb8 Mon Dec 12 10:29:48 2005 From: majeredb8 (Steve Sawyer) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:29:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] What's being talked about is not "open source" Message-ID: <200512121629.jBCGTm308366@hsdebate.com> Quoting Michael Antonucci "Open source systems exist. They work pretty well. Play Battle of Wesnoth, use Wikipedia, use Linux, use a peer to peer distribution system (Soulseek is my favorite music provider, by far. Debaters who get all tetchy about someone snaking their cards ditch their IPR purism when there's a movie or album at stake.) They innovate quickly and efficiently. Open source code developers aren't slacking. OpenLaw was considered a success, although they lost the Supreme Court case. (The suit was probably a lost cause from the outset.) Programmers continue to innovate and debug because it's cool, and because they want their innovations acknowledged (ego-boosting.) There is such a thing as a pure academic." I'm a fan of OSS stuff and use it frequently, but it's misleading to call the so-called "strong" system as described by Sanchez and Antonucci an "open source system" while describing college debate in the SQ "closed." Could somebody point to a round in the past ten years where a team refused to allow the other team to take cites from their evidence, or even read the ev during cross-ex, because "not allowed?" I doubt it, but I had plenty of those experiences in regional high school debate. The standards of openness - and the ethical sanctions for posting unpublished evidence - are way beyond what occurs in other debate venues, and certainly much more stringent than what occurs outside of the academy. Further, none of the systems described are analogous to the evidence escrow proposal. Open source computer software governed under licenses such as the GNU Public License don't require that distributors provide source prior to or at the point of sale/distribution. There is no requirement that it is provided free of charge. It isn't uncommon that a company or individual release software without the source code in the box, but offer to mail the code to an individual for a small charge. And some open source software doesn't even require redistribution. My operating system of choice, FreeBSD, was developed openly at UC-Berkley. Its license allows the code to be sold commercially without the need to give anything back. You can find bits of BSD code in Microsoft Windows. The BSD license seems pretty analogous to the ideal community caselist. The initial author of a good arg gets the fame and credit for coming up with it, and the availability of cites means that other teams can recut it and rework it. One of the main potential strengths of open source development is supposedly that it works like peer review - the more people looking at the code, the quicker people will spot bugs. There was a recent article in the Guardian (see here: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,16376,1660763,00.html) describing the shortcomings of open source development, namely, that far fewer people contribute to the code base than those who use the stuff. This seems to be a huge risk in the debate community. By the 3rd or 4th tournament of a year, the number of people developing better arguments and doing anything more than uniqueness updates will bottom out. In the software world, this probably doesn't matter because it's a good thing to have the software work the same way every time. In debate, where creativity and innovation are necessary, it's a different story. Cites and a few words from the cards should be good enough for most people. It is much much easier to get access to evidence now than it was years ago - companies like Google and Yahoo are scanning books and putting them online, and interlibrary loans are more common. Why having evidence accessible with one click instead of ten will improve debate I do not know. PS - Peer-to-peer doesn't necessarily mean open source. Soulseek, for instance, is closed-source and is only developed for Windows. There are a few open source clients for the system. Also, I wouldn't exactly describe Wikipedia as a model of open source goodness. Feel free to look at the entries for the Holocaust, "swiftboating," and other politically sensitive topics. They are frequently hijacked. -Steve Sawyer Catholic Debate '05 From andy.edebate Mon Dec 12 10:39:29 2005 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:39:29 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] calling judges for BUDL MS tournament december 19th Message-ID: <9368bc9b0512120839j75991247xcee478852f970f04@mail.gmail.com> the baltimore urban debate league will be hosting its third middle school tournament of the year monday decembr 19th at towson university. If you are going to be home from college or are in the dc or baltimore area come out and judge some debates and help support our over 200 hundred students from 18 different middle schools. For more information please email andy at budl.org . thanks Andy Ellis Baltimore Urban Debate League Coordinator Middle School Program Cell-443-799-7222 Office-410-752-2835 Fax-410-752-7053 email-andy at budl.org AIM- BUDLAIM 1800 N. Charles Street Suite 906 Baltimore MD, 21201 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051212/efd0d59e/attachment.html From lsd041 Sat Dec 10 12:27:41 2005 From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage) Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 12:27:41 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Statement of Candidacy Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051210121728.0217a688@lulu.it.northwestern.edu> Greetings, all. I am Scott Deatherage, Director of Debate at Northwestern University and candidate for Second Vice President of the Cross Examination Debate Association. It is after much consideration and forethought that I offer my name to the CEDA membership for consideration. I must begin by confessing both that Northwestern is a relative newcomer to the Cross Examination Debate Association, and that to date my participation in CEDA policy making has been limited. That said, I am and have always been committed to the central missions that CEDA represents: an open national competition, recruitment and training of novice debate students, recruiting and support for young debate coaches, and support for professional development of debate scholars. These I consider to be pillars of the debate community, and more than any other organization, CEDA has worked to promote. I bring to the table two or three skills that will hopefully attract your vote. First, I have extensive experience in managing large projects. Each year, we host the Owen L. Coon Memorial debate tournament, a college competition that attracts approximately 150 teams. I have worked as host and administrator for this event for the last 20 years. I hope that those of you who have attended have enjoyed your experience. While I am certain that there are areas of potential improvement, in general, the tournament runs on time and provides substantial amenities to tournament participants. I use this as an example, principally speaking because it is parallel to the responsibility of running CEDA Nationals. That said, in the large project category, I have also administered a sizeable summer institute (120-200 students) for the last 13 years. I have a number of additional experiences under my belt; the point is not about any one event, but simply employed to demonstrate that I have the ability to manage tasks on the order of convention planning and tournament management. Second, my candidacy offers the opportunity to bring new blood to CEDA management. This statement is not intended in any way to criticize the hard work of the many before me who have contributed to CEDA leadership. To the contrary: their contributions have been substantial and should be celebrated. That said, one thing I have learned over the course of watching "the merger" is that the "traditionally CEDA" and "traditionally NDT" communities have much to learn from one another. I have seen that in action. I have watched as Glen Frappier, Greg Achten, Jim Hanson, and others from the "traditionally CEDA" community have opened my eyes and my thinking about how to best approach various problems in the "traditionally NDT" community. I strive to accomplish the same sharing for CEDA. I should conclude where I began. Northwestern's affiliation with CEDA is relatively new, about 10 years old. When the N.D.T. Committee debated rule changes aimed a facilitating cross-organizational competition, I was a strong and hopefully effective voice for change. I believed then, and I know now by experience, that students interested in argument, discourse, and debate have a common interest that transcends organizational hierarchies. In the interceding ten years, I have come to conclude that CEDA and the NDT have common and complementary objectives that taken together serve the interest of students, our principle obligation. While the NDT makes an important contribution to academic debate, it is, after all, an organization whose primary objective is to conduct a single tournament; CEDA, by contrast, brings to the table a more complete vision of common goods for the entire debate community. It is and should be a full service community organization. CEDA performs important community functions that are not well served by the NDT, functions that as educators we all have an obligation to promote. I have nothing but respect for Darren Elliott, the other candidate for this office. Should you prefer his candidacy, I will work to help him in any way I can. Should you elect me, I will promise to bring high energy, commitment, and an open mind to the organization and the problems I am tasked to tackle. Best. SD Scott Deatherage Director of Debate Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois From teasley3 Mon Dec 12 11:55:18 2005 From: teasley3 (Terri Easley) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:55:18 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] JV Nats/Mid-America CEDA Champs at JCCC Message-ID: <77AFCAC0D5BA0249B2A3DFADD263637542EA32@AC-EXCH02.employee.directory.jccc> 31st National Junior Division Debate Tournament Mid-America CEDA Champs Johnson County Community College March 11-13, 2006 Friends: I would like to invite you to attend the 2006 National Junior Division Debate Tournament. All debaters who meet the CEDA definition for Junior Varsity eligibility are encouraged to enter the NJDDT. It will offer 8 rounds of policy debate. In addition, we will offer a separate tournament for Novice and Open divisions. Under the title of the Mid-America CEDA Championships, these divisions will also offer 8 rounds of policy debate. The following information should help you with your arrangements. If you have any questions or if I can be of any other assistance do not hesitate to contact me. Please join us in March for what I expect to be a competitive and rewarding experience. Sincerely, Terri Easley Director of Debate JCCC 12345 College Blvd. Overland Park, Kansas 66210 913-469-8500 Ext. 4587 teasley3 at jccc.edu LODGING: We have changed hotels - This year we will be using the Radisson located at I-35 and 95th Street. The rate is $60 a night. We have both kings and doubles in the block. The tax rate is 13.525%. High-speed wireless internet is available in the lobby/atrium of the hotel and most of the rooms. One of the wings (smoking wing) does not have wireless, but does have a LAN connection, so please mention your needs/wishes for wireless when reserving rooms. Radisson - Lenexa: 12601 West 95th Street, Lenexa, KS, 66215-3895, (913) 888-6670 When making reservations, please mention NJDDT - National Junior Division Debate Tournament to get the tournament rate. You can also reserve rooms online at www.radisson.com/njddt. If you have any problems, contact me or Eileen in Sales at 913-217-2309. Please reserve rooms soon as the block is only held until Feb. 17, 2006. After that date, it will be on an availability basis. We strongly encourage you to stay at the Radisson, but if you need other options for lodging please let me know. TRANSPORTATION: For transportation from the Kansas City airport to Overland Park, we recommend Quicksilver Shuttle. The phone number is 913- 262-0905. If other accommodations are needed please let me know. ENTRIES, JUDGES & FEES: There is no limit on entries provided there are judges to cover them. It is difficult to find hired judges, so please let me know early if you need to hire and I will see what can be done. The entry fees are $100 per debate team and $100 judge fee per uncovered team. Please make checks payable to Johnson County Community College. Each judge covers 2 teams or portion thereof. One team requires a 4 round commitment. ALL JUDGES MUST BE AVAILABLE TO JUDGE ONE ROUND AFTER HIS/HER TEAMS HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED. We will use the Bruschke Online Entry System. Entries are due by 5:00 pm on Tuesday, March 7th. TAB ROOM: Jeff Jarman, of Wichita State University, has graciously agreed to direct the tab room. DIVISIONS: The NJDDT is open to all debaters eligible for Junior Varsity divisions. The Mid-America CEDA Championships is open to all debaters eligible for Novice or Open divisions. We will adhere to the CEDA guidelines for eligibility in each division. TOPIC: Each division will use the 2005-2006 policy debate topic. Time limits for the tournament are 9-3-6 with 10 minutes prep. DEBATES: The tournament will operate according to the following guidelines. Each team will debate 4 affirmative and 4 negative rounds. In both preliminary and elimination rounds, judges will be required to make a decision awarding one team a win, one team a loss, and award speaker points and ranks to each participant in the debate. The number of elimination rounds will be based on the entries within each division. Elimination round participants will be determined by (1) win-loss record, (2) adjusted speaker points, (3) total speaker points. Brackets will NOT be broken in elimination rounds. Rounds 1-4 will be preset. Rounds 5 and 7 will be high-high within brackets. Rounds 6 and 8 will be high-low within brackets. Some form of judge preference will be used. The NJDDT and the MACC support and will comply with the CEDA Statement on Sexual Harassment and Discrimination and the Statement of Ethical Principles. AWARDS: All teams qualifying for elimination rounds will receive awards. The top speakers in each division will also receive awards. SCHEDULE: All rounds are held on JCCC campus Friday March 10th 7:00 pm - 10:00 pm Registration at the Radisson Saturday March 11th 8:00 Breakfast at the school 8:30 Round One 11:00 Round Two 1:30 - 2:30 Lunch at the school 2:30 Round Three 5:00 Round Four Sunday March 12th 7:00 Pairings released at the Radisson 7:30 Breakfast at the school 8:00 Round Five 11:00 Round Six 2:00 - 3:00 Lunch at the school 3:30 Round Seven 6:30 Round Eight ASAP Breaks released at the Radisson Monday March 13th 7:00 Pairings released at the Radisson 8:00 Breakfast at the school 8:30 First Elimination Round 11:30 Awards Other elims to follow The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051212/eead7889/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Mon Dec 12 12:19:13 2005 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:19:13 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] GSL? In-Reply-To: <20051212050417.24388.qmail@web34708.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Israel: GSL will definitely have a policy division. I have contacted Paul Hood to encourage Oregon to enter teams. Other schools should also enter. Dan Lair is committed to running the division the way the coaches and participants want it run. You may backchannel me with any questions. Matt Stannard >From: Israel Pastrana >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: [eDebate] GSL? >Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 21:04:17 -0800 (PST) > >i heard a rumor that the GSL tournament was going to have a policy >division. can anyone confirm this for me? > > thanks, > > israel > > > >--------------------------------- >Yahoo! Shopping > Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From stannardmatt Mon Dec 12 12:21:17 2005 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:21:17 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] ans bryson, new links In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Believe me, if you think this is a tear of verbiage from Korry, you've never sat around and taken tequilla shots with him... stannard >From: "Korry Harvey" >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: [eDebate] ans bryson, new links >Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 22:02:57 -0800 > > > > >donald bryson wrote: "Okay, the links on this message are the only ones >that work on your recent tear of politically charged verbiage." > >first,?i'm not sure that three posts with practically no commentary should >be considered a "tear of politically charged verbiage".?if you're somehow >trying to say that i've telegraphed my political leanings...?well, no >kidding. > >second, what's wrong with politically charged verbiage??ever seen a college >debate round? i'd say these posts were rather tame. opiniated perhaps, but >what's unique about that on this listserv? > >the admin relied on the?words of?a sworn enemy of the US who had been >"rendered" to egypt where he could be worked over?to get some >answers.?these words were given under duress, to avoid even more severe >treatment. to base a decision to go to war?on that type of "human intell" >is simply stupid. ?and to be sure, the admin repeatedly referred to this >guy's testimony as the "credible evidence" it held proving the links to >terror. the spot in the times says that after the guy recanted his >testimony and told officials that he had lied to his egyptian torturers in >order to get better treatment, they quietly?stopped referring to that key >piece of "credible evidence". > >also, recent accounts have indicated that rather than being a thing of the >past, torture is widespread in today's iraq. civil conflicts between >differing ethnic and/or religious factions in the middle east >have?historically shown a pattern of retribution and a tradition of >revenge. the US shold have known this and prepared for the post-war period >accordingly. it means we've botched the job and?iraqis are paying the >price. > >finally, the fact that the pentagon lied about recording caualties is not >much of a surprise. what is significant is that the people on the inside >are very aware of how many inncocent iraqis have been and continue to be >killed by this careless act of agression, and yet they allow it to continue >unabated. to me, that's scary.?? > >and the list could go on and on concerning our missteps in iraq. so, i'd >say a little politically charged verbiage seems rather appropriate. > >i do apologize, however, about the inoperable links.?not sure what >happened. try these ones: > >Tortute in Iraq: >http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/inquiry-to-examine-iraq-torture-claims/2005/11/16/1132016860018.html > >http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/16/iraq.main.1357/ > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/11/AR2005121101002.html > >http://www.arabmonitor.info/news/dettaglio.php?idnews=12289&lang=en > >Pentagon admits body counts: >http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=9082 > >http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article323498.ece > >? > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From fijipapabear Mon Dec 12 12:31:04 2005 From: fijipapabear (fijipapabear at aol.com) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:31:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Judging availble for Auggie Message-ID: <8C7CD615863A5D8-1FA0-83A9@FWM-D40.sysops.aol.com> Having decided that I may want to see the snow for a few days, I am seeing if anyone is interested in hiring me to judge for them at augustana. More than anything else if anything this will provide you an excellent oppurtunity to see Matt Moore irritated beyond belief at knowing that I am there. Alex Acosta -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051212/a7b43b5b/attachment.html From korryharvey Mon Dec 12 12:54:57 2005 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 10:54:57 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] pentagon admits it keeps iraqi casualty records In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0512120510o6b985770xe7d0472a519d21d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051212/566900f3/attachment.htm From whit_whitmore Mon Dec 12 12:58:19 2005 From: whit_whitmore (Whit Whitmore) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:58:19 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ans bryson - was Re: new proof that pre-war iraqi terror claims we Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051212/1c298bd8/attachment.html From korryharvey Mon Dec 12 13:01:37 2005 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:01:37 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] ans bryson, new links In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051212/1d21dd16/attachment.htm From anabaptist Mon Dec 12 13:07:27 2005 From: anabaptist (Donald Bryson) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 14:07:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ans bryson - was Re: new proof that pre-war iraqi terror claims were based quite literally on lies Message-ID: <000501c5ff4f$4bbd3ec0$6401a8c0@Donald> Wow.....what a list of assumptions you have made. You said that I said: "Your links don't work so clearly your politically charged verbiage has no meaning." What a shitty argument." What I actually wrote was: Okay, the links on this message are the only ones that work on your recent tear of politically charged verbiage. Donald Bryson No where in there did I criticize his arguments or even said that I disagree with them. In fact, I may have possibly given a hint at my political leanings, but on the other hand, I may have also agreed with his "tear." Isn't that what neo-cons love about Rush Limbaugh? The fact that he goes on those rants? You have also failed to see the point that I might possibly disagree with Korry on the surface, but I am merely attempting to see his side....something that people in switch side debate should get used to. But no matter what you say from now on, it is clear that you made an assumption about me and my beliefs which I think is totally pathetic. And the whole "you don't know how to use the internet" thing....PLEASE! How immature can you be? But of course, maybe I don't know how to work something that Al Gore invented. If you disagree with something that I actually said, then get back to me. Otherwise, what you've said is just offensive. Donald Bryson P.S. Didn't mean to offend you, Korry. You did go on a "tear," but like I said above, based solely on what I said in my e-mail, does anyone (outside of the crazies at GA State, Piedmont, or FSU) no what my political leanings are? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051212/2f3e42a8/attachment.html From let_the_american_empire_burn Mon Dec 12 13:34:58 2005 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:34:58 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] What's being talked about is not "open source" Message-ID: {if pressed for time, just skip down to the asteriks.} i agree with your sentiments steve, which is why i've tried to re-name the position 'creative commons' as opposed to 'open source' (especially since (cc) is the actual public licensing scheme that debate could adopt). in my notes on antonucci's original file (posts #138 & 139 here, http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=39492&page=6) i added to your list of concerns, writing that: (1) you can flow a position; you can ask for cites; the affirmative is typically disclosed before the round, and if it's topical, you're probably familiar with its ins and outs; there's online case lists and even uploading of entire positions (like the college n.d.t.), (2) if a computer program doesn't crash as much, if it works faster and more reliably, then it's quite rightly superior to programs that crash more often and run slower - these are the types of clear standards all these cards apply. that's how these authors can say with some evidence that open source is superior in quality to its competitors such as microsoft. so what benchmarks will this resistance movement have to meet in order to claim its superiority? a win percentage? (3) there's a fundamental difference between a game defined by win-loss records and the job of making good software. 3 out of every 4 software projects are never completed, yet if a debtater won 1 out of every 4 rounds, they'd suck. also, programmers make a name for themselves by writing good programs; debaters can write a case with the best 'source code' and still get whooped. rep in debate is strictly related to whether you're a favorite to win the round, not how much evidence you've put on a website. ... nevertheless, 'open source' is a very good *analogy* when you look to it as a method of knowledge production (and here's a card saying as much, http://ossdebate.org/index.php?title=Bad_Analogy). so let me address your one-by-one: "...it's misleading..." again, no one is suggesting that all debaters use open source software, but that debaters look to what open source has accomplished as a reason to move toward more distributed networking. better examples are the openlaw project at harvard or the internet engineering task force, but naming a position after those would get tiresome. the current system, if not exactly closed, is proprietary, and the alternative system is a debate commons. also i'd remind you that the thrust of this position implies putting norm-enforcement power in the hands of debaters at the round-level. by that i mean, when a team fails to post their first constructives under already existing schemes for internet disclosure, they should also run up against a meta-theory-argument like this one; just as they'd lose to topicality if they are not topical, so they'd lose to whatever this is if they remain 'closed source', especially if they're reaping the benefits of others participation in an open system. the slogan is, gank ballots from free-riders. "Open source computer software governed under licenses such as the GNU Public License don't require that distributors provide source prior to or at the point of sale/distribution." unlike traditional copyright, there's no time-restriction on a public license -- you don't have to wait to gain access to whatever is covered under c.c.p.l. (or g.p.l.) because you can already access it now. that doesn't mean you have the physical software prior to actually getting it, but it does mean you don't have to wait 70 years. likewise, you'd still be able to break new arguments under the alternative, but you'd still have to post your positions online and cover them with a public license, so that when folks do find out about what you're doing and get interested, they then have somewhere to access it and contribute to the project. "There is no requirement that it is provided free of charge. It isn't uncommon that a company or individual release software without the source code in the box, but offer to mail the code to an individual for a small charge." well they're a business and debate is an academic game. the line i'd draw (that is drawn by many in the open source community) is don't charge for products but charge for services. if i want linux, i can get it basically for free, but if i want to understand how linux works or want to customize my software, etc., then i pay someone more knowledgeable than i to help me. that's why although debaters wouldn't pay for evidence, coaches still get paid - something i am sure most coaches in the activity strongly support. "... My operating system of choice, FreeBSD, was developed openly at UC-Berkley...." when researching this a few months ago, i was very interested to read the debates between b.s.d. and g.p.l. advocates. the former has a more realistic approach and appears to simply want to propagate the best code, while the latter has a more radical approach and offers a 'viral' license which dictates that if you don't share all of whatever code you reuse, you can't have any of it. the 'share and share alike' clause of the (cc) license seems more akin to the latter, but really, software is different from intellectual/artistic ideas in important respects, and i'd say (cc) is a combo of both b.s.d. and g.p.l. approaches: you need those who are willing to work with those whom they disagree and you need those who will hold out and work for an uncompromising commons. i'm not sure this dispute within the open source software community maps very well onto this community, but if it does, then antonucci's original file is more the radical/g.p.l. approach and i'm probably more of a sell-out. "There was a recent article in the Guardian (see here: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,16376,1660763,00.html) describing the shortcomings of open source development, namely, that far fewer people contribute to the code base than those who use the stuff. This seems to be a huge risk in the debate community. By the 3rd or 4th tournament of a year, the number of people developing better arguments and doing anything more than uniqueness updates will bottom out. In the software world, this probably doesn't matter because it's a good thing to have the software work the same way every time. In debate, where creativity and innovation are necessary, it's a different story." not unique and turn -- this is already a problem for the debate community as demonstrated by violations of the a.f.a.'s code of standards prohibiting anyone other than competitors from doing their own research (http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200504/0056.html, http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200504/0061.html, http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200504/0071.html), and i think (cc) may offer a potential solution to this already existing problem. (1) you have to expand the notion of what it means to contribute: it isn't merely cutting the cards, it's also having a larger number of eyes reading them, finding flaws, suggesting new avenues of research and new ways of structuring the argument. this means that those who at first glance look like free-riders (and wouldn't have contributed anything under the present system anyway) can actually add something in small ways just by getting involved in the online process of peer review. (2) you still learn things in the process of research that you can't pass on simply by posting the evidence, and this means there's an intrinsic incentive to do your own research. getting a bunch of cards is something quite different from learning good research skills, which might be something a lot of big squads forget, not mentioning any names. check out the #4 & 5 cards here, http://www.ossdebate.org/index.php?title=Freeriders. i must confess i'm probably more of a card-cutter myself -- i couldn't give you a 1a.r. for crap, but i prided myself on finding the best evidence on a particular topic. i don't think i'm alone, and what's neat about a commons is that everyone chips in with what they're good at so that everyone walks away more of a winner. ***** here's the big question -- "Why having evidence accessible with one click instead of ten will improve debate I do not know." because some of those clicks can get pretty expensive, if not entirely exclusive. a lot of teams do not have access to lexis-nexis, for example. that's the 'level the playing field' argument. one click also means that you can use those nine other clicks to add something to how the evidence is used. and that's the 'more eyes fix more bugs' argument. all in all, i think these two arguments are pretty strong, i.e. not silly. ***** yet there's another argument, one i hinted at by quoting mitchell, that is, mitigating debate's current insularity and plugging it into other resources around the world. this makes more sense when you look at this in conjunction with the two trends of internet-ization and international-ization (a la alfred snider). what's so crucial to understand is that this doesn't mean ending the game, only raising the stakes. it means using the competitive impulse to cause broader debate cooperatives to flourish. that's good for argument quality, fairness/inclusiveness, education, democratic empowerment, and good debate -- so vote on it, juuuudge! (p.s.) yes p2p and open source often get confused. bittorrent might be a more applicable analogy than soulseek for the decentralized network advocated by this position. and i agree wikipedia is a bad model for debate because it relies on an encyclopedia concept, i.e. there's only one, authoratative version. if you have a more 'multiple drafts' model, then this takes away any real incentive to 'hijack' projects (it's like mugging an individual ant in hopes of killing the colony). perhaps new debate-specific programs/technologies will need to be created, but for the time being the task is to build consensus, i.e. wins. (p.p.s.) antonucci is the shit, and nothing i've said or implied now or in the future in any way takes anything away from his quite brilliant idea. i only hope i've done it justice and others will come along and grow the position in their own unique ways. From korryharvey Mon Dec 12 13:51:54 2005 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 11:51:54 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] ans bryson - was Re: new proof that pre-war iraqi terror claims we Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051212/9313d79a/attachment.htm From oguevara Mon Dec 12 13:53:49 2005 From: oguevara (Omar G Guevara) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:53:49 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] receive one of the BEST comm masters degrees for FREE* (plus coach debate!) Message-ID: Wow this is a good deal. While there are many solid MA assistanceship opportunities out there, this one clearly rises to the top. Working with Dr. Zomp would be an awesome. If you are in the market for an MA in Comm, you should definitely send Dr. Zomp a completed application. There are still many collegiate forensics programs out there who need folks with a terminal Comm MA -- and are willing to pay well for their employment. Happy hol-i-daze, OG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051212/06de17ba/attachment.html From forensics Mon Dec 12 14:07:35 2005 From: forensics (LACC Forensics) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 12:07:35 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Open Source: Response to Sherwood Message-ID: >I don't think there are any forthcoming ad homs? If I >ever level an argument that stoops to that level, let >me know so that I can retract it. No, I don?t find any in this post. That is just a knee-jerk to past experience. >I disagree with some of your propositions, but I'm >pretty sure that none of them constitute a reason to >disagree with mine. >In a word: perm? Sounds like a nice idea (the perm). And at some level, I could see the value of it. In fact, I don?t think I am even opposed to the basic idea, to be honest. My complaint, isn?t so much against your proposal as it is a fear of the perception that it might create. Unfortunately, I think there are many in the debate community who would participate in the system and feel that they had done their part to make debate better and more fair while failing to address my PMN. I don?t even think the ?masking? you refer to below would be intentional. I just think it would be an inevitable result. >Sherwood says: >"While I applaud (at some level) the ongoing attempts >to level the playing field for poor and small programs >(especially having always been one) I really think >these discussions continually miss the point." >1. My extended proposal is not exclusively for the >purpose of helping out poor programs. I think it >does. (How could a boatload of free evidence hurt?) >However, I'm at least willing to hypothetically defend >that it would improve debate even if it isn't the next >Maoist revolution. I?ll be honest. I haven?t thought deeply about the direct impacts of your proposal. I am not sure I agree with the idea that it would help. It might, but it might not. I am more concerned, as I state above, that there will be too many who take this as an opportunity to pretend altruism by doing their part in providing ev to the central file while looking for the new competitive advantage that circumvents the equity created by that file. >2. *There is more than one point.* >Maybe there isn't a single solution to every problem >in debate that will cut the Gordian knot with a blow. >I object to the urge to look for a grand unified field >theory. I know that a number of people on this >listserv are extremely invested in a particular >project. It would be unfortunate if those passionate >and well-intentioned investments became barriers to >any other reform. I think this is true to a certain extent. But I do think there is something we can do that will have a larger affect on the community. We have to focus more on ethics than on policies or the kind of active solutions that you propose. I think your idea is an interesting one and one that is well intentioned. However, the fundamental cause of most of the problems that such ideas seek to remedy is a lack of ethics in the activity. I think too many coaches and debaters have their priorities backward. Please don?t misunderstand my position. I like to win debate rounds ? or better put, I like it when my students win their rounds. I do think that competition and the game orientation of debate serve some valuable purposes. However, I don?t think the drive to win should be the first priority, I think it should only be the means to our end ? which should be education. The problem in debate is that winning is the end for too many programs. >(A caricature: How can you propose such a thing when >resolutions are bad? How does open source address the >needs of every identity group? How does an open >source proposal address the imminent im/explosion of >the Sun? WHAT ABOUT THE REPTOIDS?) See, here you are categorizing me with a group to which I do not belong. I do not support project debate. I support the goals, but completely disagree with the methods. I don?t think resolutions are bad (though we have had some bad resolutions). I agree with the underlying claims of most of the projects on the circuit today. I just don?t think the approach of rejecting resolutions or the competitive format will do anything to achieve the goal of inclusion. And, I think Ede?s recent decision proves this. >Links of omission prohibit engagement. I don?t know what this means. >I don't think that every proposal or reform should be >put through some sort of plan-plan test, in which it >has to prove that it is the *absolutely most >important* idea out there. I strongly believe in >competition burdens - how would this proposal >negatively impact your project thing? Again, I am not a project person, so I can?t answer this. As I mention above, I haven?t thought through this proposal enough to say whether it will have any negative affect other than that it will eventually be circumvented by those who place competitive success ahead of education and community. >"How many times have we tried to pass rules to >accomplish this goal? And how many times have they >worked? If it were possible to level the playing field >through rule-making, it would have happened long ago. >While I won??t claim that resource disparity doesn??t >add to the difficulties that small programs face >in being competitive, they are neither the sole nor >even the primary cause. In old-school speak, I guess >I would be running a PMN here." >1. My proposal *isn't a rule* in the negative sense. >I strongly agree that it's counterproductive to limit >coaching or personnel support. This is a positive >proposal - it does something without stopping people >from doing stuff. It taxes an infinite commodity. I applaud the effort. I really do. I don?t classify you with the circumventors that I reference above. I think this is a genuinely well-intentioned idea. I even think it might have some merit once you can lay-out the logistics. I guess another concern that I have is that it won?t take long before the circumventors undercut what you are trying to achieve. For example, I was a big supporter of argument disclosure when it first began. I was competing when this first became a standard practice. And I will say that in the early years I think it worked quite well. When I compare debates I had pre-disclosure with those after the practice began, I would have to say that the debates got better in terms of quality of argument, analysis, and extension. However, it didn?t take long before the benefits of disclosure started to be eroded. For instance, when disclosure first began, it was reciprocal. Now people only disclose on the Aff. Even good ideas get diluted over time. >2. Some measures are sweet. The weak version is >closely analogous to caselisting - which is awesome. >(Morris' super-weak version is just caselisting plus.) >?Does the Wake caselist level all inequities by >tself? Well, no, but it's a good thing. >3. I would never claim that the proprietary system is >either "sole" or "primary". >*This is a PMN to an advantage that I didn't claim.* >Open source will not completely level the playing >field - this is Disavowed Claim D in the original >post. >At the same time, I have personally known debaters >from large programs who keep debating because they >don't have to cut too many cards. They can get a >fairly decent brief set from internal sharing, roll >into a fair number of tournaments, and sustain >participation. I have also spoken with debaters from >smaller programs who quit because fo the frustrations >inherent in shouldering such a large cardcutting >workload just to imagine catching up. >I graduated a debater last year with some interest in >starting a policy team at some school in Connecticut. >He decided that assembling all the cards himself in >addition to pushing for admin startup would be too >much of a pain in the ass. He's doing parli now. >I feel confident that Open Source would create an >evolving backfile system for new teams that would >appreciably reduce entry barriers. Defensive >questions about the precise scope of this reduction >don't really matter in the absence of a DA. Conceded. I think you are probably correct about all of this. Again, my response to it was more a concern about masking and circumvention. I don?t think this is inherently a bad idea. I am just worried that it doesn?t address the fundamental issue that should be the focus on change in the community. >"The fundamental problem of elitism is that the drive >to win overwhelms the drive to learn." >1. That may be - I don't see either the relevance or >the disad to the perm. >2. Ross Smith said that "highly restrictive >intellectual property rights are culturally powerful >and enjoy presumption." >I find no stronger proof of this proposition than the >fact that I'm answering opposite sets of arguments. >Everyone bags on the strong sauce proposal by saying >that it would hurt competitive incentives to work, >leaving only the pure joy of research. You're going >in the opposite direction. Do you think the strong >version would depress or inflame the competitive >drive? I don?t think it will necessarily do either. I don?t think anything will depress the competitive drive. And I don?t necessarily think it should, assuming that the competitive drive is properly contextualized. I think the drive to win rounds and do well at tournaments has always motivated students to work hard and learn. I also believe that is (or at least can be) a good thing. I just think that the guiding philosophy of our activity and therefore of the people who do it (coaches in particular) should be education first. I think the value of the competition is to drive the learning. Those coaches and programs that get those reversed are, in my opinion, the root cause of the problems that have motivated such things as rules and projects. I don?t think we would need so many efforts in the form of things like rules and projects to level the playing field if the drive to win tournaments didn?t cause so many political decisions in rounds. If people didn?t feel pressured to vote the list and if debaters weren?t afraid to lose rounds because their coaches will yell at them, etc...we would need such things. Too many in the community have simply failed to properly contextualize the competitive drive. >3. If you took away the gaming aspects, I don't think >the activity would have the same draw. I don't think >they're going to research that deep out of pure joy. >The possibility of winning or losing is a powerful >engine. I agree, again. I love the gaming aspect of debate. It is one of the things that I use to get students interested. This is one of the places that I think project debate is flawed. I don?t think it is the gaming aspect that is the real problem. The game is a learning device if we use it as such. The game can drive innovation in strategy and argument development if it is divorced from the politics of the list. >That's a random side note, though. Perm perm perm. >" In fact, I think it is one of the fundamental >problems with ??project?? oriented debate." >I don't know exactly what you define as "project >oriented" debate. >I know that your past posts have expressed some >hostility to critical debate...which I find slightly >ironic in the context of your current approach. My definition of ?project debate? is those approaches that argue that the fundamental elements of debate are bad. Projects are those approaches that want to create inclusion by tearing-down or rejecting the fundamental structural aspects of debate like resolutions, or those that claim that some new style like rap or poetry should be given more weight than traditional styles like the spread. My ?hostility to critical debate? as you call it, is one born out of argumentative logic ? nothing else. If critical arguments did a better job of addressing the resolutional question, I would have no complaints (or hostility) about them at all. I don?t object to critical arguments because they are different or non-traditional. I object to them because on the whole, they are bad arguments. It appears that you, like many before you, have not read all of my posts in regard to critical debate. For years, people who support critical debate, have misinterpreted my comments and assumed that I am ?hostile? to critical arguments simply because they are different. This has NEVER been the case. But apparently and unfortunately, those who support the critical approach have a tendency toward hasty generalization of those who criticize their arguments. It has long been the case that people are grouped into one of only two possible categories ? either you support critical debate or you don?t and the choice has to be all or nothing. I refuse to accept this classification. Thus, I think the sense of irony to which you refer is not so much irony as a failure to carefully read my many previous posts in their entirety. >You're arguing that my formal and rule-based approach >couldn't possibly work. It risks masking the root >cause of most social ills within debate. Instead of >discussing changes in some juridical structure, we >should envision individual culture shifting. >This line of argument sounds familiar, doesn't it :)? Cute, but incorrect. I think you are essentializing my position (which is what most people have done over the years, as I mention above). However, you are partly correct. I don?t think the formal rule-based approach is likely to work unless it addresses the fundamental concerns I have mentioned. If there were a rule or set of rules proposed that were intended to shift the focus of the activity from competition first to learning first, I would probably support those rules in theory. I would have to carefully evaluate their potential solvency before supporting them individually, but I would support the idea. For example, in D1 we are considering wording for a rule right now that would force A-list schools to participate more within our region. I support the idea but agree that we have not yet found a specific rule that will accomplish the goal. I support it because I think it makes an effort to put community before competitive success, yet allows for competitive success to still be valid. Where my line of argument differs from the projects with which you appear to be trying to group me is that I don?t think this goal can be accomplished within debate rounds. I think it can only be accomplished through social pressure within the community and that it has to be clearly stated as such. >peace >antonucci Thanks for the dialog. Ken Ken Sherwood | Director ____________________________ LACC Forensics Program 855 N. Vermont Ave. CC184 Los Angeles, CA 90029 p. 323 .953 .4000 xt 2962 f. 323 .953 .4013 e. forensics at lacitycollege.edu w. http://www.lacitycollege.edu/academic/departments/speech/forensics/Forensics /indexx.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051212/9cb0b0b4/attachment.htm From anabaptist Mon Dec 12 14:08:34 2005 From: anabaptist (Donald Bryson) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:08:34 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ans bryson - was Re: new proof that pre-war iraqi terror claims we Message-ID: <000c01c5ff57$d5035450$6401a8c0@Donald> I don't mind this type of conversation at all...it's the Chester Copperpot thing I have an issue with. And while I disagree with you, I think that it's good for us to talk about this. I think that my pointing out that I couldn't access the links points to the fact that I was at least trying to educate myself as to the concerns of people with opposing viewpoints. I'm not going to get into the particulars of this Iraqi conflict because I know that I am in the vast minority in the debate community. Donald -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051212/0d57e21c/attachment.html From eber Mon Dec 12 15:33:43 2005 From: eber (Michael Eber) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:33:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] DOD Job at Michigan State Message-ID: <012a01c5ff63$b9f56700$0300a8c0@EBER> The official posting is below. I have decided to head to law school next year, but the DOD job at Michigan State is an amazing debate opportunity. Please feel free to contact me with any informal questions at eber at msu.edu. -- Mike Michigan State University, Honors College, Debate Program Specialist, Director, Debate Program rolling fixed term, rolling three-year contract Michigan State University seeks a Director of the Debate Program. The director oversees a nationally competitive policy debate program. The person in the position is responsible for administering the Debate Program and coordinating all day-to-day program operations, including but not limited to: coaching and research, recruiting, tournament travel, budget management, alumni relations, planning and coordinating a large summer high school debate institute, teaching a debate-related class, and overseeing other operational and administration functions. The Director will have the opportunity to teach a debate-related class as least once per year for the College of Communication Arts and Sciences. The Director will be appointed as an academic specialist, on an annual basis with a rolling fixed term contract. The Director reports to the Dean of the Honors College. Salary commensurate with experience, education and background. Education: MA/MS or higher preferred Experience: Substantial experience participating or coaching CEDA/NDT policy debate; administrative experience preferred as well. To apply, send application materials (a letter of introduction, a resume, and list of three references) to Ronald C. Fisher, Dean, Honors College, Eustace-Cole Hall, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1041. Applications will be accepted until the position is filled. Expected starting date: August 2006 MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051212/debee5ac/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Mon Dec 12 15:53:02 2005 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:53:02 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] ans bryson - was Re: new proof that pre-war iraqi terror claims we In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9368bc9b0512121353k32071cc1g339bc50f00b82090@mail.gmail.com> what is your fixation on real identities...real identities are so analog -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051212/d307221e/attachment.html From katerichey Mon Dec 12 15:55:45 2005 From: katerichey (Katie Richey) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:55:45 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] D3 STAND Women's Retreat May 19-21 Message-ID: <51ab18c80512121355t21dfa3ebm2cc37308bf09009f@mail.gmail.com> I've talked to several of the D3 women about this in person already, but this is the semi-official announcement for those of you who might not know. The D3 women will be getting together for a retreat at KSU in Manhattan Kansas for 3 days of food, fun and community. *Who:* D3 women. coaches, debaters, grad asses, spouses, living partners, groupies, any woman officially or loosely affiliated with a D3 debate program is more than welcome to attend. *Where:* Manhattan Kansas, cooperative housing has been/can be arranged. Let me know if you would like to attend, and we'll find a cheap/free place for you. *When:* May 19-21st 2005. We will kick things off on Friday the 19th. *Why:* because we love each other so gdamn much, that's why! do we need a better reason? but seriously, this is an opportunity to get together and discuss the issues that are important to our district and to the debate community. it's an opportunity to get to know one another, and to hang out in a noncompetitive environment. *How much*: shouldn't cost you more than the gas it takes to get there, plus the food for the weekend. if money is an issue, email me, we can pool our collective resources to get you there. Preempts: *I don't know anyone who is going to be there.* All the more reason to come! if you don't know a lot of D3 women, it is essential that you attend so we can indoctrinate you with D3 love. *It sounds boring. Why won't there be any boys there?* If you know any of the bad ass D3 women, you know that it will be a weekend to remember. We will have productive discussions, you can network with other women for future school/job opportunities, make nicey nice with that one judge that you think hates you, and all without the presence of those D3 boys. why no boys? because it's the D3 *Women's* Retreat - there is usually an end of the year co-ed party you can attend if you miss the boys. *This sounds liberal, and fishy.....will there be only hippies there?* Don't be silly - this is for ALL D3 debate women. Young, old, liberal, conservative, those who spell womyn with a y and those who don't (like me), K hacks and Theory hounds alike should feel free to attend. I will send out a more detailed invite with directions, etc when it gets closer to time. feel free to email with questions, Kate katerichey at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051212/969efb65/attachment.htm From carlos Mon Dec 12 16:17:05 2005 From: carlos (Carlos Varela) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:17:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Fw: DCUDL Judging Oppurtunity (Washington DC Area) Message-ID: <200512122217.jBCMH5V04961@hsdebate.com> HELLO Debate Community, The DC Urban Debate League is hosting the third tournament of the year this Saturday, December 17th, from 9 am-3:30 pm. As with all tournaments we host, recruiting qualified policy debate judges is always a challenge. This tournament has been even more difficult since our college students that help judge are unavailable due to finals or holiday travels. If you are in the DC area and would like to judge one, two, or all three rounds of our tournament, please contact me so I can add you to the list. If you are not available but might know of someone who might be available, please pass on the invite. To those of you on College debate teams, please foward this to your squad listserves. We can get all the help we can get. We do offer warm breakfast sandwiches, and lunch. Stipends are available for your participation upon request. Location of the Tournament: Cardozo Senior High School 1300 Clifton Street, NW Washington DC One block from Green line metro, "Cardozo metro station". Thank you all for your time and consideration. You make the DC Urban Debate League better. Carlos -- Carlos Varela Program Director The DC Urban Debate League - www.dcdebate.org 100 Peabody St. NW- 1st floor Washington, D.C. 20011 (202)-341-5083 -- Carlos Varela Program Director The DC Urban Debate League - www.dcdebate.org 100 Peabody St. NW- 1st floor Washington, D.C. 20011 (202)-341-5083 From hansonjb Mon Dec 12 19:54:36 2005 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:54:36 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] hs coaching position, spokane, wa Message-ID: <115e01c5ff88$2f0b6c00$ae081b0a@whitmanrrsukez> check out this great opportunity, working with chad rigsby of gonzaga fame: http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1179863#post1179863 jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051212/e48e999b/attachment.html From korryharvey Mon Dec 12 22:20:56 2005 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 20:20:56 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] ans bryson - was Re: new proof that pre-war iraqi terror claims we Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051212/21415f53/attachment.htm From john Tue Dec 13 01:08:06 2005 From: john (John Sullivan) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 02:08:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] What's being talked about is not "open source" In-Reply-To: (Kevin Sanchez's message of "Mon, 12 Dec 2005 13:34:58 -0600") References: Message-ID: <87slsx325l.fsf@ashbery.wjsullivan.net> It's been a little weird watching this discussion go by. I work for the Free Software Foundation. I'm not saying that to claim any authority, but just to point out where my views start from. It's been weird because I don't really get what's being talking about. For starters, answers to a few questions might help clear things up for me. 1) How is the current model of debate proprietary? As near as I can tell, there are no rules prohibiting sharing. 2) Are people seriously talking about applying copyright licenses (like Creative Commons or the GPL) to debate evidence? I'd suggest talking to some lawyers about that one. I guess handbooks pull it off somehow, but generally speaking the size of a card in debate goes well beyond the typical boundaries of fair use (in the eyes of the legal system, not in my eyes), and the proportion of original contribution generally is so low that you will have a difficult time licensing any of it without the permission of the evidence authors. I am not an expert in these things, but this is what I'm told, repeatedly. Any of the umpteen million debate alumni lawyers are welcome to correct. 3) If it is copyrightable, how will you allow it to be licensed in one direction and not the other? There is no defensible interpretation which allows me to use a Creative Commons license that doesn't also allow me to use an All Rights Reserved license, thus legally _stopping_ the sharing that is conventionally required in the debate status quo. 4) Are you sure that the gains couldn't be had by just putting some organizational muscle behind providing technological infrastructure at debate tournaments to make it as easy as possible to copy and share what's already being copied and shared? 5) "Creative Commons" is not your answer. There are many different licenses under that umbrella, which allow a wide variety of sharing or not sharing, and are incompatible with each other. Specifically which license -- what terms -- do you think are required? Right now, I don't see how the free software, open source, or creative commons movements are the answers to any of the problems being cited, though I would love to be shown how they are. It would be good for business. I think using them as analogies is probably actually obscuring other debates that need to happen. -- -John Sullivan -http://www.wjsullivan.net -GPG Key: AE8600B6 From let_the_american_empire_burn Tue Dec 13 04:24:19 2005 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 04:24:19 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] What's being talked about is not "open source" Message-ID: enclosed below is an online discussion i had with someone who shot me some good questions about (cc) and academic debate; i hope it helps to deal with some of the concerns raised by steve sawyer which i may've not adequately addressed. up top i'd like to respond to john sullivan's recent post (http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200512/0122.html): "How is the current model of debate proprietary? As near as I can tell, there are no rules prohibiting sharing." as i explained in the shell (III, b), under the current law, copyright automatically covers all intellectual goods, including debate work. handbooks prohibit their packaged evidence from being shared outside the team, and in at least one instance have shut down an internet website which attempted to do so. you claim that "the proportion of original contribution generally is so low that you will have a difficult time licensing any of it without the permission of the evidence authors". PlanetDebate.com, which i'm assuming has access to solid legal advice, states in their copyright notification: "PlanetDebate and Harvard Debate, Inc. claim copyright ownership of the compilation of the resources and those that resources it has specifically produced. Redistribution of any material from the Planet Debate website is strictly prohibited and penalties against its redistribution will be enforced to the fullest extent of the law." i've seen no handbook company that deviates substantially from the above policy. sullivan: "Are people seriously talking about applying copyright licenses (like Creative Commons or the GPL) to debate evidence?" yes. "I'd suggest talking to some lawyers about that one." i emailed lawrence lessig to ask him about this very legal issue, and he told me that although he's never seen a debate-specific case on evideniciary compilations as such, he thinks there's a strong argument both that excerpts are 'fair use' and that taglines (and any other edits/additions) can be protected by copyright. the question would be whether such compilations are merely 'derivative works', and i'd tend to agree you, john, that they're very derivative (although i wish they included more original research). in any case if traditional (c) can apply to debate files, then so can (cc) -- what's good for the goose.... as to terminology, 'propietary' doesn't simply mean that sharing is prohibited, but that all goods are privately owned; the alternative system proposed here is one in which sharing is not only sometimes permitted, but a *requirement* for further participation. "Are you sure that the gains couldn't be had by just putting some organizational muscle behind providing technological infrastructure at debate tournaments to make it as easy as possible to copy and share what's already being copied and shared?" only after (cc) starts winning ballots from teams that don't disclose/publish their files on the internet will the consensus be sufficient to build the organizational networks you advocate. like stefan said, in current internet disclosure frameworks, there continue to be free-riders -- the moon and sproull card in the shell specifically says that formal incentive systems (ballots) are necessary to check such abuse. "'Creative Commons' is not your answer. There are many different licenses under that umbrella, which allow a wide variety of sharing or not sharing, and are incompatible with each other. Specifically which license -- what terms -- do you think are required?" the shell advocates the 'share-and-share-alike' license and permitting future modification of any work under (cc) provided the original author is given sufficient credit. "Right now, I don't see how the free software, open source, or creative commons movements are the answers to any of the problems being cited, though I would love to be shown how they are." read the file and tell me what you think. but don't look for 'the answer' -- it's not a panacea; it's one step in mitigating inequity, improving argument quality, and creating an educational commons. simply because fairness is an unattainable ideal doesn't mean we shouldn't strive for it. "I think using them as analogies is probably actually obscuring other debates that need to happen." i've tried to clarify any obscurity (see the discussion below). specifically, what other debates do you feel need to happen? ... and i thank you for your response. _ I AM BEN BONANZA: Kevin Sanchez epiphigasms: yes, sir? I AM BEN BONANZA: I wanted to talk about open source with you when you have a few minutes epiphigasms: i'm eating lunch, so i have more than a few. I AM BEN BONANZA: Perfect I AM BEN BONANZA: I am pretty determined not to get into the discussion on edebate epiphigasms: haha, ok. I AM BEN BONANZA: I think that the discussion that isn't happening is the discussion about the value and practical impact of making evidence freely available--you and Steve are just now driving toward it. An argument that I find compelling as a former open source code writer is Theo de Raadt's. He's the head for the NetBSD project. And he routinely blasts Linux coders for their lazy, shallow, trivial, or otherwise stupid solutions. In essence, he sees the large number of eyes and the large amount of code as an incentive to create cheap, functional, but theoretically bankrupt hacks to make things work. epiphigasms: i'm not familiar with him. I AM BEN BONANZA: He's a real bastard epiphigasms: does he prefer the old cathedral vision of programming? I AM BEN BONANZA: Sort of in between, I guess. I don't think that the example of how NetBSD works would be a good way to model debate. Because it's basically a small group of professional coders. epiphigasms: what i'd say is that an open development process is inclusive of that model as well. there's still room for the solitary genius. in fact, basic structural changes to linux don't happen without torvald's say-so. I AM BEN BONANZA: He's pretty critical of Torvalds, too. But I think that what de Raadt is saying is at least partly driving toward what Steve Sawyer is saying: that a large evidence (or code) base encourages people to make shallow contributions epiphigasms: debate already operates on a small-scale team-centric model, but i think there's a great deal of benefits to be had from opening that up. epiphigasms: ah i see. I AM BEN BONANZA: Steve says that people will only contribute uniqueness updates--an extreme example, I think, but I see where he's coming from. And de Raadt is saying that people contribute cheap little hacks that work in the immediate term but eventually break, aren't well-commented, don't make sense in a larger structure, etc. epiphigasms: my own feeling is that it won't take away the incentive to do good work and a lot of shallow contributions often end up adding up to good contributions. I AM BEN BONANZA: Yeah, I feel like this is a position that would be characterized as a "defensive" argument. It doesn't demonstrate that open source is "bad". Just that it doesn't work as well as we'd all like. epiphigasms: only contributing uniqueness updates might be what's called for once you've got good link and impacts cards, right? ... i mean, that's part of the reason why open source is more efficient. instead of every team researching links and impacts, a few really interested people could do that, and then everyone else can contribute to uniqueness. that's not shallow, that's letting those most concerned set up the basic structure of a position. and if better links/impacts come out, then there's still an incentive to replace the shoddy existing ones. I AM BEN BONANZA: Sure, I see that, and that's where Steve's article about debugging was logically fallacious when applied to debate. While most computer end users can't debug code, virtually every debater can "debug" evidence. I think a more provocative (and poorly supported) argument was the one that came from OU's coach. Which was, roughly, that the focus shouldn't be about evidence. And I think that argument has some merit, too, and partially attacks the ramework for open source. Is real parity in debate about having the same cards? Are homogeneity and parity the same thing? epiphigasms: i agree the focus shouldn't be wholly on evidence, which is why we should put it in the commons so we can focus on research and debating skills. so much of debate right now focuses on evidence because it's proprietary. let's get it out of the way, is my feeling. let the guy who wants to do uniqueness updates at 2am give them to everyone else so they can get a good night's sleep and debate better the following day. =) I AM BEN BONANZA: lol epiphigasms: i see more where steve was coming from now though. i wish i had this discussion before i sent my reply. i think this position encourages a diversity of projects, as more people will be able to put all of their heart into what they most enjoy, and obviously there'll be more 'forks' in debate positions than in gnu/linux software. I AM BEN BONANZA: Another thought I had: do small squads have the capacity to process this much evidence? Does free sharing of evidence create a new advantage for the bigger, richer squads that are capable of quickly reading, printing, reorganizing, and filing all of that information? In its initial form, evidence that is scanned and loaded is still basically noise. And it takes some effort to turn it into useful information. Although it is less energy input PER CARD to turn it into a usable end product, there are MORE CARDS to make use of. And in that respect, I can forsee open evidence becoming a new means of reinforcing the divide between the resource rich and the resource poor. I could also be off base on that. epiphigasms: i mean, it'd be a painful task, but a lot of debate is already. filing extemp articles, for example. hopefully this would encourage people to move away from cutting-and-pasting shit onto tubs full of paper, and the move toward digital replication would save a lot of wasted effort. plus, once one card is online and linked up to everyone else, that eliminates the need for redundant work. I AM BEN BONANZA: What kind of work is valuable, though? Is it better to read the article yourself or to read zillions of decontextualized cards so that you are prepared to read them responsibly in a round? I see some redundancy as educational--it puts everybody on an equal footing. We all read the same classic works of literature in high school, nobody says that sparknotes are better because it eliminates the need for everybody to read the whole text. I hope these don't seem like extremely stupid questions, or extremely irritating questions about debate values. The more I think about this problem, the more it seems like it reduces to competing values about debate. epiphigasms: well there the problem seems to be with 'carding' itself. this automatically implies taking it out of context. debaters share files in the status quo, and the ratio of people who've read the actual article versus people who're using the card is incredible. i'd hope debaters start publishing entire articles, but the system of commentary/bug-fixing should check any out-of-context abuses... more so in fact than the current framework. and it's hardly 'equal footing' for a team of four debaters to cut as much evidence as a team of twenty debaters with a few card-cutting assistants to boot. I AM BEN BONANZA: I don't really mean out-of-context, in the sense of an abuse, but in the sense of ripped from its original text and in that sense containing less rich meaning. epiphigasms: as long as there is a competitive incentive to read the entire article for context, debaters will do that. what we're not considering is those who can't even get access to the article, because it's in some esoteric postmodern journal or hard-to-find law review, etc.. epiphigasms: besides, if people took this consideration seriously, they'd work to eliminate handbooks. yet i see no moves within the community to do that. I AM BEN BONANZA: That's true epiphigasms: all i'm saying is, instead of charging people forhandbooks, give it to them for free, and build a collective around reading that material, commenting on it, improving it, etc.. I AM BEN BONANZA: I guess I am working from an idealized vision rather than the way things actually work: debaters don't look to learn it all on their own, debaters don't have access to everything, they won't steal what they can't get legally, etc. I'm more on your side than Steve's. I'm just trying to feel out more of the contours epiphigasms: me too, and i think this helps. the not unique and turn is the best response. things are already getting worse, squads are hiring more card-cutters and teams are reading evidence they never got near to cutting, and handbooks/subscription services are getting more and more profitable. so the question becomes will these things be proprietary or can we mold them into an educational resource in its own right. I AM BEN BONANZA: I'm glad. I think that one of the difficulties is that the analogy to open source software is of limited value/mileage epiphigasms: i've tried to rely less and less on the open source analogy, which is why i begin my shell with the openlaw project. I AM BEN BONANZA: Yeah I AM BEN BONANZA: I hope that OpenLaw will get another big hearing in court epiphigasms: well considering the composition of the supreme court, i think it's probably a lost cause... though it fine-tuned the means of a more collaborative legal process. I AM BEN BONANZA: I think it's also important to consider the externalities of opening the evidence economy. How does this effect people outside of college debate? You offer the example of people out in the "real world" who could avail themselves of the huge body of already-compiled research required for contemporary debate epiphigasms: well one of the ways might be getting experts in the relevant fields to comment upon debate positions, and another could be activists using debate positions as ways of mobilizing support for certain iniatives. I AM BEN BONANZA: Sure, I see both of those as good things epiphigasms: for example, you post your climate affirmative, and an expert in the field then comments on it, and you take those comments under consideration in re-writing your affirmative. or you post your ban ritalin affirmative, and a parents group cites your position as a way of appealing to skool boards. I AM BEN BONANZA: Yeah. I used to email experts when producing positions when I was in high school. People usually like to provide that sort of feedback. epiphigasms: yeah this feedback already goes on, it's just a matter of getting it out in the open for everyone to see and use. schlag has talked to many a debater, and spanos' letter to debaters was very interesting to those who run him in debate (http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200202/0649.html). I AM BEN BONANZA: A potentially bad thing, however: the impact on high school debate. From what I have observed over the law few years, the increased availability of evidence has presented problems in high school debate, where core competencies and basic knowledge are still in development epiphigasms: i think the benefits goes both ways -- debaters could use the reality check of experts, and the outside world could use the arguments of a great bunch of smart young minds. i don't think high school debate is all that different. it's more a matter of degree. there's certainly very intelligent debaters at the high school level, and often they feel trapped by a system of lowered expectations. again, building a commons helps break down some of those walls and links them with a lot of different people/resources. it takes the accomplishments of the best and shares them with everyone. I AM BEN BONANZA: Let's pick this up later. Thanks for devoting so much time to this discussion. epiphigasms: hey, would you mind if i posted our above back-and-forth on open source to edebate? i think it'd really help clarify the issue. i'd email you the final draft before posting. I AM BEN BONANZA: You can post whatever you'd like epiphigasms: i don't have to use your sn-name if you don't want. I AM BEN BONANZA: you can feel free to use my sn _ From stannardmatt Tue Dec 13 10:42:52 2005 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 09:42:52 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] enter Great Salt Lake at debateresults.com Message-ID: The entry form for GSL is up. There are two divisions, open and novice. Everything else should be self-explanatory. Please backchannel me with any questions or concerns. stannard From stannardmatt Tue Dec 13 11:28:38 2005 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:28:38 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] GSL NDT/CEDA schedule Message-ID: Dan Lair will add the following NDT/CEDA schedule to his tournament web page, accessible on the Bruschke site: Friday, January 13: 12:00-1:00 p.m. Registration, OSH Foyer 1:30 p.m. Policy Debate, Round One 3:45 p.m. Policy Debate, Round Two 6:00 p.m. Policy Debate, Round Three Saturday, January 14: 9:30 a.m. Policy Debate, Round Four 11:45 a.m. LUNCH 1:00 p.m. Policy Debate, Round Five 4:00 p.m. Policy Debate, Round Six 6:30 p.m. Elimination Round One, Policy Debate Sunday, January 15: 8:00 AM Elimination Rounds continue as needed in Policy Debate From majeredb8 Tue Dec 13 13:52:01 2005 From: majeredb8 (Steve Sawyer) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:52:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] What's being talked about is not "open source" Message-ID: <200512131952.jBDJq1c09046@hsdebate.com> Kevin (and Ermo also): Sorry for no reply yesterday, I've been kind of bad about recreational e-mail since I started a new job. I think the e-mail from William Sullivan, and the IM conversation posted by Kevin, cover a lot of the concerns I have. Collegiate debate is much more open about sources than my high school experience in St. Louis. When one team has a really sweet card, word spreads pretty fast about that. And maybe I'm naive, but if a team seriously couldn't get access to a book or periodical, I'm sure SOMEBODY in the community would hook them up. Creating an evidence escrow gives people access to hard to obtain cards but doesn't address the equity problem of people not having access to the actual text. And if the proposal is even more radical, REQUIRING people to give books or articles to other people, that would be a serious disincentive to research. It's one thing to ask somebody to photocopy a few pages and send them to a team that just can't get the book - I'd do that in a heartbeat. But being forced to check out books from the library and potentially incur huge fines, or loan somebody my personal books would turn me off. Given enough time I could say more, but for now here are a few reasons why I'm not a fan of the escrow proposal: 1) Enforcement of the sharing standard widens the gap between programs: First, too much evidence creates an information overload. Better financed or more technically oriented teams will find it much eaiser to comb through the evidence than small teams who just don't have the time to comb through mounts of PDFs to find the small nuggets of goodness we call sweet cards. It's analogous to the mammoth corporate law firm that accedes to a request for discovery by piling on thousands of pages of documents - except unlike pre-trial discovery, where you can request extensions and so forth, there is a set in stone time limit for when you need stuff finished. Second, it takes time and resources to gather evidence for redistribution. Better funded schools have better computers, copiers, and scanners. Sure, most people digitize their evidence nowadays, but Lexis access isn't the most serious concern we're dealing with. In theory Big School X could have all their handcut ev pre-scanned and ready to roll before the tournament, while Small School Y needs to rely on the tournament staff to do it for them. School X gets an extra hour or so of prep, while School Y gets shafted by virtue of their economic position. Third, it will increase the desirability and demand for "hired gun" coaches. If the point of this is to make coaches coach rather than cut cards, it's not going to help. If you get mountains of evidence, somebody needs to go through it. The team with 5 assistant coaches will have a better shot at sifting through everything than the team with none. The disad to the inevitable "perm" on this is that it's good to keep people involved in the activity and that assistant coaches can offer some good insight, and some people's expertise may be at micromanaging or cutting cards. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. 2) It de-personalizes the activity and further segretates participants who engage in non-traditional debate: I won't accept "it's not" unique" as an answer to this. How can I "share" my performance? Include video tapes of previous ones? Give you a copy of my Black Eyed Peas or Mos Def CD? And what about teams like the Fort who have in the past refused to be video taped? I don't know how you can fairly and objectively "open source" debate any further without running into a double standard that alienates somebody. Some personal or political advocacies may come out spontaneously yet could become a major part of a team's advocacy. I don't think I need to explain why it's pretty repugnant to demand that people either write out or record a statement about something personal else they can't say it. Doing that would seriously chill those styles in the community, to the chagrin of some. But if teams aren't required to disclose these advocacies before the tourney, you're creating an unfair burden for those who want debate to be a game by "gifting" and of their sweat and blood. Not to mention, if a person's contribution to the community can be measured by how much sweet ev they provide to everyone, I'd expect that people who have some personal activism will be derided as freeloaders, whether they are or not. 3) It discourages time-sensitive research. I'm sorry, but if you find a few sweet uniqueness cards for your disad 10 minutes before the round, you should be rewarded for that. I mean how absurd would it be if you find a card, then tell your opponents, who in turn find a card and tell you - ad infinitum until the round begins? That type of micromanagement makes Lumberg and the Bobs roll over in their graves. If you think getting the other team off their blocks can help you win a debate and the best way to do that is through a new position, why should that option be taken away? 4) It externalizes drive and creates a sense of entitlement. I feel dirty saying that because politically I support social welfare. But one of the virtues that I developed in debate was a sense of self reliance. That DOESN'T mean I did everything on my own. It DOES mean that I did what I could and developed a social network to help me out with what I couldn't do. It's important for people to learn how to deal with constraints. The US spent billions of dollars in the space race developing a pen that writes upside down; the Soviets used pencils. One last little clarification: Theo de Raadt is the head of the OpenBSD project, not NetBSD. He may be a jerk, but literally no release of his operating system distro in the past 8 or 10 years has been found to contain a remotely accessible security hole in its default installation. That's unparalleled. Further, his methods are somewhat similar to Kevin's. Theo literally refuses to support computer hardware out of the box if the developer of the hardware won't provide documentation about how it works. Although Theo's code can be used freely, his hardline approach was highly successful and earned him recognition from open source and free software people. This e-mail was way too long... so back to work for me. -Steve From antonucci23 Tue Dec 13 14:15:16 2005 From: antonucci23 (Michael Antonucci) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:15:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] What's in a Name? Message-ID: <20051213201516.35512.qmail@web61011.mail.yahoo.com> I promised to sign off on this thread, but I feel that the latest series of posts risk conveying the wrong impression about the proposal. Quick precis: you don't have to know a ton about either software development or Deleuze and Guattari to discuss the relative merits of the proposal. The software stuff is an analogy, and if it's an imperfect analogy, that's a very mild downer indeed. The naming issue seems particularly irrelevant. Who cares what label we attach to it? I don't. I made the name up. I picked it out of a hat. I chose the title "Open Source" for two reasons. 1. The Open Law project at Harvard seems analogous. It used a similar naming convention. 2. It's kind of catchy. Maybe "Rough Analogy to FreeBSD" is more accurate, but you must admit that "RAFBSD" doesn't pack quite the same mnemonic punch. I'd suggest calling the various proposals "Open Debate" - it conveys the spirit, I think, of projects such as Open Law without duplicating the name of existent software and disturbing purists. I don't really care what anyone calls it, though. What about "Cheap and Nasty" or "Waltzing Matilda"? If you like those, go for it. I've detailed a proposal down to the number of scanners, so the name seems irrelevant for anyone actively considering these systems. John Sullivan says: "1) How is the current model of debate proprietary? As near as I can tell, there are no rules prohibiting sharing." I thought - and I may be wrong - that proprietary meant "something exclusively owned by someone, often with connotations that it is exclusive and cannot be used by other parties without negotiations." That doesn't prohibit sharing. It just means that the proprietor of the information retains control over access. My alternate proposal envisions more of an intellectual commons. In the weak version, evidence enters the commons, or the collective pool, once you read it. Once you've deployed something in the round, it is no longer exclusively your intellectual property. I don't care what you call it though. You can call the current system "Crane Kung Fu" and my proposal "Shaolin Tiger Kung Fu" if it seems more accurate. "Are people seriously talking about applying copyright licenses (like Creative Commons or the GPL) to debate evidence?" No. "If it is copyrightable, how will you allow it to be licensed in one direction and not the other?" Forget about the licensing. It's useful as an analogy. The actual details of the proposal, down to mechanics, are in the previous posts. "Are you sure that the gains couldn't be had by just putting some organizational muscle behind providing technological infrastructure at debate tournaments to make it as easy as possible to copy and share what's already being copied and shared?" In essence, that is the weak variation outlined previously. The major difference between the weak variation and what you discuss is the use of full text scanning. "Specifically which license -- what terms -- do you think are required?" None. "I think using them as analogies is probably actually obscuring other debates that need to happen." I think it's OK. Clearly, IPR issues are implicated, although in a way that's peculiar to debate. It's useful to remind debaters and coaches clutching to their cards with a death grip that they probably violate intellectual property law all the time. If you want to employ different terminology to discuss the substance of the proposal, though, that's fine with me. Steve Sawyer says: "I'm a fan of OSS stuff and use it frequently, but it's misleading to call the so-called "strong" system as described by Sanchez and Antonucci an "open source system" while describing college debate in the SQ "closed." 1. You shouldn't conflate my limited, pro-debate advocacy with Sanchez' consistently more radical proposals. I'm really not a wingnut on this. 2. Call it what you want. I think my labels are easier for people who aren't computer professionals to remember, but this is the Burger King of naming conventions - have it your way. 3. Why the sneer quotes around "strong"? I'm pretty confident that the strong proposal is, indeed, a stronger variant than the weak one. " Could somebody point to a round in the past ten years where a team refused to allow the other team to take cites from their evidence, or even read the ev during cross-ex, because "not allowed?" I doubt it, but I had plenty of those experiences in regional high school debate. The standards of openness - and the ethical sanctions for posting unpublished evidence - are way beyond what occurs in other debate venues, and certainly much more stringent than what occurs outside of the academy." Right. We all agree that's sweet. That's a reason to extend that trend. The problem with pimping inherency is that you non-unique your DAs. "The initial author of a good arg gets the fame and credit for coming up with it, and the availability of cites means that other teams can recut it and rework it." I understand the reasons to rework. That doesn't dissipate under the weak variation. What educational purpose is served by forcing debaters to go through the idiot work of RECUTTING, though? What's the point of making everyone do more data entry? If you really want to increase the raw labor requirements, college debate should revoke previous disclosure norms. Everyone can get their disclosure the old-fashioned way, with their feet! in the snow! uphill! It'll be good for them! "This seems to be a huge risk in the debate community. By the 3rd or 4th tournament of a year, the number of people developing better arguments and doing anything more than uniqueness updates will bottom out. In the software world, this probably doesn't matter because it's a good thing to have the software work the same way every time. In debate, where creativity and innovation are necessary, it's a different story." What? Are you making this argument against the weak variation? If not, I'll let Sanchez defend the strong version. If so, are you serious? Replicating the brief set read to date creates more powerful incentives to innovate. Put more concretely, if all the cards read thus far are out there, you have more reason to cut new cards, not less. Some teams will, indeed, free ride. Since those teams may aready be retention risks, that's a good thing. "Cites and a few words from the cards should be good enough for most people. It is much much easier to get access to evidence now than it was years ago - companies like Google and Yahoo are scanning books and putting them online, and interlibrary loans are more common. Why having evidence accessible with one click instead of ten will improve debate I do not know." Uphill! In the snow! We walked to other squads' libraries and got the books ourselves! In the snow! No fancy computers! And I'll tell you what - it built character! I've warranted possible improvements in debate at some length - as has Ross Smith, as has, apparently, Gordon Mitchell. Reducing unnecessary labor lowers entry barriers, improves retention by making debate less of a pain in the ass, and allows innovative researchers to concentrate on argument development. Can you give me the possible benefit of forcing debaters to punch in first and last words 500 times? What do they learn from that? After you make those arguments, by the way, can you retype them in 50 different fonts, so that you can continue to reap the benefits that you extol? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From let_the_american_empire_burn Tue Dec 13 16:49:21 2005 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:49:21 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] What's in a Name? Message-ID: when john sullivan asked, "Are people seriously talking about applying copyright licenses (like Creative Commons or the GPL) to debate evidence?", michael antonucci, to my surprise, responded: "No." i find this odd for a few reasons, first among them that the original file contained 'g.p.l. solvency'. of course, the g.p.l. documentation license is badly suited for debate, but the creative commons public license (which michael must know i've been seriously advocating) seem like a perfect fit for debate. let me give you a concrete example: if you have a mozilla firefox web-browser, go to the right-hand corner and click on the little google symbol. if you have the default version, it'll offer you five other search engines besides google -- yahoo, ebay, dictionary.com, creative commons, and amazon.com. wait, did i just say creative commons? yes, i did. every webpage that is licensed under a c.c.p.l. is searchable there. this means that if every debate file were licensed under (cc), anyone interested would be able to search them all in one big swoop. pretty neat, eh? i might be a radical wingnut (and i concede that i haven't maintained the academic distance towards this position that you have, michael), but (cc) offers debaters a very practical solution to file-sharing. ok, ok, you say, 'but what about the serious legal implications? would (cc) hold up in court?' -- here i would again revert to the already established legal precedents of handbook companies who hold on to their copyright dearly. if it works for 'all rights reserved', why not for 'some rights reserved'? sure, if their copyrights are worthless, then all debate work should be public domain regardless (especially since debate's claim to 'fair use' is stronger if it's entirely noncommericial) -- but then you may as well put all these works on a searchable database, one that (cc) provides. and even if the legal argument doesn't hold up, there's something else that's valuable here. not long ago eric raymond made the controversial claim (or at least controversial to the opensource subculture he's a respected member of) that g.p.l. was largely symbolic, having no real legal standing. i'd retort, however, that - drawing on some of raymond's own comments - symbols matter when building group solidarity, and this seems to be the most pertinent obstacle in the debate community at this point. in the last lessig card in the shell, he writes: "[T]here are many who mark their content with a Creative Commons license just because they want to express to others the importance of balance in this debate. If you just go along with the system as it is, you are effectively saying you believe in the 'All Rights Reserved' model." so (cc) functions as a computer-readable tag for constructing a big digital debate archive, it functions as a legal copyright, and it functions as sticker for debaters to put on their tubs-- all three seem cool to me. naturally the more important work is simply putting the stuff online, yet again i'd point to the moon & sproull study of linux in that both internet publication and public licenses proved indispensible. what's in a name? a whole lot actually... still 'waltzing matilda' gets my vote for a new name for the position proper. kevin.sanchez at gmail.com _ http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200512/0097.html From antonucci23 Tue Dec 13 19:34:01 2005 From: antonucci23 (Michael Antonucci) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 17:34:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Open Debate: Resp to Sawyer Message-ID: <20051214013401.84250.qmail@web61012.mail.yahoo.com> I'm a dirty liar, obviously, and really bad about limiting my post count on an issue in which I have some investment. I don't think any of Sawyer's concerns are responsive to the weak variant of Waltzing Matilda. They probably weren't intended to be, but I don't want the middle to get blotted out in a conflict between left and right. As a side note, I don't think any of this touches the real dead center middle - fulltext disclosure requirements tournament by tournament, as explained by Morris. I'm defending something stronger than that, but I'm really waiting on the pedagogical defense of making people do duplicative searches. "Sorry for no reply yesterday, I've been kind of bad about recreational e-mail since I started a new job." Well, I understand that not everyone has the time to live, eat and breathe debate or debate theory. That's kind of my point. What if you had a job when you were debating? (Maybe you had five jobs, I don't have a dossier on you or anything.) What if you wanted to roll in to some tournaments, derive some benefit from the activity and contribute intellectually, but couldn't assemble a full brief set because of raw economic necessity combined with opportunity cost? What if you measured the cost of inputting first and last words in dollars? "Collegiate debate is much more open about sources than my high school experience in St. Louis." That's likely true. Which information model did you prefer? "When one team has a really sweet card, word spreads pretty fast about that. And maybe I'm naive, but if a team seriously couldn't get access to a book or periodical, I'm sure SOMEBODY in the community would hook them up." Whoa there. This type of voluntary compliance doesn't work well over time. Your idea sounds deceptively sensible when you put it in terms of a single example, because it obscures the importance of efficiency for repeated procedures. Repetition magnifies a minor gain, in the same way that folding A5o (full table) will save you a lot of money over a lot of repetitions. If a team reads a sweet card, they're probably willing, in the abstract, to distribute the cite or go to the library and replicate it - *in one individual instance.* However, the burden of requesting and waiting for a reply, as a system, tends to slow the whole process to a crawl. You have to ask. They have to get around to replying. They may be fielding fifty similar requests. At some point, you can't really blame them when they flake. I mean, this is the squo. Everyone knows that this is a pain in the ass sometimes. Look at the Wake caselist. That replicates the process of asking hundreds of debaters to hook you up - and I think a broad consensus agrees that the project is totally sweet. Saying that there's no difference parallels saying that the assembly line didn't really represent any important efficiency gains. It's just a few minutes per widget, after all. I guess broadband isn't really an improvement over dialup, since it's just a minute or two per page. "But being forced to check out books from the library and potentially incur huge fines, or loan somebody my personal books would turn me off." No problem. That's not an element of anything that I've proposed, although Sanchez has his own thing. "Given enough time I could say more, but for now here are a few reasons why I'm not a fan of the escrow proposal:" I think you need to be more clear about which Waltzing Matilda proposal you're indicting. I'm going to defend the weak one, as your arguments are almost entirely unresponsive to such an idea. "1) Enforcement of the sharing standard widens the gap between programs: First, too much evidence creates an information overload. Better financed or more technically oriented teams will find it much eaiser to comb through the evidence than small teams who just don't have the time to comb through mounts of PDFs to find the small nuggets of goodness we call sweet cards." I strongly disagree. First, look more carefully at the weak proposal. It's the equivalent of an intellectual luxury tax. This whole discussion arose because of the proposal to tax in more concrete ways. If there are only five scanners put to use, I'm saying that they should be deployed according to a simple and objective formula in order to target the top five teams (top five seeds in prelims, then middle seeds in elims, until the most successful get caught in semis.) The actual cards read would be duplicated. This does important filtering work in two ways: a. It distributes cards that win rounds. I think that this already occurs to some extent. Teams tend to model positions that have some track record of success. b. It replicates the 30 or so cards that actually get deployed. It's a pain to sort through every single brief, but the actual process of *debating* replicates the kind of quality control that you're saying only hired guns can do. Secondly, your argument isn't particularly unique. After all, almost all the information that you're talking about is *already out there* in some format. It's just a question of how much of the labor of filtering gets passed on to individual teams. A Waltzing Matilda site just does one step of information filtering for you, because it represents something that a coach could do. The ridiculous taboo against duplicating the middle of cards demonstrates this very clearly. By imposing a burden best left to robots on teams, the taboo constitutes a simple test of labor-minutes available. Can you make the time to do the mechanical work of punching in first and last words? "It's analogous to the mammoth corporate law firm that accedes to a request for discovery by piling on thousands of pages of documents - except unlike pre-trial discovery, where you can request extensions and so forth, there is a set in stone time limit for when you need stuff finished." No, it's not. See above - the information release is controlled by a central agency, be it a tab room or a CEDA committee or the site admin. No one can swamp when there's a scan squad that determines what goes into escrow and a site admin that determines what comes out. Do you oppose the discovery requirement on this basis? Would the small mom and pop law firm be better off without it? "Second, it takes time and resources to gather evidence for redistribution. Better funded schools have better computers, copiers, and scanners. Sure, most people digitize their evidence nowadays, but Lexis access isn't the most serious concern we're dealing with. In theory Big School X could have all their handcut ev pre-scanned and ready to roll before the tournament, while Small School Y needs to rely on the tournament staff to do it for them. School X gets an extra hour or so of prep, while School Y gets shafted by virtue of their economic position." Where, in the weak proposal, is a team required to scan their own briefs? The most radical requirement attached to that idea is fulltext case disclosure. The minor difference in that situation is genuinely minor - because there aren't hundreds of repetitions. It's a one-shot deal. If the onerous requirement that you scan your 1AC is genuinely prohibitive, then a fulltext disclosure tournament should collect a print copy upon registration - just do the paperwork and drop your case in the folder. Gort or Seungwon or whoever can then scan it for you. "Third, it will increase the desirability and demand for "hired gun" coaches. If the point of this is to make coaches coach rather than cut cards, it's not going to help. If you get mountains of evidence, somebody needs to go through it. The team with 5 assistant coaches will have a better shot at sifting through everything than the team with none. The disad to the inevitable "perm" on this is that it's good to keep people involved in the activity and that assistant coaches can offer some good insight, and some people's expertise may be at micromanaging or cutting cards. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater." Are assistant coaches good or bad? I can't suss out your position here. You say that it will increase the number of assistants involved...and that it's good to do that...so...it's good - right? In any case, my position is that assistant coaches are totally sweet as long as they play the role of debate teachers, adding to the educational process instead of just doing it. No system in the world is going to eliminate the educational (and thus competitive) value of a lower student:teacher ratio. All that aside, the weak proposal wouldn't really create a mountain of evidence. Let's assume that the Kentucky Round Robin served as an experimental run for playtesting evidence escrow. How many different cards get read in the course of the Kentucky Round Robin? A bunch, but not so many that two dedicated individuals couldn't reappropriate it. It's easier than recreating it with cites and a smattering of words, that's for damn sure. "2) It de-personalizes the activity and further segretates participants who engage in non-traditional debate: I won't accept "it's not" unique" as an answer to this. How can I "share" my performance? Include video tapes of previous ones? Give you a copy of my Black Eyed Peas or Mos Def CD? And what about teams like the Fort who have in the past refused to be video taped?" Before I launch into an exploration of your new love for performative debate, I have to note that all of this would apply to current caselisting procedures. It's probably sort of difficult to caselist Louisville now. Are you arguing that caselisting is thus a bad idea? That seems to be your position. Wouldn't it be silly to scrap the caselist because it's hard to do it in a few instances? Regardless, here's a procedure. If there's a script, submit the script. If there's music - yes, submit the music. If you brought it into a tournament, it exists in a reproducible format. Why can't I take the 30 seconds to snag your Mos Def single of choice? If there's a video, submit a copy of the video. I don't know what the Fort's doing these days. I thought that their arguments were generally scripted, not spontaneous. In a worst case, if your performance is genuinely a spontaneous expression of joy that changes in indescribable ways every round, then congratulations, you escaped the disclosure requirement. If you like that, then score one for you. If you don't like that - if you're a non-trad team dying to participate in open sourcing your own args in order to propagate your advocacy - then take the time to write the most accurate transcript that you can. "I don't know how you can fairly and objectively "open source" debate any further without running into a double standard that alienates somebody." I don't see how this disadvantages non-traditional teams. They get to see the text of other team's advocacies, in order to make their performance genuinely responsive. At the same time, they may get to duck under radar. Of course, that may mean that traditional teams will be slightly exasperated with non-traditional teams. If you "won't accept" a uniqueness answer there, I just don't know if I can help you. "Some personal or political advocacies may come out spontaneously yet could become a major part of a team's advocacy. I don't think I need to explain why it's pretty repugnant to demand that people either write out or record a statement about something personal else they can't say it. Doing that would seriously chill those styles in the community, to the chagrin of some." I presume that any such spontaneous and revelatory advocacy would be uncarded. If it's carded, I would indeed wonder if claims to spontaneity might be disingenuous. Has the Wake caselist extinguished the flames of personal advocacy? In all honesty, if a team said that they were passionate about their performance, but felt discouraged because they caught a coincidental break based on the current state of the tech... I would say get over it. I don't think that any non-traditional teams would actually say that. Maybe some are reading; if so, they should probably speak for themselves. "But if teams aren't required to disclose these advocacies before the tourney, you're creating an unfair burden for those who want debate to be a game by "gifting" and of their sweat and blood." I think that they should have a more limited set of disclosure requirements. I have to confess that I don't understand the part about the blood. Maybe fulltext disclosure gives a slight edge to performance teams, but, really, boo hoo hoo for more traditional teams. I think they'll get over it. "Not to mention, if a person's contribution to the community can be measured by how much sweet ev they provide to everyone, I'd expect that people who have some personal activism will be derided as freeloaders, whether they are or not." Ego-boo is really only employed as a defense of the strong variation. Perm - community will 1. open source and 2. not be a bunch of jackasses. "3) It discourages time-sensitive research. I'm sorry, but if you find a few sweet uniqueness cards for your disad 10 minutes before the round, you should be rewarded for that. I mean how absurd would it be if you find a card, then tell your opponents, who in turn find a card and tell you - ad infinitum until the round begins? That type of micromanagement makes Lumberg and the Bobs roll over in their graves. If you think getting the other team off their blocks can help you win a debate and the best way to do that is through a new position, why should that option be taken away?" This doesn't apply to the weak proposal. "4) It externalizes drive and creates a sense of entitlement. I feel dirty saying that because politically I support social welfare. But one of the virtues that I developed in debate was a sense of self reliance. That DOESN'T mean I did everything on my own. It DOES mean that I did what I could and developed a social network to help me out with what I couldn't do. It's important for people to learn how to deal with constraints. The US spent billions of dollars in the space race developing a pen that writes upside down; the Soviets used pencils." How can you argue that these systems would impose additional burdens on small schools and then argue that such burdens are good because they're a good intrduction to inequity? Isn't that a double turn? Self reliance is great. I don't think that you need to *raise* (or fail to lower) entry barriers to promote it. Should we make debate participation more difficult to build character? Perhaps CEDA can employ a "Small School Ninja Squad" to visit different struggling teams and jack them repeatedly in the kidneys. The teams would then really learn how to ration their time as they drifted in and out of consciousness. They would also potentially develop superior evasion and perhaps even combat skills from fending off the ninja squad. I think debate should offer self-reliant individuals the opportunity to hone their skills, while, at the same time, allowing debaters who may be genuinely economically self-reliant or who may just have other competing interests opportunities to compete with a minimum of hassle. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From illinoisdebate Tue Dec 13 22:43:57 2005 From: illinoisdebate (Illinois Debate) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:43:57 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Four Rounds for Hire at Miami Message-ID: <804f062d0512132043k4cdc0de5i5e050116a33f74f7@mail.gmail.com> Hey all, I'm available for hire for up to four rounds at Miami's tournament (yes, the one in Ohio). Let me know if you're interested. -Tim Glass -- Policy Debate Team University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051213/c0ee659e/attachment.html From hansonjb Tue Dec 13 23:08:00 2005 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:08:00 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] nw ceda champs update Message-ID: <13eb01c6006e$162ba740$ae081b0a@whitmanrrsukez> hey all nw ceda champs will be going to at least partial octafinals. the tournament is march 4-6 (saturday-monday). food served throughout; all rounds in the same building; wireless and printing access. i encourage you to join us. you can enter on the bruschke site--and the invitation is at: http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/54ceda2006.htm jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051213/237e3b71/attachment.htm From gregachten Tue Dec 13 23:39:41 2005 From: gregachten (ACHTEN, GREGORY ALAN) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 21:39:41 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Leadership Message-ID: Hello, As most of you are aware CEDA is in a unique position this year of electing two presidential positions (both an incoming 2nd Vice President and a candidate to replace Ede Warner as Vice President). Having deep concern for the CEDA organization I sought candidates to fill these positions and to that end I nominated Sherry Hall to replace Ede Warner and Scott Deatherage for the CEDA 2nd Vice Presidency. At the time that I approached these two people to run I was unaware of any other candidates for these positions. I know Joe Patrice and Darren Elliott well and am confident they would serve CEDA well as officers. I am not writing to discourage their candidacies or to discourage their service, but rather to explain why I nominated Scott and Sherry for these positions. I have known Scott and Sherry for quite some time and I respect both of them a great deal. I sought them out as candidates for two reasons. First, they are both experienced administrators who have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to plan for and run large tournaments. Sherry and Scott run two of the largest tournaments in the nation each year and both of their tournaments are models of efficiency. This amply demonstrates their competence in what is from my experience one of the most important roles the CEDA President plays. In addition to their experience as tournament administrators, both Sherry and Scott have both served various leadership positions within the NDT community and have long history of service to the collegiate debate community. I asked Sherry and Scott to run because they have demonstrated for years their competence as administrators and as tournament directors and I feel that these are incredibly important in a CEDA Presidential candidate. The second reason I thought Scott and Sherry were well suited to serve as CEDA President is that I strongly believe it is time to begin more seriously integrating the CEDA and NDT communities. As we are at the 10 year point in the CEDA/NDT merger it is important that we encourage coaches from traditional CEDA programs to hold leadership positions in the NDT organization and vice versa. I have been troubled by the fact that more than one person has asked me why I would nominate people who were "NDT people" for CEDA leadership. It is long past the time when it is productive to think of CEDA and NDT as completely distinct cultures. I debated and coached in CEDA, was the Director at a traditional CEDA program for 8 years and served the organization in several leadership positions. I care deeply about the CEDA organization and the history of the organization. But we need as a community to recognize that both CEDA and the NDT serve the entire college debate community. The idea that Sherry and Scott should not be leaders of CEDA because they come from historical NDT programs is silly. In fact, the most important area that I feel CEDA should focus on is cooperation between CEDA and the NDT. I can think of no greater way to facilitate this cooperation than by electing leaders who already have extensive experience with the NDT organization. As I said earlier I am pleased that CEDA has the choice this year between four strong leaders and I think the future of the organization is bright. I hope that people begin to discuss these and other issues that CEDA and the NDT face at tournaments and district meetings and if nothing else grows out of this election, hat we can start a dialog that I feel will strengthen our community. Greg Achten From Neesen Wed Dec 14 00:42:43 2005 From: Neesen (Neesen at aol.com) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 01:42:43 EST Subject: [eDebate] USC/Fullerton partner needed Message-ID: <271.23f19a2.30d118e3@aol.com> Long Beach has an extra person who would love to debate at these tournaments. Hit me back if you have an extra. Bill -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051214/f28735db/attachment.html From mharris02 Wed Dec 14 01:35:21 2005 From: mharris02 (Martin Harris) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 01:35:21 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Open Source IS SQ, and importance of names. Message-ID: I read archives and don't have bodies to respond to, but I don't plan on answering all the arguments probably any way so not sure it matters. What I would like to say. 1. Name/analogy IS relevent. It is the heart of almost all your evidence and arguments, and both Sawyer and Sullivan are right, your analogy is SERIOUSLY lacking. a)Proprietary is a CRUCIAL stasis point for the FSF and open source movement. Nothing about COLLEGE debate is close to proprietary. There is no patent on the politics disad, people share info all the time, and no one "owns" the information. College debate is currently "open source" if you at all understand what that term means. Could people share more, yes, but there is no OBLIGATION in any community to share the knowledge. You can modify the Linux kernel for personal use, tweak the hell out of the filesystem and NEVER distribute the source or a "package" for the world at large. b)The products are almost completely different. What Stallman originally got mad at was companies that wouldn't let him modify drivers for systems he owned to work with derivative OS'es. In debate you are free to change the link to any disad you ever want. Steal ideas for one team and modify them with your twist. The library is the "source code" your "package" is the way you link your args together and what scenario you choose for an impact. GPL doesn't attach to packages. Read the license. RedHat is free to modify the text of the source code and then release that text to the public. Try to "run" that text on your computer. It doesn't work. What people pay for is support and "packaging." That is the analogy the casebook companies make. They "package" the source code into an executable that is a "runnable" file. This is ONE HUNDRED percent legal under the open source movement. A company called Apple does it with the BSD license for an OS called Panther/Jaguar/Tiger. Basically, all the OS X releases. Finally, I am not meaning to be harsh, but I think this idea is examplary of one of the movements in debate I find problematic. Make loose analogies to something the "works", claim there is no offense, only defense, and then scream about it is worth the risk because you "control" uniqueness. I think, in general, we have thrown the baby out with the bath water. I am not a mad fan of "stock issues", but I am not sure how rejecting that got us here. In general, I think there should be STRONG arguments for change. Presumption, because of blowback and chaos, should have more weight then ANY risk of solvency means aff wins. I don't have a problem in general with assisting people in not mundanely rebuilding affs to assist prep. I would be for Ermo's scan and post your IAC to keep the entire country from having to do it 40 times, once for each squad. I also think if you made a big pile of cards in a database for people to download/tag/reblock and brief, that would be an ok think. It would still require "work" to make those positions usable. That would be in line with the "principles" of open source, but I think people should have to do a modicum of work. I listened to Ross have this meritocracy discussion with a grad ass 8 years ago at the now defunct William Jewell tournament. I think he should harken back to the reasons it is good to not hand students everything on a silver platter. If you (OSD proponents) are looking to create a world to make it easier for students to compete in "debate" by making it so they can coast, then yeah, I think that has its own built in disads and the community should be makig that LESS likely, not more. It is time for american college students to step up to the mic and quit looking for a handout. If you can't hack the work load at Harvard then apply to a regional state school, that is NOT an argument to make Harvard less selective. CEDA/NDT is the last forensics institution being highly selective in its process. As long as there are alternatives with different skills and opportunities, I don't have a problem with that. I coach a squad that does NFA LD and Parli. I love it, but I do it because I don't have time to keep up with Missouri State. I think the "merger" (at least it is in quotes Will) was a mistake. I think CEDA should have returned to its roots in '95 and the "national circuit" should have made a jump to NDT, or gone about pursuing their own thing. I think the communities need to start celebrating difference and stop trying to make everything fit under one tent. Parli is picking up the banner CEDA dropped in '96. LEAVE THEM ALONE. Some people don't want to wrestle the gorilla, some do. Let that be that, cause I am done rambling. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051214/792b2fb1/attachment.htm From hansonjb Wed Dec 14 02:03:39 2005 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 00:03:39 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] fall 2005 ndt rankings report Message-ID: <14ad01c60085$1d6de6f0$ae081b0a@whitmanrrsukez> it is now available for doublechecking. monday, dec. 19 is the deadline for notifying me of any errors before printed versions of the rankings report goes out. also--i have sent an email to each director. if you are a director/coach that didn't receive that email and want to receive that email, backchannel me. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051214/d354aed8/attachment.html From antonucci23 Wed Dec 14 06:00:33 2005 From: antonucci23 (Michael Antonucci) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 04:00:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] resp to Harris and Kevin Sanchez Message-ID: <20051214120034.68547.qmail@web61012.mail.yahoo.com> I'm terribly shamelessly overposting, so this is really, truly, genuinely it for the year. No joke. If you want response from me, backchannel-style. Harris says: "I don't have a problem in general with assisting people in not mundanely rebuilding affs to assist prep. I would be for Ermo's scan and post your IAC to keep the entire country from having to do it 40 times, once for each squad. I also think if you made a big pile of cards in a database for people to download/tag/reblock and brief, that would be an ok think. It would still require "work" to make those positions usable. That would be in line with the "principles" of open source, but I think people should have to do a modicum of work." Dude. I have clearly not done a good job of communicating my actual advocacy. We are advocating very nearly the same thing. I favor a weak system with fulltext disclosure. The distinction between the two systems has been outlined at some length. The major distinction between my proposal and your proposal, as far as I can ascertain, is that you want to take the cards out of their original brief format and throw them in a big pile before posting, in order to make debaters play a fun game. I have some objections to this (admittedly minor) difference. First, wouldn't this just end up imposing more ridiculous robotic labor on teams? I mean, you would take the flow or argument list, then match it up with the card in the database, presumably by searching known snippets from an ordered list. Is Mix and Match really a fun game for college students? Secondly...isn't this just ridiculous robotic labor in and of itself? Do we really want to add labor by making those kind enough to scan do the following: --print out all the brief PDFs --cut them back into cards --repaste them into briefs in some deliberately random fashion --Scan these mysteriously reordered briefs What is that supposed to accomplish? It sounds like some dada. Finally, wouldn't debaters have some incentive to reblock the cards in any case? Accurately ordering them just gives you a more accurate snapshot of how they were deployed. In all honesty, the only really bad consequence of unchecked reproduction will be written shit talking. Obviously, some joker on some top team will think writing some absurd in-joke insult against a colleague on a scanned brief will be a laff riot. While tiresome, I don't see this as devastating. Now, the rest of your post kind of yells at me for a while - but surely you've based that particular broadside on some perceived difference between our positions? I can't imagine that you would want to direct all this rhetorical thunder against someone who largely agrees with your substantive position. Well, I'll go through it, but really, this is all kind of beside the point. We both think that there should be fulltext disclosure and posting of cards. You think briefs should be deliberately mixed up prior to posting to create a fun evidence stew - I don't that sounds that great. That's the only real difference. Harris says: "1. Name/analogy IS relevent." Sure. What do you want to call it? What's wrong with "Open Debate?" I've detailed a very concrete proposal - again, down to the precise number of scanners and a plan for playtesting. I don't feel that the title of a particular program matters as much when the details are quite clear. If you disagree, however, feel free to refer to it by a title of your choosing. For example, Mr Sawyer elected to call this proposal the 'evidence escrow' proposal. I don't think it's as catchy, but I understand what he's talking about, so we can have a substantive discussion on the merits. You are welcome to use whatever label you choose if you feel that it does bolster your argument. For example, perhaps you would prefer to call it "Dirty Card-Carrying Communist Hooey." Go right ahead. "It is the heart of almost all your evidence and arguments, and both Sawyer and Sullivan are right, your analogy is SERIOUSLY lacking." It is, indeed, at the heart of some of the evidence. My actual proposal, however, is uncarded. I understand your confusion, but it's easily resolved. At the outset of this particular fray, I tried to make a clear distinction about what I would defend. Please refer back to my initial post on this whole thing. I did not commit myself to a defense of *that* dirty, dirty brief set. That brief set functioned as a provocateur. Although I believe that it is a defensible proposal, I am not prepared to defend a strong system at this time. I will leave that to others. I'm marshalling my rhetorical resources for the debate I *can't lose*. "There is no patent on the politics disad, people share info all the time, and no one "owns" the information." I believe that there is currently a taboo, perhaps ensconced in rules, that prevents full scanning of evidence after it has been read. I think that this restriction can be described as proprietary. It certainly leverages control over the information container in order to maintain control over the information itself. (Tournament Scanner: "Give me that brief for scanning." Proprietor: "Screw you, it's my brief." " TS: "Well, the information is in the public sphere." P: "Screw you, hippie! it's my piece of paper!") If you disagree substantively - if you think that college debate does not impose any such proprietary restriction, and allows full-text scanning - that means that there should be no resistance to my proposal at all, which would be wonderful. If you disagree with the label, and you would like to apply a different adjective in order to make an argument, please go ahead. "College debate is currently "open source" if you at all understand what that term means." I suppose I don't understand the meaning of the term at all then. I am dumb and you are smart. I am ugly and you are surely very dashing. Now that we've resolved that, perhaps we could discuss the substantive merits of the Ignorantly Named Proposal? "Could people share more, yes, but there is no OBLIGATION in any community to share the knowledge." I was under the impression that there is, indeed, some expectation of contribution to a common project within some Open Source communities. This isn't a formal expectation, but seems to be a strong norm among some who code co-operatively. If I'm incorrect, then you win additional points, but I don't understand the substantive impact on my fairly moderate argument. "The library is the "source code" your "package" is the way you link your args together and what scenario you choose for an impact. GPL doesn't attach to packages." Well, that is one way of spinning the analogy. Another way might be characterizing the "library" as "undifferentiated ones and zeros" while characterizing the actual organization of library materials into tagged briefs as "source code." The latter analogy gave rise to a more interesting argument, so concerned myself with developing an argument instead of worshipping at the altar of textual fidelity. Arguments about the accuracy of a given analogy are potentially endless and visibly fruitless. I mean, why fight over translation? Do we really care if Lord of the Rings followed the book scene for scene? It still rocked, so whatever. "Finally, I am not meaning to be harsh, but I think this idea is examplary of one of the movements in debate I find problematic. Make loose analogies to something the "works", claim there is no offense, only defense, and then scream about it is worth the risk because you "control" uniqueness." What? I admit I have made loose analogies to something that works. My defense of either the use of metaphor or analogical reasoning lies above. But the rest? I made a completely tongue in cheek reference to the uniqueness claims of others who say that the activity is dying. I really can't speak to those claims (is college debate dying off? I dunno, you're college coaches and such, you tell me). I really have no recourse at all to any uniqueness claims. I think, actually, I went the other way on uniqueness. There are some similar measures in the squo, and the empirical disproof of any apocalpytic disads reverses presumption. You're correct, college debate is "Filthy and Communist" in some ways. This Filthy Communism is totally sweet. This proves that college debate can potentially become Filthy and Communist in some other ways. I don't know about the offense/defense. I have seriously tried to deal with relevant defensive arguments. I have been admittedly dismissive of PMNs against advantages I didn't claim. "I listened to Ross have this meritocracy discussion with a grad ass 8 years ago at the now defunct William Jewell tournament. I think he should harken back to the reasons it is good to not hand students everything on a silver platter. If you (OSD proponents) are looking to create a world to make it easier for students to compete in "debate" by making it so they can coast, then yeah, I think that has its own built in disads and the community should be makig that LESS likely, not more. It is time for american college students to step up to the mic and quit looking for a handout. If you can't hack the work load at Harvard then apply to a regional state school, that is NOT an argument to make Harvard less selective." If Harvard's numbers were way under capacity and *declining*, be damned sure that Harvard would change its admissions standards in a heartbeat. If Harvard's numbers paralleled college policy debate's numbers, it would get a real football team and start sending out attractive glossy fliers in direct mailings. Harvard can only be selective because a shitload of people want to go there. Secondly, debaters work hard. I don't think that debaters looking to reclaim some element of their life are welfare cheats or whatever. I don't feel like writing out a million warrants for this claim; I'll just let people decide this one on their own. I will expect, however, that your donation to the Small School Ninja Squad, which will deliberately stalk and beat struggling squads for character building purposes, will be forthcoming shortly. Thank you for your support. (Finally, Sawyer is arguing that this will make debate harder. Can y'all join forces so I can grant the double turn and call it a day?) "I think the "merger" (at least it is in quotes Will) was a mistake. I think CEDA should have returned to its roots in '95 and the "national circuit" should have made a jump to NDT, or gone about pursuing their own thing." I guess you think that, then. "I think the communities need to start celebrating difference and stop trying to make everything fit under one tent." I think it's a real stretch to equate the weird Darwinian stuff above to 'celebrating difference.' I don't think any of this stuff at the end relates to my proposal. Sanchez says: " "Are people seriously talking about applying copyright licenses (like Creative Commons or the GPL) to debate evidence?", michael antonucci, to my surprise, responded: "No." i find this odd for a few reasons, first among them that the original file contained 'g.p.l. solvency'." Oh yeah - that. That wasn't part of the shell, though, was it? I haven't looked at the damned thing in forever. That was just one of those things. You know when you cut a file and you have some cards but you aren't quite sure where you're going with whatever arg they make? That's the GPL stuff; it's just my misc pile. It seems like you picked that up and ran with it. That's cool. My revised answer to Mr. Sullivan: Licensing - serious? I am not. I believe that Mr. Sanchez is advocating a creative commons license. "and even if the legal argument doesn't hold up, there's something else that's valuable here. not long ago eric raymond made the controversial claim (or at least controversial to the opensource subculture he's a respected member of) that g.p.l. was largely symbolic, having no real legal standing." On this particular sub-issue, that is my position. I share his perspective there. "naturally the more important work is simply putting the stuff online, yet again i'd point to the moon & sproull study of linux in that both internet publication and public licenses proved indispensible." That may be true for Linux. I think debate is actually more susceptible to some top down changes. The captains are really in the boat, so to speak. Centralized economies scale poorly, but y'all are pretty small. "what's in a name? a whole lot actually..." Sure. I guess I'm saying that whatever there is in a name isn't really stuff I care about too much, given that I have no hope of galvanizing social movements to any end other than setting me ablaze. Open Debate sounds appropriately vague so that it can cover a number of disparate proposals, but whatever people prefer. There are reasons to care, they just aren't reasons that I care. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From berchnorto Wed Dec 14 08:25:20 2005 From: berchnorto (NEIL BERCH) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:25:20 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] JV/Novice Nats at WVU--hotel block close to full Message-ID: Hampton Inn block is closing in on 80% full. Deadline for hotel is a ways away, but do reserve before you get shut out and shunted off to overflow hotel (which is actually very nice, though will probably be slightly more expensive). Hampton Inn number is 304-599-1200. Our group code is DBT (how original!), and the contact in Sales is Bekah Gillespie. Rate is $70 per night for double-doubles. Please let me know if you have any problems. Schools that have entered so far/expressed intent to enter/expressed interest/reserved rooms at the Hampton Inn include: Bard, Liberty, LA City College, Towson, Mary Washington, Oklahoma, Emporia, Appalachian State, NY Coalition, Rochester, Cornell, Vermont, West Point, Binghamton, Miami (Florida), Georgetown, UMKC, KCKCC, Richmond, Johnson County CC. I'd be happy to hear from others, even if not definite, as it will help my efforts to claim more classrooms on Friday afternoon. My current best-guess (proprietary formula) is 125 teams. --Neil Berch West Virginia University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051214/47691542/attachment.htm From icievents Wed Dec 14 10:07:09 2005 From: icievents (Patty Patchrint) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:07:09 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Professional Grant Writing Workshop (Northern Arizona Univ. - January 2006) Message-ID: The Grant Institute's Grants 101: Professional Grant Proposal Writing Workshop will be held at Northern Arizona University-Flagstaff, January 23-25, 2006. Interested development professionals, researchers, faculty, and graduate students should register as soon as possible, as demand means that seats will fill up quickly. Please forward, post, and distribute this e-mail to your colleagues and listservs. All participants will receive certification in professional grant writing from the Institute. For more information call (888) 824 - 4424 or visit The Grant Institute website at http://www.thegrantinstitute.com. Please find the program description below: THE GRANT INSTITUTE GRANTS 101: Professional Grant Proposal Writing Workshop to be held at Northern Arizona University Flagstaff, Arizona January 23-25, 2006 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM Dubois Center-Fremont Room The Grant Institute?s Grants 101 Course is an intensive and detailed introduction to the process, structure, and skill of professional proposal writing. This course is characterized by its ability to act as a thorough overview, introduction, and refresher at the same time. In this course, participants will learn the entire proposal writing process and complete the course with a solid understanding of not only the ideal proposal structure, but a holistic understanding of the essential factors, which determine whether or not a program gets funded. Through the completion of interactive exercises and activities, participants will complement expert lectures by putting proven techniques into practice. This course is designed for both the beginner looking for a thorough introduction and the intermediate looking for a refresher course that will strengthen their grant acquisition skills. This class, simply put, is designed to get results by creating professional grant proposal writers. Participants will become competent program planning and proposal writing professionals after successful completion of the Grants 101 course. In three active and informative days, students will be exposed to the art of successful grant writing practices, and led on a journey that ends with a masterful grant proposal. Grants 101 consist of three (3) courses that will be completed during the three-day workshop. FUNDAMENTALS OF PROGRAM PLANNING This course is centered on the belief that ?it?s all about the program.? This intensive course will teach professional program development essentials and program evaluation. While most grant writing ?workshops? treat program development and evaluation as separate from the writing of a proposal, this class will teach students the relationship between overall program planning and grant writing. PROFESSIONAL GRANT WRITING Designed for both the novice and experienced grant writer, this course will make each student an overall proposal writing specialist. In addition to teaching the basic components of a grant proposal, successful approaches, and the do?s and don?ts of grant writing, this course is infused with expert principles that will lead to a mastery of the process. Strategy resides at the forefront of this course?s intent to illustrate grant writing as an integrated, multidimensional, and dynamic endeavor. Each student will learn to stop writing the grant and to start writing the story. Ultimately, this class will illustrate how each component of the grant proposal represents an opportunity to use proven techniques for generating support. GRANT RESEARCH At its foundation, this course will address the basics of foundation, corporation, and government grant research. However, this course will teach a strategic funding research approach that encourages students to see research not as something they do before they write a proposal, but as an integrated part of the grant seeking process. Students will be exposed to online and database research tools, as well as publications and directories that contain information about foundation, corporation, and government grant opportunities. Focusing on funding sources and basic social science research, this course teaches students how to use research as part of a strategic grant acquisition effort. REGISTRATION $597.00 tuition includes all materials and certificates. Each student will receive: * The Grant Institute Certificate in Professional Grant writing * The Grant Institute?s Guide to Successful Grant Writing * A to Z Grant Writing * The Grant Institute Grant Writer?s Workbook with sample proposals, forms, and outlines REGISTRATION METHODS 1) On-Line -Visit www.thegrantinstitute.com and click on the Registration area. Fill out the online registration form completely. We'll send your confirmation by e-mail. 2) By Phone - Call toll free (888) 824 - 4424 to register by phone. Our friendly Program Coordinators will be happy to assist you and answer your questions. 3) By E-mail - Send an e-mail with your name, organization, and basic contact information to info at thegrantinstitute.com and we will reserve your slot and send your Confirmation Packet. _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From Samnelson4 Wed Dec 14 10:12:57 2005 From: Samnelson4 (Samnelson4 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:12:57 EST Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Candidates! New Programs and Novice? Message-ID: <269.267c202.30d19e89@aol.com> Dear CEDA candidates: I have three questions for those seeking office in CEDA. 1) What are your plans to increase/strengthen/help novice debate in CEDA? By "novice," I mean the current CEDA definition of novice? 2) What are your plans to increase/strengthen/help new programs join CEDA? 3) Are strengthening novice debate and helping new programs get established important goals for you? Should they be for CEDA? Please answers these questions forthrightly and share them with everyone on this list. Thank you. Best, Sam Nelson Director of Forensics Cornell University From Samnelson4 Wed Dec 14 10:21:47 2005 From: Samnelson4 (Samnelson4 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:21:47 EST Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Candidates! New Programs and Novice? Message-ID: <1a2.41baf31a.30d1a09b@aol.com> I guess that was four questions! Best, Sam From eawiley Wed Dec 14 11:10:33 2005 From: eawiley (eawiley at umich.edu) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:10:33 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Judging Available at Coast Message-ID: <20051214121033.sl3wkb187wgg00sg@web.mail.umich.edu> If anyone still needs judging at USC/Fullerton, I have half commitments available for both tournaments. Liz Wiley From carlos Wed Dec 14 12:43:02 2005 From: carlos (Carlos Varela) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:43:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] DCUDL Judging Oppurtunity (Washington DC Area) Message-ID: <200512141843.jBEIh2b15732@hsdebate.com> HELLO Debate Community, The DC Urban Debate League is hosting the third tournament of the year this Saturday, December 17th, from 9 am-3:30 pm. As with all tournaments we host, recruiting qualified policy debate judges is always a challenge. This tournament has been even more difficult since our college students that help judge are unavailable due to finals or holiday travels. If you are in the DC area and would like to judge one, two, or all three rounds of our tournament, please contact me so I can add you to the list. If you are not available but might know of someone who might be available, please pass on the invite. To those of you on College debate teams, please foward this to your squad listserves. We can get all the help we can get. We do offer warm breakfast sandwiches, and lunch. Stipends are available for your participation upon request. Location of the Tournament: Cardozo Senior High School 1300 Clifton Street, NW Washington DC One block from Green line metro, "Cardozo metro station". Thank you all for your time and consideration. You make the DC Urban Debate League better. Carlos -- Carlos Varela Program Director The DC Urban Debate League - www.dcdebate.org 100 Peabody St. NW- 1st floor Washington, D.C. 20011 (202)-341-5083 -- Carlos Varela Program Director The DC Urban Debate League - www.dcdebate.org 100 Peabody St. NW- 1st floor Washington, D.C. 20011 (202)-341-5083 From crb012000 Wed Dec 14 14:18:10 2005 From: crb012000 (Burk, Christopher R) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:18:10 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] FEAR AND LOATHING IN DALLAS -- UPDATE #1 Message-ID: Howdy Y'all, If you are planning to attend or still considering it, I have a few matters to bring to your attention. 1. PLEASE MAKE HOTEL RESERVATIONS BEFORE FRIDAY. There are plenty of rooms and the tournament block rate is an amazing $76/night with internet included. However, the tournament block rate will end this Friday (December 16). After that, rates will be going up. Making your reservation is very easy if you use the on-line system created by the Westin for our tournament. You can locate it here: http://www.starwoodmeeting.com/Book/utd . Click on ?BOOK NOW? to proceed. An active credit card is necessary to utilize the on-line reservation system. Teams have the option of arriving early and/or departing late and still receive the same low tournament rate. Hotel Details: Westin Park Central 12720 Merit Drive (near Highway 635 and Coit Road) Dallas TX 75251 Telephone: 972-385-3000 Fax: 972-991-4557 Contact: Mike Jenkins His Email: michaelh.jenkins at Westin.com General Hotel Website: http://westin-dallas.felcor.com/ UTD TOURNAMENT website: http://www.starwoodmeeting.com/Book/utd 2. PLEASE ENTER YOUR TEAMS and JUDGES and FOOD PREFERENCES via debateresults.com We are starting to make orders for food, drinks, and trophies. You can help us by entering your information. Some of you have hotel reservations but you have not entered teams and judges. Please go ahead and enter teams if you plan to attend. 3. ROOM LIMITS and ENTRY LIMITS. We are glad that our tournament continues to grow. However, we might encounter a upper limit on the number of classrooms available to us for preliminary rounds. We are working on securing more rooms but a cap on total teams might be necessary. We currently have enough rooms to host 90 total teams. So please enter soon. We still have space for 10 or more teams. We will keep you updates if and when a cap is necessary. 4. HIRED JUDGING. We need to hire a few judges. We can provide housing, hospitality, and cash money to hired judges. If you are competent, available, and willing to comply with tournament rules, then please contact me. If you know of a judge who might be available, please encourage them to contact me. 5. ORIGINAL TOURNAMENT INVITATION. http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200511/0408.html "You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas" -- Davy Crockett From joepatrice Wed Dec 14 14:54:36 2005 From: joepatrice (Joe Patrice) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:54:36 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Candidates! New Programs and Novice? Message-ID: It was indeed four questions, so Sam has already pre-emptively defused my opening joke. I'll open with answering the latter two (Are strengthening novice debate and helping new programs get established important goals for you? Should they be for CEDA?) because the answers to all of these questions stems from those two. The answer to both is yes. I've worked very hard to "live in both worlds" by having competitive national circuit teams, as well as a healthy presence on the regional (in particular novice and JV) circuit and running regional tournaments to give the region somewhere to go. For example, my tournament this year had over 95 entries over all three divisions and was a model of efficiency.* *OK, that was my obligatory cheeky retort to Greg (I'd already gotten backchannels from people who'd attended the behemoth of the Army tournament and said that I had to make some joke), whom I agree with on his most fundamental point ? I'm happy with everyone running. So often it takes cajoling to get people to run for this job and we're blessed that 4 people are all over it this year. And as a final footnote, it is unfair to compare my tournament's efficiency level to anyone else's when I have a literal "Army" of ballot runners. As for my commitment to novices, my journey through forensics began as an IEer (a shame I hide from my policy-only compatriots), because my high school did not have a debate program at the time. I began the debating chapter of my career as a novice during my first semester in college. At that time, the novice division of the Northwest was already dying out (I do not remember a tournament breaking beyond Sems), but my ability to get through that first semester required a novice division to shelter me from those with much more experience, and to give me and my fellow novices a communal learning environment where everyone was learning as opposed to being fodder for last year's State Champs. I was friends with a lot of that crop of novices from the Northwest and we all took our experience with debate many different directions. Some stuck it out and by graduation debated in Open and cleared at the big tournaments, and appeared distinct from the first years capable of dropping entire pages at a time. Personally, I stopped early in my Open run and returned to my old high school to set up a debate team there. Others dropped out of the activity after a couple of years to concentrate on their studies and their dreams of law school/world domination/both, but even if the circuit wasn't building the next CEDA Champions (we were pre-merger so we didn't think about the NDT yet) it was still a worthwhile educational experience. I'm glad I profited from it, and right now I work out in the East to help others profit from it too. There are people with different levels of experience and I want the landscape of the debate world to accommodate those people. As for encouraging new programs, another brief aside to my personal history, after building a program at my old high school and graduating a group of seniors who started to come back from wherever they went to college (mostly Whitman?thanks Jim for taking everyone in) and help out, I moved to another school that had no program in order to help build up the local circuit with some new teams. New programs help the regional circuits and regional circuits are one of the most important means of promoting novice debate. I don't think a lot of people are in a position to start flying novices across the country to get them debates, nor are most novices (who in their first term still think debate is kind of a creepy cult) willing to be gone for 2 school days and the weekend to go to their first tournament. The biggest boost to building a home for novice education is a healthy local circuit. If I have one caveat to this question, it's that I sometimes worry that the call for "new programs" overlooks an equally pressing problem ? maintaining existing programs. Whenever I tell a story about my career to my debaters, 80% of the story is taken up explaining who the schools involved were (commonly in response to a question like "why were you worried about UCLA, do they even have a team?"). I'm not saying CEDA can wave a wand and prevent a program from disappearing, but unfortunately I don't think CEDA is very plugged in to the deaths of many programs until it's too late and just knowing what is going on with the membership improves the odds of being able to take action. For example, X school is cutting its CEDA program. Why? Coach is leaving. Is there any alum in the area that can either take over or help? Is there a high school circuit that may have competent alums to take over? Can a neighboring school take on this program as a "sibling" until this is resolved? We can't ask these questions unless we have warning. When it comes to promoting new programs, I recognize that the solution may be largely local. Different regions face different constraints: geographical, budgetary (regional to the extent that some states gut a public school's resources), etc. That's why I place such an emphasis on learning more about the regions and the regional trips that the leadership has been making because we can't craft an effective solution without understanding the problem. However, I also think there are some universally good ideas out there. For example, a concerted effort to get information out to high school debaters and their coaches about how to contact the CEDA leadership if they're going to a school without a program and let them know how we can help them start the program themselves. I would call this kind of the NYU Initiative, because NYU exists because a high school debater wanted to start a team and got in contact with the right people to provide guidance and hook him up with former debaters in the area willing to help the club thrive. In our region we've taken to shaking up the regional schedule so smaller programs can host tournaments and bolster their accounts and I think the national leadership can function as a clearinghouse for these ideas, collecting and disseminating the experiences of the regions. This does not encapsulate every step of a concrete plan to address these issues (and nor should it, because I don't want to close myself off to other ideas), but I hope this helps everyone understand my feelings about novices and regional debate and gives you some of my personal plans for the issue as well as some insight into how I think about these issues and plan to address them going forward. Joe Patrice -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051214/df114f53/attachment.html From korryharvey Wed Dec 14 15:19:25 2005 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 13:19:25 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] pentagon spying on peace activists in the us Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051214/ca981627/attachment.htm From korryharvey Wed Dec 14 16:00:56 2005 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:00:56 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] are you a peace activist? come to the CASCAID conference Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051214/803c0650/attachment.html From hansonjb Wed Dec 14 17:09:34 2005 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:09:34 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] ndt ranking report web address Message-ID: <160f01c60103$87e1f520$ae081b0a@whitmanrrsukez> you can check your ndt points and the rankings at: http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/ndt/ email me with any errors by this monday, dec. 19. after that, i won't make any changes. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051214/29011e26/attachment.htm From anabaptist Wed Dec 14 20:25:41 2005 From: anabaptist (Donald Bryson) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:25:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] the progress in iraq Message-ID: <000601c6011e$d8ed39f0$6501a8c0@Donald> http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/Iraq/bg1904.cfm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051214/8f872767/attachment.html From chimejr Wed Dec 14 22:37:08 2005 From: chimejr (Chime Asonye) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:37:08 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] The old NDT caselist Message-ID: <20051215043708.43176.qmail@web81311.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The website- ndtcaselist.com where the old NDT caselist are, is down and has been down for a minute. Can someone tell me whats up? Is it going to come back up? Chime From john Thu Dec 15 03:18:43 2005 From: john (John Sullivan) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 04:18:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] What's being talked about is not "open source" In-Reply-To: (Kevin Sanchez's message of "Tue, 13 Dec 2005 04:24:19 -0600") References: Message-ID: <87mzj2wwek.fsf@ashbery.wjsullivan.net> "Kevin Sanchez" writes: > as i explained in the shell (III, b), under the current law, copyright > automatically covers all intellectual goods, including debate work. > handbooks prohibit their packaged evidence from being shared outside the > team, and in at least one instance have shut down an internet website which > attempted to do so. you claim that "the proportion of original contribution > generally is so low that you will have a difficult time licensing any of it > without the permission of the evidence authors". PlanetDebate.com, which i'm > assuming has access to solid legal advice, states in their copyright > notification: > The main question to be concerned about in this context is whether debate cards are "fair use" or not. If they are not, then the work is not yours or a handbook's or Planet Debate's to copyright. It is a derivative of the work of the original evidence authors, and distributors would need their permission. Many cases of debate cards are clearly fair use. But what about those cases where you use all or nearly all of an article in your file? Redistributing an entire article in pieces is still redistributing an entire article, and you don't have permission to do that. As you say in the IM conversation you posted, sometimes debaters will read the entire article. I don't know how handbooks or PlanetDebate do it. The fact that a handbook shut down a site doesn't mean anything. Whoever copied the evidence from the handbook had no leg to stand on. There is no possible claim to original work on the copier's part. "You violated someone else's copyright so now I'm going to violate yours" doesn't hold up in court to my knowledge. The real question is what would happen if an original evidence author came to a handbook publisher and suggested that the handbook did not have permission to redistribute her work. I'm sure handbooks and PlanetDebate have thought about these issues and have done things to deal with them. It's easier to deal with them when you are talking about a single publication or web site under control of a company or small group. Also, they are working with defined compilations, not just a slot in my accordion. My question for you is, whether copyright licensing is an idea that will scale to cover the evidence production of the entire debate community. I don't think it will. > i emailed lawrence lessig to ask him about this very legal issue, and he > told me that although he's never seen a debate-specific case on evideniciary > compilations as such, he thinks there's a strong argument both that excerpts > are 'fair use' and that taglines (and any other edits/additions) can be > protected by copyright. the question would be whether such compilations are > merely 'derivative works', and i'd tend to agree you, john, that they're > very derivative (although i wish they included more original research). in > any case if traditional (c) can apply to debate files, then so can (cc) -- > what's good for the goose.... > Ask him if he thinks distributing a compilation of excerpts which together add up to nearly the entire law review article would likely qualify as fair use. And let's not forget that tags are often just rewordings or paraphrasings of the words in the text of the evidence. Your ability to use the verbatim quotation depends on fair use. If you already consider it fair use, you cannot very well prevent anyone else from copying it as fair use. This makes the CC license pretty un-useful here. The only thing that you can insist be shared-alike are your own taglines. You have no copyright authority to the evidence itself. This isn't going to stop any of the free-riding you are worried about, or do anything to make handbooks more open. > as to terminology, 'propietary' doesn't simply mean that sharing is > prohibited, but that all goods are privately owned; the alternative system > proposed here is one in which sharing is not only sometimes permitted, but a > *requirement* for further participation. > That's not true. Under Creative Commons, you still privately own your work. You are still the copyright holder. You are still claiming authority over how people can copy and redistribute your work. You are just exercising that authority in a different way. 'Proprietary' implies that you are exercising that authority to stop people from redistributing your work, or making derivatives of it. So, again, who is the proprietary party in debate? Who is saying "no" when someone asks them if they can copy some cites or see a block? Are you just concerned about handbooks and evidence services? Requiring people to share is antithetical to the free software and Creative Commons movements. People share because they want to, and these two movements are out to make sure that no one can tell them that they can't share with each other _if they want to_. There are plenty of groups trying to stop people from sharing with each other --- Sony, RIAA, MPAA, etc. I don't see the analogy in debate. It's also about disputing some of the ownership claims to begin with, to allow sampling and remixing and so on. The "share-alike" requirement is the only thing close to making people share. But this only applies if they have voluntarily chosen to produce a work of their own based on material already in the commons or to redistribute a work from the commons. So this isn't a requirement to share their own new work. This is a requirement to not take things that are already in the commons out of the commons. It is also an incentive to contribute to the commons, because you will benefit from your contribution exponentially in the future. The question then is, what specifically do you see as the commons in debate now? In what ways are people removing things from the commons? If you want to make people disclose arguments more and distribute evidence more, that might be a good idea. But it doesn't have anything to do with these other movements, and you shouldn't advocate copyright law to do it. You should just use tournament rules. I'm fully in support of the free software development model, and also agree with much of what Creative Commons is doing --- but I think this is a case of when you have a hammer... -- -John Sullivan -http://www.wjsullivan.net -GPG Key: AE8600B6 From john Thu Dec 15 03:53:48 2005 From: john (John Sullivan) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 04:53:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] What's in a Name? In-Reply-To: <20051213201516.35512.qmail@web61011.mail.yahoo.com> (Michael Antonucci's message of "Tue, 13 Dec 2005 12:15:16 -0800 (PST)") References: <20051213201516.35512.qmail@web61011.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <87hd9awus3.fsf@ashbery.wjsullivan.net> Michael Antonucci writes: > Who cares what label we attach to it? I don't. I > made the name up. I picked it out of a hat. > That's funny, I pick my arguments against it out of a sock. > I don't really care what anyone calls it, though. > What about "Cheap and Nasty" or "Waltzing Matilda"? > If you like those, go for it. I've detailed a > proposal down to the number of scanners, so the name > seems irrelevant for anyone actively considering these > systems. > Naming is important. But the discussion didn't start with the name. It's about in which ways the experiences of the free software, creative commons, and open source movements are relevant to the debate community, and whether the tools they use should be considered for adoption in debate. All I'm saying is that their fundamental tool, copyright law, is not appropriate for debate. And if you're not going to use their fundamental tool, then adopting their name is pointless and misleading. I haven't seen a positive reason to connect proposals that might just make debate better, like full-text evidence scanning, to these other movements, and it doesn't sound like you see any reason for the analogy either. Burger King and all that. Something like just "Open Debate" doesn't seem misleading to me. It was mainly the suggestion to use the actual existing licenses that caught my attention. -- -John Sullivan -http://www.wjsullivan.net -GPG Key: AE8600B6 From ssbauschard2 Thu Dec 15 09:09:38 2005 From: ssbauschard2 (ssbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:09:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ndtcaselist.com Message-ID: <8C7CFA0B3706F63-1B88-143FF@MBLK-M40.sysops.aol.com> It will be back-up in about a week. Stefan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051215/206ea196/attachment.htm From FijiPapabear Thu Dec 15 12:05:45 2005 From: FijiPapabear (FijiPapabear at aol.com) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:05:45 EST Subject: [eDebate] NAACP just wasting time and words Message-ID: <218.fe07844.30d30a79@aol.com> PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- _Donovan McNabb_ (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/players/4650) has taken more shots off the field than on it this year. J. Whyatt Mondesire, who publishes a newspaper for blacks and who is the president of the Philadelphia branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, didn't back off his scathing criticism of McNabb, more than a week after saying the Eagles' star quarterback "played the race card" and was "mediocre at best." "He doesn't get it," Mondesire said Wednesday. "If he got it, I wouldn't have written the article." Mondesire, publisher of the Philadelphia Sunday Sun, blasted McNabb in a column in his paper on Dec. 4. "In essence Donny, you are mediocre at best," Mondesire wrote. "And trying to disguise that fact behind some concocted reasoning that African American quarterbacks who can scramble and who can run the ball are somehow lesser field generals than one who can summon up dead-on passes at a whim, is more insulting off the field than on." McNabb's season ended last month when he decided to have surgery for a sports hernia. It's been a miserable year for the five-time Pro Bowl selection, starting with his feud with now-banished wideout _Terrell Owens_ (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/nfl/players/3664) . McNabb was stunned by Mondesire's comments. "Obviously, if it's someone else who is not African American, it's racism," McNabb told reporters attending his annual holiday party last Saturday. "But when someone of the same race talks about you because you're selling out because you're not running the ball, it goes back to what are we really talking about here? "If you talk about my play, that's one thing. When you talk about my race, now we've got problems. If you're trying to make a name off my name, again, I hope your closet is clean because something is going to come out about you ... I always thought the NAACP supported African Americans and didn't talk bad about them. Now you learn a little bit more." Mondesire said the article expressed his opinion of McNabb, not the view of the NAACP. When Rush Limbaugh said on ESPN two years ago that McNabb is overrated because the media wanted to see a black quarterback succeed, the NAACP criticized the conservative commentator and called on him to quit. Limbaugh resigned from ESPN three days later, but kept his job as a radio talk show host. Mondesire said McNabb's agent, Fletcher Smith, called him after the story appeared. He returned the call twice, but hasn't spoken to McNabb. McNabb had a strong start this season, throwing for 1,333 yards and 11 touchdowns while leading the Eagles to a 3-1 record. But he was bothered by injuries and struggled over the next several games, before going on injured reserve. McNabb clearly wasn't the same quarterback who led the Eagles to the NFC championship game the last four years. He threw a costly interception in the fourth quarter in each of his last three games, and had nine picks this season. Overall, McNabb passed for 2,507 yards, 16 TDs and had a passer rating of 85.0 this season. A feared runner, McNabb was reluctant to leave the pocket this season. He had just 55 yards rushing on 25 carries, including several kneel-downs. McNabb's problems with Owens dominated the headlines most of the year. Their issues began when Owens dissed McNabb after the Eagles lost to New England in the Super Bowl last February. The two didn't speak for a prolonged period, but performed well on the field together. Owens was suspended last month for a series of infractions and critical public comments about McNabb and the organization, dating back to his offseason demands for a new contract. An arbitrator later upheld the Eagles' decision to deactivate him for the remainder of the season. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051215/1e0929a1/attachment.html From lsd041 Tue Dec 13 19:35:38 2005 From: lsd041 (Scott Deatherage) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:35:38 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] NDT '06 Host Information -- Post I Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051213144642.026c0018@lulu.it.northwestern.edu> Greetings, all. I hope this note finds you well and that your fall term is coming to a successful conclusion. I write with an update about the 60th Annual National Debate Tournament to be hosted on the Evanston campus of Northwestern University this forthcoming March. We are very excited about hosting the tournament; we want to make the event a grand celebration of 60 successful years of this important community event. I am particularly excited about the endeavor as 2006 marks the conclusion of my 15th year as Director of the Debate Society at Northwestern, and my 20th year on Wildcat coaching staff. Particularly given these landmark events, we plan a full court effort to host a gala N.D.T. I will post a number of updates about planning for the tournament over the next couple of months; please take a moment to review them as they appear as each will include information helpful to your attendance at the tournament. This post includes: * Tournament and Qualification Dates * Tournament Sponsors * Hosting Committee * Hotel Information * An Introduction to the Tournament Web Page Tournament and Qualification Dates Registration for the tournament is slated to begin on the morning of Thursday, March 23, with a public debate and opening ceremony to follow in the evening. Competition begins on the morning of Friday, March 24 and concludes with the final debate in the evening of Monday, March 27. Other relevant dates to the qualification process include: * Proof of Academic Eligibility Due Wednesday, February 8, 2006 * First Round At-Large Applications Due to NDT Committee Members, Thursday, February 9, 2006, 5 p.m. CST * Announcement of First Round At-Large Invitees Monday, February 13, 2006 * Declaration of Intent to Attend District Qualifier Due Tuesday, February 14, 2006 * Announcement of Number of Bids by District, Wednesday, February 15, 2006 * Second Round At-Large Applications Due to NDT Committee Members, Thursday, March 2, 2006 * Announcement of Second Round At-Large Invitees, Monday, March 6, 2006 Tournament Sponsorship The Dean of the School of Communication, Barbara O'Keefe, has made a substantial commitment of financial support for the tournament. Barbara debated at the University of Illinois, and she has been a strong supporter of debate since assuming the Dean's Chair in the Summer of 2000. We appreciate Barbara's continued commitment to policy debate and her willingness to contribute to the N.D.T. community. The Owen L. Coon Foundation has made a generous gift of $25,000 to help support the tournament. Owen L. Coon debated at Northwestern from XXXX to YYYY, and is said to prize his debate experience as the most important and meaningful part of his education. Richard Briggs, Chair of the Owen L. Coon Foundation, is a graduate of the Northwestern University Debate Society. Trey and Barbara Coon have been consistent and strong supporters of college debate. Together, their generous support helps each season to make the Owen L. Coon tournament a success. There is no doubt that we could not host the events that we host each year, and now the N.D.T., without the strong commitment provided by the Coon Foundation. The Northwestern University Debate Society and the N.D.T. Community remain in their debt. Together, these contributions permit us to offer a number of amenities for the teams who qualify for the tournament and the required judges associated with those teams. As host, Northwestern is pleased to provide breakfast and lunch on each of Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, a banquet to accompany the awards assembly on Sunday evening. We will also offer receptions for coaches and judges each evening, as well as an all tournament party on Monday evening to celebrate the completion of 60 years of N.D.T's. Thanks again to Dean O'Keefe and the Owen L. Coon Foundation for making these events possible. Additional Northwestern partners will join the venture, and we will recognize their participation as their plans become final. Host Committee I am pleased to announce that Danielle Wiese has joined the host team as Executive Consultant. Danielle and I have worked together for the last seven summers. She is the Director of Student Life for our summer program, and is perhaps the best administrators with whom I have worked. She is also a GREAT party planner, and unlike me, she has the personality and temperament to successfully pull off an event of this magnitude. Danielle has been in on the planning for the event from square one, particularly with regard to arrangements with the tournament hotels. I am confident that tournaments participants will have a much more enjoyable experience as a result of Danielle's addition to the hosting team. I am also pleased to announce that my old friend Marie Dzuris has agreed to attend as co-host to run the ballot table. Marie and I have know each other for 25 years, and we worked together in the summer for a decade. I have watched her run the ballot operation at a number of tournaments, and I will say only this: YOUR BALLOT DAMNED WELL BETTER IN ON TIME, WITH ONE AND ONLY ONE WINNER, WITH POINTS AND RANKS THAT MATCH, OR A CLEAR INDICATION OF A LOW POINT WIN. If not, you have to answer to Marie, not me. You choose. The Host Committee includes a number of Northwestern alumni who are committed to make the experience as positive as we can create. Thus far, committed returnees include: Heather Dowling Brilliant, Brian Fletcher, Michael Gottlieb, Luke Hill, Jim Hunter, Trace Johnson, Eli Kay-Oliphant, Brian Lai, Jayson Leek, Matt Lindsey, Sean McCaffity, Jennifer Northam, Shuman Sohrn, Ryan Sparacino, LaTonya Starks, Jody Terry and Jonathan Wells. The list will continue to grow, and together, we are committed to making the tournament an A+ experience for all. (NOTE: HOSTING COMMITTEE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR JUDGE DECISIONS!!!). Hotel Information: Primary Block The Host Hotel for the tournament is the newly renovated Hotel Orrington located at 1710 Orrington Avenue in Evanston. Hotel Orrington is a first class business and conference facility, well appointed for the needs of a debate competition. Tournament registration, the aforementioned public debate and opening ceremony, and elimination round debates will be held at the Orrington. Sleeping rooms are offered at the rate of $109 per night for single or double occupancy and $119 per night for triple or quad occupancy. Each of these rates is subject to a 13.5% hotel tax by the city of Evanston. Valet parking is available at the rate of $18 per day; in and out privileges are included in the valet rate. Should you need to cancel a sleeping room, you must do so 24 hours prior to scheduled check-in. Otherwise you will be billed for the first night of the reservation for each room in question. There is an "early check-out" penalty of $50 per room. This means, for instance, that if you initially tell the hotel that you intend to check-out on Tuesday morning after the tournament, but decide instead to check-out on Monday, the penalty will be invoked. To reserve rooms, contact the Group Reservations Department at (847)-866-8700. You can also reserve rooms via e-mail by writing to reservations at hotelorrington.com. Be sure to ask for the "2006 National Debate Tournament" room rate. The cut-off date for the block is February 20, 2006; after that date, any rooms remaining in the N.D.T. block will be made available to the general public and will no longer offered at the special tournament rate. Hotel Orrington will confirm your reservations via e-mail, so please have a working e-mail address available when you contact the Hotel. Each reservation will generate a separate confirmation number; if you reserve six rooms, you should receive six independent confirmation numbers. Please make EVERY EFFORT POSSIBLE to firm up your room needs no later than the cut-off date. The contract between Hotel Orrington and the N.D.T. includes a standard "attrition" provision, meaning that the N.D.T. must pay a substantial financial penalty if there is a substantial drop-off in the room block after the cutoff date. SHOULD YOU NEED TO CANCEL SLEEPING ROOMS AFTER THE CUT-OFF DATE, PLEASE FIRST CONTACT ME BEFORE CANCELING ROOMS DIRECTLY WITH THE HOTEL. AS HAS BEEN OUR PAST PRACTICE IN HOSTING THE OWEN L. COON TOURNAMENT, I WILL TRACK THOSE LOOKING FOR ADDITIONAL ROOMS IN THE HOTEL AND MATCH THEM WITH PARTIES NEEDING TO CANCEL ROOMS. This will help correct for the attrition problem, and is likely to be particularly effective once Second Round At-Large invitations are announced. One additional request. PLEASE MAKE EVERY EFFORT POSSIBLE to make your reservation as SPECIFIC as possible. In particular, if you actually need two rooms with King beds only and four "double doubles," then reserve them as such up front. Avoid the typical debate director tendency to just reserve six double doubles and figure it out later. The renovations at the Orrington have made it the nicest hotel on the college debate circuit; they also did, however, cut down structurally on the number of double doubles physically available in the hotel. Accordingly, your precision will help optimize the number of teams that can be accommodated in the Orrington. Hotel Orrington has no in house stock of roll away beds, so it is particularly important that we optimize the use of double doubles available in the block. Hotel Orrington is within walking distance of the Northwestern University campus, as well as Evanston's business and shopping district, home to restaurants and nightlife. Within a short driving distance are stores that can accommodate the copy and office supply needs that accompany a major tournament. The Hotel is well equipped to meet the computing needs of the tournament. Wireless internet access is available free of charge in the common areas of the Hotel; each guest sleeping room is outfitted with a free hardwire internet connection. Power supply in both guest and meeting rooms is limited; if you plan to have more than one or two people working on their computers simultaneously in a sleeping room, power strips will be a must. Hotel Information: Secondary Block A second block of rooms is available at the Hilton Garden Inn located at 1818 Maple Street in Evanston, a short four block walk from the Orrington. The Hilton Garden Inn is a relatively new property, built about three years ago, and is nicely suited for a debate event. Sleeping rooms at the Hilton are available at the rate of $99 per night for single and double occupancy and $109 per night for triple and quad occupancy. The City of Evanston will again exact its hotel room tax of 13.5% on these rates. Parking is available at adjacent City of Evanston garage at the rate of $10 per night. For the budget conscious, this is a cheaper alternative than the Orrington. The Hilton block includes only "double doubles," so if the Orrington is unable to meet your needs in that department, you may consider looking here. To reserve rooms at the Hilton, contact Rich Fisher, our primary contact in the hotel. Rich, a former high school debater, can be reached at 847-475-6400. Be sure to ask for the "2006 National Debate Tournament" room rate. The cut-off date for the block is February 20, 2006; after that date, any rooms remaining in the N.D.T. block will be made available to the general public and will no longer be offered at the special tournament rate. The Hilton also includes the amenities required for a positive debate experience: internet, restaurant and bar, convenient access to restaurants and nightlife, and easy access to copy facilities and office supplies. Free internet is provided via a wireless network that is accessible anywhere in the building. In fact, many of Evanston's newest restaurants are located within a two block radius of the Hilton. Each sleeping room is outfitted with a microwave oven, refrigerator, and coffee pot. The hotel also offers a 24 hour business center which includes free printing. Free coffee is available in the lobby each morning. As with the Orrington, we will provide transportation for both evidence and persons at the beginning and end of each day of preliminary competition. The Hilton also offers a free shuttle to campus. Schools that lodge at the Hilton will be asked to sign a "general rules" contract which prohibits loud hallway behavior. As are many of you, I remain busy teaching final classes, consulting with students, and grading final papers. By week's end, I look forward to filing final grades and turning my attention fully to hosting the N.D.T. I have rearranged my teaching schedule such that I have no classes during the Winter term so that I can devote my complete attention to my hosting responsibilities. World Wide Web Information about the tournament will be made available at www.debate.northwestern.edu. Don't go there yet; if you do, you will find a gold mine of information about the Northwestern University Debate Society, but nothing about the '06 N.D.T. Anticipate availability of the web page on or about January 1. A notice announcing the launch of the web page will be posted to edebate once it is publicly available. Once available, the web page will include information about, among other things: * Internet Access on the Evanston Campus * Tournament Schedule * Classroom Building Description and Map * Campus Map * Evanston Eateries * Fun and Frolic in Chicago All This, And Much, Much, More!!! Again, we look forward to your visit to Northwestern. On behalf of President Henry Bienen, Provost Lawrence Dumas, School of Communication Dean Barbara O'Keefe, Communication Studies Chair Peter Miller, Executive Consultant Danielle Wiese, and the staff, students, and alumni of the Northwestern University Debate Society, welcome to Northwestern!!! Best. SD Scott Deatherage Director of Debate Northwestern University Evanston, Illinois -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051213/db028a74/attachment.htm From blackdebateguy Thu Dec 15 13:46:59 2005 From: blackdebateguy (doug dennis) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:46:59 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] excel flowing template/ john foy or izak dunn Message-ID: if you have a flowing template you should forward me a copy. also, if you are john foy or izak dunn, you should email me. that is all and sorry for the clutter. doug dennis From gregachten Thu Dec 15 14:33:41 2005 From: gregachten (ACHTEN, GREGORY ALAN) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:33:41 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Berkeley Tournament Jan 28-30 - Important Announcements Message-ID: Hello, Now is the time to make hotel reservtions for the berkeley tournament. The hotel is the Emeryville Courtyard Marriott and their phone number is 1-510-652-8777. If you experience any difficulties in making reservations please ask for Brett Brown in sales and he should be able to help you. Also, we will be reserving parking on campus. Anyone who is interested in purchasing a permit for a reserved spot ($25 per vehicle - a huge discount over other parking options in the area) please backchannel me and let me know how many permits you think you will need so I know how many to reserve. Also, feel free to go ahead and enter the tournament as a number of people already have. I know that Professor Arnett would like a rough head count for hospitality purposes. Finally, Brian McBride agreed at the Wake Forest tournament to favor us with his Karaoke stylings at the Cal tournament if I purchased a Neil Diamond Karaoke CD. I have done so. We all look forward to Brian's rendition of "Song Sung Blue". Greg From Karla_Leeper Thu Dec 15 14:51:02 2005 From: Karla_Leeper (Leeper, Karla) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:51:02 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] FREE LAW SCHOOL Message-ID: <3E798250B7BD144D87BF0E7C0667FDCA015575EC@FS-EXCHANGE2.baylor.edu> Hello to everyone who is getting ready to work on law school apps over the break, or to those who are beginning to investigate law schools. I just wanted to remind you about an opportunity that is available at Baylor University's School of Law. The Leon Jaworski scholarship is a full tuition, renewable award given to former debaters. Some recent recipients have been Jas Brar, Josh Hedrick, Andy Ryan, Wes Lotz, Josh Zive, Chris Lavigne, and Sean McCaffity. The Baylor Law School is highly rated, and is particularly good at training litigators. It operates out of a new state of the art facility. It is really quite an awesome building. I encourage you to check out the law school at http://law.baylor.edu and to check out the Jaworski application at http://law.baylor.edu/new_prosp_students/Admissions/Finance/LeonJaworApp .pdf . If you are coming to the Baylor tournament in January we can schedule an opportunity for you to meet with at least one member of the Jaworski committee. If you are planning to attend the tournament and are interested in the Jaworski, I highly recommend that you meet with them. If you have questions about the law school or about the scholarship, feel free to contact me as well Thanks and good luck on the LSAT. Dr. Karla Leeper Director Baylor Debatte -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051215/d10a7f42/attachment.html From andy.edebate Thu Dec 15 15:01:04 2005 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:01:04 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] looking for Jairus Grove Message-ID: <9368bc9b0512151301r50ac5cddy8d454c8104cc540e@mail.gmail.com> Please backchannel me when you get a chance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051215/b5dedef2/attachment.htm From nicole.colston Thu Dec 15 17:18:46 2005 From: nicole.colston (Nicole) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:18:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ADOF at Appalachian State University, NC Message-ID: Communication Generalist/Assistant Forensics Coach Appalachian State University's Department of Communication is seeking an outstanding Lecturer starting August 2006. An earned master's degree in communication is required. Experience in policy debate or other speech competition activities is necessary. After the initial one-year appointment as Lecturer, a multi-year appointment is possible. Primary teaching responsibilities will be in the Organizational/Public concentration including public speaking and one or more of the following: introduction to human communication, nonverbal communication, small group communication and argumentation and advocacy. Responsibilities include assisting with an award-winning nationally known forensics program, advising undergraduates and participating in departmental, university and professional service activities. A completed application will include an application letter, curriculum vitae, a separate teaching philosophy statement, photocopies of all official college transcripts and the names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of at least three references. Review of applications starts Dec. 14, 2005, and will continue until position is filled. Submit application material to: Chair, Communication/Forensics Search Committee, Department of Communication, ASU Box 32039, Appalachian State University, Boone, N.C. 28608-2039; Fax: 828-262-2543. The Department of Communication (http://www.asucom.appstate.edu) has a strong commitment to promoting diversity among its five concentrations and the university community. Teaching web-based courses or at off-campus sites is expected. Appalachian State University is an Equal Opportunity Employer, promotes diversity among students and employees, and is actively recruiting women and minorities. Appalachian State University From SSbauschard2 Thu Dec 15 19:03:01 2005 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:03:01 EST Subject: [eDebate] ndtcaselist.com is fixed Message-ID: <88.33db7ea5.30d36c45@aol.com> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051215/9840427b/attachment.html From let_the_american_empire_burn Thu Dec 15 19:11:36 2005 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:11:36 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] open debate (response to sawyer, harris, and sullivan) Message-ID: michael advances a good line of questioning here: "How can you argue that these [open debate] systems would impose additional burdens on small schools and then argue that such burdens are good because they're a good intrduction to inequity? Isn't that a double turn?" it's amazing that neither sawyer, harris, or sullivan sees the contradiction of saying 'sharing? yeah, we already do that now' on the one hand and then 'quit looking for handouts' or 'this is an unfair requirement' on the other. let's return to the a.f.a. code of standards for a minute. as explained in a string of posts (http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200504/0056.html, http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200504/0061.html, http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200504/0071.html, http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200504/0146.html), article article III, section 3 of the a.f.a. code states that non-competitors shouldn't offer anything but limited examples of research to actual participants. next to no one follows this rule, yet if fully enforced, it'd mean an end to most of what card-cutting assistants and handbook publishers contribute to the activity. this backs those on the other side of this debate into a nasty either/or: either the debate community should require that students themselves cut all their own cards or it should make possible the most inclusive sharing of all evidentiary resources. either consistently support 'self-reliance' or continually support those initiatives that'll create more open debate. that's the ethical choice before you. if martin really believes that "it is time for american college students to step up to the mic and quit looking for a handout", then why doesn't he oppose caselists and disclosure of all kinds? and if he does support those measures, how does he intend to make them work? if it's not good to "hand students everything on a silver platter", what does he advocate doing about those teams who recieve 'ready-to-run' positions from assistants and/or handbooks? or look at what steve writes about instilling a 'sense of self-reliance' : "That DOESN'T mean I did everything on my own. It DOES mean that I did what I could and developed a social network to help me out with what I couldn't do. It's important for people to learn how to deal with constraints." well in the status quo, some 'social networks' are more equal than others. if your network includes 2 to 5 professional card-cutters, that hardly honors self-reliance. so why not strive to widen those networks for the benefit of all involved, even if that means living with some new constraints? in a more open system of argument development/distribution, debate will continue to award an elite, but hopefully that elite will be determined more by their skill than by their privilege. sure, some will coast, as they do now, but these proposals will minimize redundancy and maximize the beneficial effect of small contributions. and what about the students who have the chops to 'wrestle the gorilla' (as harris so eloquently puts it), just not the resources? ... with these questions in mind, i'll go to the line-by-line. _ i. steve steve claims that an evidence escrow "doesn't address the equity problem of people not having access to the actual text". that's true. it also doesn't cure world hunger. sadly, the full-text of most articles are copyrighted under 'all rights reserved' restrictions which prohibit redistribution. in 1999, for example, the washington post and the los angeles times won in federal district court that individuals shouldn't be able to cut and paste stories from their online publications onto political discussion forums. the full-text library that google is trying to put together has run into similar obstacles. as if to answer these restrictions, many authors are choosing to publish their work online (under creative commons licenses, no less). lawrence lessig was among the first with his book, 'free culture', which you can find in multiple places on the net (http://libreria.sourceforge.net/library/Free_Culture/contents.html). i've also included an anthology of helpful articles at the bottom of the page here: http://ossdebate.org/index.php?title=Creative_Commons. my point is you don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. moreover, making the raw materials of research more easily accesible hardly constitutes a "serious disincentive to research". again, look at the status quo: think of the rounds wherein the negative team has no specific evidence against the affirmative case. what goes down? they revert to generics like topicality and kritiks. and these arguments are often defended on the grounds that they allegedly 'level the playing field', off-setting the competitive advantage of bigger, richer skools. that's the not-unique, now here's the turn: in an open debate system, everyone is given case-specific evidence 'on a silver platter' (as harris says) - what happens? tight case debates, that's what. yet even more than that, it *actively encourages* teams that otherwise would've avoided case altogether to *get involved* in the online process of reading, reviewing, criticizing, and improving the frontlines. if you put a good file in someone's hands who was just planning on going for some kritik, and they end up going for some on-case in their 2n.r., win or lose, are they more or less likely to take a good look at that file afterward, perhaps even re-write it? see, right now fewer and fewer debaters are hitting the books and reading case-specific evidence, but by making the cards available, even those who had no intention of doing so may find themselves getting sucked in. that's the bait of debate. ... if librarians followed your suggestions to their logical conclusion, they'd be making libraries harder to use in order to encourage 'serious research'? that's absurd. steve claims that "enforcement of the sharing standard widens the gap between programs", due to 'information overload' -- but he's describing the status quo! "Better financed or more technically oriented teams" right now "find it much easier to comb through the evidence than small teams who just don't have the time", which is why it makes sense to ask those who are better funded and more technically oriented to put the results of their evidence-combing online for all to see and use. once someone digs up a 'small nugget of goodness we call a sweet card', then everyone benefits -- perhaps not as much as the original researcher, i will grant you, but better than waiting for the sweet evidence to trickle down from a select few... or never trickle down, as the case may be. to further back up this claim, steve cites the fact that "better funded schools have better computers, copiers, and scanners", but answer me this: are students from less well funded schools more likely to have a photocopier in their home or a computer with a scanner? and remember, once one 'rich kid' scans something in, everyone can access it on the crappiest of dial-up services (e.g. me). if "Big School X could have all their handcut ev pre-scanned and ready to roll before the tournament", then "Small School Y" will have it too, and that's the difference between the status quo and a burgeoning commons - their resources = your resources. "The team with 5 assistant coaches will have a better shot at sifting through everything than the team with none." n/u. ... either work to fully enforce the a.f.a. code of standards so as to eliminate assistant coaches as we know them, or work to force those assistant coaches to share the fruits of their labor with everyone. ... i simply can't believe you want information to be less available, because that's truly 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'. steve's second argument is more persausive, claiming that open debate 'depersonalizes the activity' and further marginalizes non-traditional debate. michael did a good job of showing how evidence-sharing standards encourage spontaneity since non-scripted performances are effectively exempt. this reminds me of the frank lane article which gordon mitchell cited here: http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200504/0090.html. when grappling with the question of how much help is too much for a coach to give a debater, lane discusses three ways that the forum might address the problem : first, making it a "point of honor" that coaches (or assistants) will not write their debaters' arguments ('self-enforcement'); second, still retaining the right to offer 'all possible help'; and third, experimenting with the structure in such a way that debate becomes more 'extemporaneous'. today the forum also has a fourth option that wasn't available in lane's day - putting as much evidence as possible into a big backfile for all to improve upon and freely utilize. and flow another answer here: digitalizing debate can also assist project-oriented teams by connecting their typically insular ideas to the outside world. fort hays, for instance, could blog their round experiences -- in fact, bill shanahan has already done so. this redefines 'research' as debaters write their own arguments without any need of experts, using tournaments as relays to mobilize support for broader movements. steve writes, "if a person's contribution to the community can be measured by how much sweet ev they provide to everyone" -- hold it right there. it's only one measure among many. so don't reduce my position to ev-centricism and then accuse me of being reductionist. "I'm sorry, but if you find a few sweet uniqueness cards for your disad 10 minutes before the round, you should be rewarded for that." well this doesn't apply to antonucci's so-called 'weak proposal' wherein evidence becomes available *after* you read it, not before. i think some amount of reasonableness is called for here -- if you cover your evidence under (cc) and state publically your intent to share the uniqueness at your soonest possible convience, then you'd certainly mitigate a lot of the harm, especially if you shared everything else but a few recently-cut cards. maybe some middle ground between the weak and strong proposals is possible such that evidence cut during the tournament would be exempt until the next tourney. or perhaps 'it's important for people to learn how to deal with constraints'? ... as to new positions in general, however, you could put a new case online, and not tell anyone the u.r.l. until after you'd broken it; if it's truly new, then people won't know what to search for, and this has the small added benefit of checking against minor modifications which claim to be wholly new, e.g. 'no one has suggested reducing co2 emmissions by 6.258% before'. lastly, steve claims that open debate "externalizes drive and creates a sense of entitlement". yet why do debaters feel entitled to positions their assistant coaches cut for them? all this proposal does is make already existing file-sharing networks less exclusive for those that can't afford to attend the camps, that don't have pirated lexis codes, etc. _ ii. martin it's hard to see how any proposal which asks participants to take it upon themselves to put their evidence online could be spun as a 'lowering of standards'. open debate doesn't lower entry requirements to harvard (using matin's example) but adds a new one by requiring that all applicants share their info. "There is no patent on the politics disad[.]" you'd have to talk to planetdebate.com about that one. "[P]eople share info all the time, and no one 'owns' the information." good, then they should have no problem with sharing it with the whole class. i'd like to bring up something that i remember from my debating days: our squad had this quirk about not lending files against teams with whom we were friends. so if team x was hitting team y and team y came up and asked us for our 'heg good' file, for example, our decision to lend that file would depend on our relationship to team x. could someone help me here - is this a common practice? anyway, i didn't like it at the time, and it may be one of those factors that mitigate sharing in the status quo, along with coachs' injunctions, competitive disincentives, and so on. "Could people share more, yes, but there is no OBLIGATION in any community to share the knowledge." i agree insofar as i don't think the obligation should be imposed from the top-down, which is why i disagre with those who want to alter the tournament rules to mandate sharing. what i'm talking about is a communal norm like disclosure of your affirmative case prior to the round or not running blatantly non-topical cases. i feel that winning ballots is an appropriate way to instill these values because both sides are given equal time to debate it out. if you don't think you should be forced to contribute to a caselist, for example, that's fine -- let's debate that, and if your arguments suck, you'll lose rounds. this in-round opportunity of rebuttal isn't valued in the allegedly 'weak' version of open debate, and i'd draw a sharp line of separation between myself and such proposals (antonucci's and maybe sullivan's). for directors to organize the means of file-sharing is one thing - that's just being hospitable and helpful. to mandate that you have to share is quite something else. i want free-riders to lose a lot of ballots, not be automatically disqualified - there's a big difference. in any case, i do believe that every participant has an obligation to make the game as fair and educational as possible. once i prove that (cc) accomplishes those goals, i win. "Steal ideas from one team and modify them with your twist." amen, brother. that's exactly what the (cc) public license enshrines - the value of tweaking creative works. martin has a different take on the open source analogy: he thinks the source code is what's already available (i.e. in the library) and handbook companies "'package' the source code into an executable that is a 'runnable' file". that's an interesting way of looking at it, but there's two flaws here: first, i don't have access to the source of that executable file - i can't redistribute it with my own modifications if i'm not allowed to even see it. you say 'that's legal' but it also hampers any of the benefits of an open development process; if everyone kept all their modifications to themselves, then there'd be little reason to choose open source over the usual suspects. the better cathedral-style programmers should just go work for microsoft. second, you trip yourself up by saying the analogy is seriously flawed and then trying to fill the analogy with all the pecularities of academic debate. if 'source code' means a law review that my local library doesn't carry, then no, it's not freely-accessible for me to package any way i choose... and a squad with a lexis code (or with an assistant with a lexis code) has an advantage. if i can threaten that squad's win-loss record when they don't share the way they packaged that particular law review, then i've tried to give those involved more access to something that they didn't have before. that's good for a lot of reasons, one of which is what happened when software programmers tried an open process like this.... but that's as far as i'd take the analogy. there are certainly better analogies anyway, such as the openlaw project, which is specific to developing arguments. "I think this idea is examplary of one of the movements in debate I find problematic. Make loose analogies to something the 'works', claim there is no offense, only defense, and then scream about it is worth the risk because you 'control' uniqueness. I think, in general, we have thrown the baby out with the bath water." what's your alternative? do you support full enforcement of the a.f.a. code of standards? ... every plan of action has unintended consequences and side effects, but simply pointing out a few is not reason enough to ignore the strong arguments in favor of change. "I also think if you made a big pile of cards in a database for people to download/tag/reblock and brief, that would be an ok think [sic]." and that's exactly what the creative commons proposal accomplishes by enabling everyone to search for every debate card with a (cc)-tag on it. remember though that requiring internet publication accelerates this critical process of 'downloading/tagging/reblocking' by involving more and more people, both in and out of the activity. as we've learned from o.s., the more eyes, the shallower the bugs, and i don't think i'll get any argument from you that many of the debate positions run right now are very buggy indeed. no one is looking for a handout. is a caselist a handout? this proposal levels the playing field so that differences can be better amplified through an open online process. if that means a bigger tent, then so be it. it's time to stop whining and chip in. _ iii. john there's a lot that's not simply derivative about an evidentiary compilation, and there's a lot that is. you've got to read the entire article, separate out the points that are relevant to the argument you're making and decide where to cut, and you've also got to write your own tag which inserts a specific card within a larger position. on the flip side, when you look at an enormous debate file, 95% of it is written by the quoted authors. still that other 5% is what makes the file a usable file instead of bunch of random snippets. i say this to admit my ignorance - i don't know whether you can copyright a debate file, and neither does anyone else, because to my knowledge, it's never been tested in court. i know that since 1989, everything original a debater writes (i.e. taglines/overviews) is automatically copyrighted under 'all rights reserved' provisions. and that means that every single debater has some amount of freedom in deciding how their work could be redistributed. yes (cc) is still a copyright, but it's one that can protect the right to modify creative works as well as the capacity to share. i gave three reasons why debaters should use the (cc) public license: the first is archival - the (cc)-tag would allow debaters to search for all covered debate files through the (cc)-engine i already mentioned. the second is symbolic - the (cc)-tag expresses discontent with the restrictive 'all rights reserved' and would help build consensus for file-sharing. only the last one was that (cc) operates as a counter-point to the legal stance taken by the handbook comapnies. john: "I don't know how handbooks or PlanetDebate do it." well neither do i, but they do. so perhaps your questions are better directed at them. john only hints at some reasons why planetdebate.com would be allowed to copyright their work while all rank-and-file debaters wouldn't -- "It's easier to deal with them when you are talking about a single publication or web site under control of a company or small group. Also, they are working with defined compilations, not just a slot in my accordion." first, this doesn't respond to the default copyright imposed on all work whether debaters like it or not, but secondly, their being smaller doesn't mean much: debate is already composed of nothing but small units (teams, squads, etc.). in fact, as i said before, handbooks' claim to 'fair use' might be weaker *because* they're commericial enterprises. speaking of... "This isn't going to ... do anything to make handbooks more open." if there were a free alternative to their compilations, why would anyone choose to buy from them? ... naturally this will take time, but one hopes they'll begin to draw revenue from ads and from coaching services rather than cards. this would also make their legal position less untenable. "Requiring people to share is antithetical to the free software and Creative Commons movements." i dealt with this above, but this is precisely why i don't support (as you do?) altering tourney rules from the top-down. your participation in debate is voluntary. if you don't want to lose, then either make good arguments against this proposal or start to share. sure, currently there are actors who prohibit sharing - evidence services, but also specific coaches and teams following unquestioned norms (like the one against lending i mentioned above). this is about more than that though - it's about enabling those who want to share to do so on the internet under a public license; it's also about convincing those who don't want to share that it's in their own best interest to do so. creating a commons isn't simply about stopping those who prohibit sharing, but actively making space for a less insular and more educational debate culture. thank you all for responding, and i'll try to take your criticisms under consideration in any future rewrites of the (cc) position. my apologies for the length. kevin.sanchez at gmail.com From delliott Fri Dec 16 11:06:17 2005 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:06:17 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Candidates! New Programs and Novice? In-Reply-To: <269.267c202.30d19e89@aol.com> References: <269.267c202.30d19e89@aol.com> Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.1.20051216101326.01c28238@kckcc.toto.net> Sam, Great questions and I think it is good to see folks actively engaging their potential officers in dialogue that is long overdue. If elected to the 2nd Vice Presidency I have a number of initiatives I would like to implement and will address each question below to that effect. Let me begin by saying, that like Joe I have spent nearly a decade serving CEDA from the ground up. The work we both have done within our Regions, within the CEDA committee structure, and on an ad hoc basis when called upon gives us a great insight into the community at large and CEDA in particular. Traveling, recruiting and coaching novices, coaching a brand new program and working hard to establish debate within our schools at both the Regional and National levels as well as working hard to recruit new programs has given us the opportunity to be at the heart of the questions you ask. Like Joe I want to begin with your last 2 questions. Strengthening Novice debate and helping new programs is and MUST be an important goal for CEDA and certainly is for myself. I have spent the last 3 years serving as CEDA's Recruitment and Retention Chair and in that time have accumulated a wealth of information and knowledge directly related to this concern. I have listened attentively to those successful folks who recruit and retain novices. I have worked to get packets together for new programs and currently working on an initiative to change our points structure (more on that below). I have documentation on why many programs have left and why many vanish without us knowing they were even in jeopardy. It's time to dispatch debate ambassadors to increase our numbers. As a coach I have recruited and promoted Novice debate on my squad and in our Region. I think any candidate for this position must make clear their goals and objectives in regards to retaining and recruiting Novice debaters and programs. Without more retention and recruitment our community may slip further and further into a non-existance. 1. As for increasing and strengthening Novice debate in CEDA we have a lot of work to be done. First I would like those of you who have been so successful in the Northeast especially, to provide guidance to the rest of the country. Workshops at summer conferences or NCA would be valuable. I think, given that this should be part of our primary mission, CEDA should seek out ways to fund those willing and able to travel to NCA or the summer conference to conduct workshops on how to recruit and strengthen Novices in debate. For many colleagues it may be a lack of time that it takes to devote to Novices, or so they feel. I am quite certain folks like yourself and Tuna and Joe and Andy and Neil and the countless others who travel Novices consistently and in large numbers arent't just sitting around with a lot of extra time on your hands. You are just as strppaed as everyone for time yet you find time for those who need it the most. Sharing those pedagogical strengths with others is where we could all benefit. Of course it means giving up more time for those of you asked to do it, but if I know you all... : ) Another way to increase/strengthen is to provide more incentive. I think CEDA needs to rethink our Sweepstakes system. For many schools, sweeps are one way to be recognized which is paramount to funding in many cases. I was involved in a conversation at NCA about this very issue. I think we need to begin to restructure to find ways to honor those schools who are full-service programs (Novice, JV, and Open). I am willing to listen to the community's input here but I envision a Sweeps system where you are actually competing against schools similar to yours in terms of budget, divisions you send teams in, etc. Perhaps a new Sweeps category for those with mostly Novice participation would be valuable. I would also be interested in working on a proposal to separate out National Sweeps for each division to recognize more programs. More recognition good. I think this discussion also is closely aligned with the idea of divisions or conferences. Again it makes no sense why we have an awards system that doesnt compare programs against programs with similarities, but instead throws everyone into the same mix. I would like to hear more community feedback on this issue. But it is time to act I believe. Folks at the summer meeting also had an idea for a Novice division at CEDA Nats. It may make hosting harder in terms of space but if it means getting more folks excited about debating then why not try it. I would not favor it however if it meant it would hurt the Novice Nationals that currently exist in the East and Midwest, and now this coming year in the West. Given the 3 tournaments maybe a CEDA Nats division isnt something that folks desire, but it's good the country is moving towards more of these ideas. 2. As I said in my post to edebate about my candidacy, I want more programs debating in CEDA when I leave the Presidency then when I become 2nd VP if elected. Recruiting new programs will take time and effort. Time and effort is something I am willing to commit to this endeavor and I hope anyone taking the office will as well. CEDA leadership must be filled with people who will put as much into the organization as into their own teams. It may come at a competitive cost but the future of the organization depends on that kind of commitment. So what do I want to do? As Chair of the committee on recruitment and retention we have begun a number of initiatives. First, Sue Peterson is working on a survey to further study why folks left/leave. Once we have more than a lot of anecdotal evidence we can begin at looking at ways to bring them back. There is also work being done on a National Evidence Datababse which is critical to access I feel. Many new programs worry about catching up with all the backfile work they have to do. Until the database is up and running I want to collect a list of schools willing to share all backfiles and topic files. We have done it on a number of occasions. We recently recruited a new community college in Kansas to join CEDA. They have no ev and are scared to death. By the time we gave them everything we had on disks they felt a lot better and are jazzed about debating. I think CEDA needs to create a legion of debate ambassadors (something akin to the Imperial Guard) : ) and we dispatch these folks to Regions and schools on the brink of leaving or coming. We must work on saving the former and wooing the latter. To save the former, we need to identify programs on the verge of leaving and do all we can to help them. CEDA leadership must write letters and make phone calls as part of their charge. We must do more to promote debate period. Again it will take time and commitment and the person better be up for the job. I participated in a discussion on a panel at NCA on beginning a debate program. I made a number of contacts and would bet money that with some work there will be at least 3 new programs in the Mid-America Region by next year. There is a lot of work involved but I am getting in the trenches to bring these folks on board. Along the lines of dispatching ambassadors, another project I want to initiate is a document that can be sent to College and University Administrators that speak to the value of debate. I would like to send packets to top administrators at colleges and universities that currently field debate teams and have those people write about why they choose to fund debate at their schools. Our Provost is ready to write his chapter of the document. Being the father of KU's former debater Hajir Ardebili he certainly knows the part debate plays in success of students. Him and I talked about this project and he thinks it's a great idea and would be powerful and something administrators could not easily ignore if their colleagues from around the country were promoting debate. As an administrator for some plus 20 years I am confident in his assessment. There are many more things we can do but it will take the collective will of the community. We need leadership that can bring folks together and work cooperatively to make it happen. Let me speak to one more idea briefly. This ties in with our goals for recruitment and retention. We all are so busy we often put projects on the back burner. We have so many good folks working too much as it is. This often means our projects get put away and eventually forgotten. What suffers then is the long-term viability of who we are and what we do. Recruitment and Retention of new programs and Novices often becomes secondary. What we need is a driving force that can dedicate their job to these endeavors. In the short-term let me say I have worked out a deal for more time to work on the organization if elected. But for the long-term we need someone in this capacity with a full commitment to CEDA. For a long time I have thought CEDA needs to look seriously at an Executive Director. Stephen Koch's presentation of this to NCA in Miami was a great start. But it too hasnt taken off. To do this will take money but the organization must become more financially stable. I believe Kelly McDonald will keep us on the financially stable track and I want to work with him to build up CEDA's bottom line. We must look at ways to make more money as an organization and I would like to see that turn into a way to hire an Executive Director who will have the full-time job of promoting debate, recruiting programs and novices, and retaining the programs we have. This would ensure the work gets done and that debates will continue. Finally, let me say that without new programs and without new debaters (novices) we may find ourselves with no one to debate, or no one close enough to debate to make it affordable to do policy debate anymore. That's fine if you have a budget in excess of $60,000.00 or so and you dont need a "Region" to compete in. But for those of us who don't have that luxury it's time to get serious about saving and recruiting programs and new debaters. The majority of us cannot afford a return to a debate world where every tournament requires you to fly across the country. When debate is no longer accessible folks will go do something else. A look at the latest list of NPDA subscribers will only remind us of what we once had. I want the trends to change and I think with the ideas above and a willingness to listen and engage people about these issues, and other ideas then that will change. Thanks Sam and Happy Holidays to everyone! Chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate KCKCC Chair CEDA Committee on Retention and Recruitment At 10:12 AM 12/14/2005, Samnelson4 at aol.com wrote: >Dear CEDA candidates: >I have three questions for those seeking office in CEDA. >1) What are your plans to increase/strengthen/help novice debate in CEDA? >By "novice," I mean the current CEDA definition of novice? >2) What are your plans to increase/strengthen/help new programs join CEDA? >3) Are strengthening novice debate and helping new programs get established >important goals for you? Should they be for CEDA? > >Please answers these questions forthrightly and share them with everyone on >this list. >Thank you. > >Best, > >Sam Nelson >Director of Forensics >Cornell University > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at ndtceda.com >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From stannardmatt Fri Dec 16 12:27:35 2005 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:27:35 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] more jobs and assistantships at debatecooperative.net Message-ID: This is a banner year for full-time debate jobs and graduate assistantships. I don't think I've ever seen so many openings. Many of them are currently listed at debatecooperative.net. Go to http://www.debatecooperative.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=45 for details on: -DOF, CSU-Chico -Coaching, Mary Washington -ADOF, Appalachian State -DOF, Texas Tech -DOD, Michigan State -Coach, Casper College -Coach, St. George's School -Coach, Chatahoochee HS -GA, Northern Illinois -GA, Kansas State -GA, Central Michigan -GA, Wichita State -GA, Texas Tech -GA, Illinois State -And of course, a GA position at the University of Wyoming, which you should feel free to backchannel me about if you have any questions. It's a great position in a great program with a great team. To post job and GA announcements, you need only subscribe to debatecooperative.net. Matt Stannard Director of Forensics University of Wyoming co-administrator, debatecooperative.net "Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living things, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on the earth. I said then and I say now, that while there is a lower class, I am in it; while there is a criminal element, I am of it; while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs) From bodonnel Fri Dec 16 14:19:21 2005 From: bodonnel (O'Donnell, Brett M.) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:19:21 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NDT Subscribers--Updated as of Dec. 1, 2005 Message-ID: Below is the current list of NDT subscribers. If you believe that you have paid your dues and your school does not appear on this list, please contact me or Jim Pratt at AFA (if you paid through the AFA website). By rule: NDT dues must be paid by Nov. 1. Schools subscribing between Nov. 2 and Dec. 1 will be charged double the regular subscription fee. Schools subscribing between Dec. 2 and January 1 will be charged triple the regular subscription fee. Schools subscribing after January 1 will not be eligible for that year's NDT. If you pay your NDT dues by November 1, the cost is $45.00. If you pay between Nov. 2 and Dec. 1, the cost is $90.00. If you pay between December 2 and January 1, the cost is $135.00. If you pay your dues after January 1, you will not be eligible to qualify for the 2006 NDT. Brett M. O'Donnell Director of Debate Liberty University 1971 University Blvd. Lynchburg, VA 24502 434-582-2080 2005-06 NDT Subscribers Arizona State University Augustana College Bard College Baylor University Binghamton University Boston College California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo California State University-Chico California State University - Fullerton California State University-Northridge California State University - Sacramento Capital University Central Florida Community College Clarion University College of Southern Maryland Concordia College Cornell University Dartmouth College Eastern New Mexico University Emporia State University Florida State University Fort Hays State University Fresno City College George Mason University Georgetown University George Washington University Georgia State University Gonzaga University Harvard University Idaho State University Illinois State University James Madison University John Carroll University Kansas State University Kansas Wesleyan University King's College Liberty University Los Angeles City College Macalester College Miami University of Ohio Michigan State University Missouri State University Northwest College Northwestern University Pace University Pepperdine University Piedmont College Samford University San Francisco State University Stanford University Towson University Trinity University Union College United States Military Academy United States Naval Academy University of California - Berkeley University of Central Oklahoma University of Denver University of Florida University of Georgia University of Illinois University of Kansas University of Kentucky University of Mary Washington University of Michigan University of Missouri-Kansas City University of Notre Dame University of Northern Iowa University of North Texas University of Pittsburgh University of Puget Sound University of Redlands University of Richmond University of Rochester University of Southern California University of Texas University of Texas at Dallas University of West Georgia University of Wyoming Vanderbilt University Wake Forest University Wayne State University Weber State University West Virginia University Whitman College Wichita State University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051216/620c58e6/attachment.htm From sac36967 Fri Dec 16 15:06:49 2005 From: sac36967 (Hamilton, Kristen A) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:06:49 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Spring Tournament in Sacramento References: <52839EF47227874F88C65BA5508245CDEE3235@VSL4A.saclink.csus.edu> Message-ID: <52839EF47227874F88C65BA5508245CDEE3239@VSL4A.saclink.csus.edu> On behalf of the Sacramento State University debate team and the Department of Communication Studies, I'm excited to invite you to participate in the Western Novice & JV National Policy Debate Championship Tournament and Hornet Classic CEDA/NDT Open Division Warm-up to be held at Sac State March 10-12, 2006. We will have six preliminary rounds of National Championship team policy debate in both novice & junior-varsity divisions, as well as a six round open division warm-up tournament for CEDA/NDT teams. All divisions will have appropriate elimination rounds. We've secured a rate of $79.00 a night for rooms with two queen beds at the Rancho Cordova Marriot - this is a full service hotel with top notch amenities and is located near plenty of restaurants. The block of rooms will be held until February 24, 2006. Make your reservations by referencing the Sac State Debate Tournament when you call 916-628-1000. If you have trouble, ask for Amy in sales. Though there are hotels a bit closer to campus, I found that many are already booked and most have higher rates. This hotel is only a 15 minute drive to campus. I hope you'll consider adding this tournament to your spring travel schedule - we look forward to hosting you here in beautiful Sacramento (which is quite pleasant in the spring) and we're excited to be resurrecting the Hornet Classic in a new and improved championship format. If you have questions feel free to email me at khamilton at csus.edu. Kristen Hamilton Tudor Director of Debate Sacramento State University (916) 278-5489 (office) (916) 278-7216 (fax) Tournament Information Transportation: The Sacramento Airport is about a 20 minute drive from campus and the tournament hotel. There are plenty of rental car companies in the airport. To get to campus or the hotel from the airport, take I-5 south, then merge onto highway 50 east towards South Lake Tahoe. From there, follow directions below to either the hotel or campus. The Hotel: The Marriott Sacramento Rancho Cordova is located just east of campus off of highway 50. The address is 11211 Point East Drive, Rancho Cordova, 95742. The phone number is 916-638-1100. From I-5 take highway 50 towards South Lake Tahoe (east) - exit Sunrise Blvd - go left onto Folsom Blvd - go left on Point East Drive. Campus: Sac State's address is 6000 J Street, 95819 - but most of you will access it from Howe Avenue/Highway 50. From the Hotel, take highway 50 west, exit Howe/Power Inn Road and follow the signs to campus. Go right onto State University Drive East and follow it past a large parking structure until you see Lot 2 on your right - park in student parking (it's okay to park in lot 2 faculty on Sat/Sun). You'll have to buy a permit for Friday, but not Saturday and Sunday. Pairings and registration will be in Mendocino Hall, across from the bookstore. Entry Info: enter at debateresults.com Tournament Procedures: We will use the 2005-2006 CEDA/NDT topic with 9-3-6 speaking times. We will adhere to CEDA guidelines for novice and JV eligibility. Divisions will not be collapsed because this is a championship tournament in novice and JV. There will be no breaking of brackets in elimination rounds. We will, if necessary, have partial-elimination rounds in order to break all teams with a winning record. Fees: The fee for each team is $85.00. Each school is expected to provide one judge for every two teams entered. The uncovered team fee will be $120.00. Please bring extra judges - I'm sure we'll need them and will pay $25 per round. Fees include breakfast on Saturday and Sunday, and lunch on Saturday. Schedule Friday, March 10th 2:00-3:00: Registration on campus - Mendocino Hall 3:30: Pairings for rounds 1, 2 released - Mendocino Hall 4:00: Round 1 6:30: Round 2 Saturday, March 11th 8:00am: Pairings released at the Marriott and at Mendocino Hall on campus. Breakfast served on campus. 9:00: Round 3 11:30: Round 4 1:30: Lunch on campus 3:00: Round 5 6:00: Round 6 9:30: Elimination teams and judges posted at Marriott Sunday, March 12th 8:00: Pairings for elimination rounds released on campus and at Marriott. Breakfast on campus. 9:00: Elimination round 1 11:00: Awards Ceremony: Mendocino 1003 12:00: Subsequent elimination rounds as needed. From ferrits Fri Dec 16 23:02:18 2005 From: ferrits (Joe Schatz) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:02:18 +0800 Subject: [eDebate] Binghamton Debate Tournament Invite Message-ID: <20051217050218.98A7723D1D@ws5-3.us4.outblaze.com> Some things have changed since last year's invite, so you may want to actually read this one... The Eighteenth Annual Forensics Festivals Invite 2/11/06-2/12/06 AWARDS: Unfortunately do to administrative issues we will no longer be able to donate money to non-profit organizations for awards. However, we will provide unique and interesting awards that will make any debater proud to take home in order to make up for it. We will continue to sell kiss-o-grams, love-o-grams, and run penny wars between attending Universities. All money raised from these activities will be donated to a New Hope Center, which is a local organization dedicated to helping survivors of domestic violence. For more information of this organization you can visit their website at http:// http://anhc.home.att.net/. I can personally verify that this organization is relatively non-bureaucratic and that 100% of the money will go to actually helping survivors of domestic violence in tangible ways. So, in short, please still encourage your debates to bring spare money in order to help out this organization and enjoy our between-round activities. We will still give awards to squads with the most school spirit as we have in past years. DIVISIONS: In order to promote novice debate and in order to offer all three divisions, while we will abide by CEDA eligibility guidelines, we strongly convince you to register debaters as follows: Novice debaters should include students who are in there first semester of competition so that newly joining debaters aren?t tournaments behind more advanced novice debaters. We ask all debaters that have either three tournaments of experience or have advanced in elimination rounds to register in the JV bracket. We ask all debaters who are in their second year or more of policy experience, and have advanced to elimination rounds at least once, enter the Open division, which welcomes more experienced debaters as well. The more teams the more money can be raised and the bigger the donation your team can claim if you win. The novice division will host 5 rounds with one educational round to watch, while the JV and Open divisions will have the full 6 rounds. The hope in doing this is to promote continual participation and education of new novices as well as allow more experienced debaters to push themselves to their limits by debating up, which is another excellent means of learning how to debate. In the event we cannot break all brackets to at least semifinals we will collapse the JV and Open bracket but we hope this will not be the case. NOW THE NORMAL INFO: Registration: $80 per team (but in the spirit of new organizations, all student run teams will have their registration fees waived, with the encouragement to be extra active in the other fundraising events, which will have awards as well) Uncovered Team: $100 ($200 for full obligation, this however cannot be waived); we encourage schools to bring extra judges if possible. Entries should be sent to Joe Schatz at sailorferrets at gmail.com, with a cc sent to bsdeboard at listserv.binghamton.edu. They can also be phoned in to Joe at 607-765-3659. We will be accepting registration up until the Thursday (2/9/06) before the tournament at 6pm. Any changes after that time should be phoned in immediately. Entries should include names of debaters and which divisions, as well as a list of judges. Hotel Information: Holiday Inn ? University, Vestal NY is directly across the street from the University. A mere hop, skip, and/or jump from the tournament. Reservations can be place by calling the Holiday Inn at 607-729-6371. Alternative accommodations can be made at the Skylark Motor Lodge at a cheaper rate. It?s located about five minutes away from campus on the same road as University (Rt 434). Reservations can be made by calling 607-748-3392. Schedule: We advocate reasonable starting times for debates to allow for coaching and still run a punctual tournament. Rounds will NOT run late, and all WILL be pleased. We have no delusion on getting out late, and we will provide snacks throughout so no one will starve. Anyone who has medical reasons for needing to consume flesh will be accommodated if specified at the time of registration. Any other allergies or medical dietary needs will be met as well. Fri, February 13th 8:00-10:00pm Early registration at Holiday Inn, confirmations can also be phoned into Joe still at 607-765-3659. Sat, February 14th 6:45am-7:25am Late Registration 7:30am Pairings for Round 1 & 2 8:00am-10:15am Round 1 10:45am-1:00pm Round 2 1:00pm-2:00pm Lunch 2:00pm Pairings for Round 3 & 4 2:30pm-4:45pm Round 3 5:15pm-7:30pm Round 4 7:45pm Pairings for Round 5 8:15pm-10:30pm Round 5 (JV & Open, Novice Watch) Sun, February 15th 7:00am Pairings 7:30am-10:00am Round 5 (Novice), Round 6 (JV & Open) 10:30am Pairings for first elimination round released 11:15am-1:30pm First elimination round 1:30pm-2:30pm Awards & Lunch 3:15-5:30pm Second elimination round 6:15-8:15pm Third elimination round 8:45-11:00pm Fourth elimination round (If needed, if not we?ll start the day later) Directions: Binghamton University is located one mile west of the city of Binghamton (in Vestal) and is a short drive from major urban centers in New York and neighboring states. A number of bus companies serve the area, and the Binghamton Regional Airport provides major airline service. Follow 81 North or South to 17 West, toward Elmira, get off at exit 70S, heading towards ?Binghamton Univ.? Construction has changed the nature of what happens next this year so pay attention. You should stay in the left lanes and take the skyway over the traffic circle, which will put you on the Fredrick Johnson Bridge (201S). To hotel: take the second exit (434 East) and the Holiday Inn will be on your right and the University on your left. Take your first right and turn into the parking lot, or continue down 434 East for several miles until the Skylark on your left near a Burger King, Vestal High School, and the Skylark Diner. To campus: take the third and final exist (434 West). Stay in the right lane that will put you on campus. You?ll hit traffic circle. You want to take the circle but stay to your right and not veer off entirely by simply going right. If you?ve done the maneuver correctly you?ll pass a parking garage on your right. Continue to follow the road until it puts you in front of a whole bunch of parking meters, which will happen after it makes you veer right. Meter parking is free on weekends and the Fine Arts building is right in front of you. Registration is on the second floor. Signs should be posted around campus to make this process easier for you. Hotel to campus: turn left coming out onto 434 at the intersection with Denny?s, then turn right onto campus at the next traffic light and follow above directions. -- _______________________________________________ Get your free email from http://mail.sailormoon.com Powered by Outblaze From SSbauschard2 Sat Dec 17 10:38:00 2005 From: SSbauschard2 (SSbauschard2 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 11:38:00 EST Subject: [eDebate] Directors w/teams at past NDTs: Please Read Message-ID: <229.3532309.30d598e8@aol.com> I posted this before, but I only received 7 answers. ____________ The NDT Committee is working on collecting some information on the size of "entourages." They have asked me to collect information on the # of scouts that have been part of those entourages. I'd greatly appreciate it if you could tell me: a) The number of full-time scouts you contributed in 2004 and 2005 b) The number of "part-time" -- hard to define, but I'm trying to get at additional people that schools volunteered for a partial amount of time to help the scouting operation -- in 2004 and 2005 c) Any other contribution you made to the scouting operation that you may wish to note in 2004 and 2005. A great response format would be your school name in the subject line and 2004 a) b) c) 2005 a) b) c) So far I have heard from the following: Arizona Case Western Emory George Washington Loyola Michigan Whitman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051217/01700286/attachment.html From luvmarissa Sat Dec 17 11:50:48 2005 From: luvmarissa (Marissa Silber) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:50:48 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Anyone need Miami (Florida) judging? Message-ID: I have up to 6 rounds available for the University of Miami (FL) tournament - if you need judging, email me back at marissa.silber at gmail.com Hope everyone haves a very happy holiday season! Marissa Silber University of Florida From paulj567 Sat Dec 17 22:35:33 2005 From: paulj567 (Paul Johnson) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:35:33 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Is this a serious anti-globalization protest? Message-ID: <20051218043533.70021.qmail@web53505.mail.yahoo.com> http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/12/17/santa.rampage.ap/index.html __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com From paco_de_loco Sat Dec 17 23:40:22 2005 From: paco_de_loco (Andy Timmons) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 05:40:22 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Mary washington Message-ID: Dear mary washington, I debated one of your teams in quarters of JCU and we were aff. We ran ipr. You ran biz con. I could you send me a full cite to the Ka Zeng article you read and any other link arguements you may have read? aq2530 at wayne.edu Thank you, andy Timmons wayne state From allroy63 Sun Dec 18 00:14:21 2005 From: allroy63 (allroy63 at optonline.net) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:14:21 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Dept. of Homeland Security Monitoring Interlibrary Loan Requests Message-ID: Hello Debate Community, I don't post here frequently and often play the passive observer game, but thought that you all should read the article I have linked below. It seems that the Department of Homeland Security recently showed up at the doorstep of a UMASS Dartmouth student's home for requesting a copy of Mao Ze Dong's "The Little Red Book" while working on a class project on Communist China. http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-17-05/a09lo650.htm This is really quite disturbing to me, and is probably the first instance I can think of where a primary source so closely linked to our debate topic has led to someone being questioned by the USFG (though I'm sure that someone who has been involved with the activity a lot longer can probably point out similar examples). It is astonishing to me that of all the places that Homeland Security could be looking to keep us "secure," interlibrary loan is even in the mix. It makes me wonder what sources I am looking at on a daily basis might also be on a "watch list." How far does this surveillance of college library systems go? The end of this article talks about how the student's professor is reconsidering his plans to teach a class on terrorism next semester, not for his own safety, but for the safety of his students. What sorts of "real-world implications" does this sort of activity have on our ability to teach/learn!? Jimbo Maritato Marist College Debate From stables Sun Dec 18 00:18:19 2005 From: stables (Gordon Stables) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 22:18:19 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC Alan Nichols Reminder Message-ID: <43A4FF2B.5060302@usc.edu> Greetings. Today is the deadline for entering the USC Alan Nichols debate tournament. We are excited to have such a large turnout this year and we still have room for you if are interested in attending. We are having some local issues with the server for our website, but I have pasted the invite into our entry at www.debateresults.com. You can also enter the tournament there. On Monday I will be turning off the entries on the site, so all future changes will need to be made directly with me. Thanks. Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 http://usctrojandebate.com From hansonjb Sun Dec 18 03:01:23 2005 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:01:23 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] contact info--please email me Message-ID: <003a01c603b2$506583d0$6501a8c0@whitmanrrsukez> if you have the contact information (name and/or email address) for the director at these schools, would you email that to me? thanks. csu-chico (kristina whalen?) middlebury college u. mary washington (tim o'donnell?) georgetown catholic u (ron bratt?) binghamton u southwest texas (wayne kramer?) johnson county cc john carroll illinois state western illinois northern illinois florida state jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051218/14453207/attachment.htm From hansonjb Sun Dec 18 10:33:56 2005 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 08:33:56 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] n. ill, w. ill, middlebury, sw texas Message-ID: <004501c603f3$2bebfca0$6501a8c0@whitmanrrsukez> hey all thanks to dallas perkins and neil berch for a ton-o-info as well as several others. at this point, i just need contact info (name and email address) for: --northern illinois --western illinois --middlebury --sw texas jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051218/216e8ee9/attachment.html From hansonjb Sun Dec 18 14:25:42 2005 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:25:42 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] you can't go to the ndt . . . Message-ID: <012b01c60412$65661870$6501a8c0@whitmanrrsukez> if you don't pay your dues by jan. 1. you've got 13 days left. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu ----- Original Message ----- From: O'Donnell, Brett M. To: edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 12:19 PM Subject: [eDebate] NDT Subscribers--Updated as of Dec. 1, 2005 --> Below is the current list of NDT subscribers. If you believe that you have paid your dues and your school does not appear on this list, please contact me or Jim Pratt at AFA (if you paid through the AFA website). By rule: NDT dues must be paid by Nov. 1. Schools subscribing between Nov. 2 and Dec. 1 will be charged double the regular subscription fee. Schools subscribing between Dec. 2 and January 1 will be charged triple the regular subscription fee. Schools subscribing after January 1 will not be eligible for that year's NDT. If you pay your NDT dues by November 1, the cost is $45.00. If you pay between Nov. 2 and Dec. 1, the cost is $90.00. If you pay between December 2 and January 1, the cost is $135.00. If you pay your dues after January 1, you will not be eligible to qualify for the 2006 NDT. Brett M. O'Donnell Director of Debate Liberty University 1971 University Blvd. Lynchburg, VA 24502 434-582-2080 2005-06 NDT Subscribers Arizona State University Augustana College Bard College Baylor University Binghamton University Boston College California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo California State University-Chico California State University - Fullerton California State University-Northridge California State University - Sacramento Capital University Central Florida Community College Clarion University College of Southern Maryland Concordia College Cornell University Dartmouth College Eastern New Mexico University Emporia State University Florida State University Fort Hays State University Fresno City College George Mason University Georgetown University George Washington University Georgia State University Gonzaga University Harvard University Idaho State University Illinois State University James Madison University John Carroll University Kansas State University Kansas Wesleyan University King's College Liberty University Los Angeles City College Macalester College Miami University of Ohio Michigan State University Missouri State University Northwest College Northwestern University Pace University Pepperdine University Piedmont College Samford University San Francisco State University Stanford University Towson University Trinity University Union College United States Military Academy United States Naval Academy University of California - Berkeley University of Central Oklahoma University of Denver University of Florida University of Georgia University of Illinois University of Kansas University of Kentucky University of Mary Washington University of Michigan University of Missouri-Kansas City University of Notre Dame University of Northern Iowa University of North Texas University of Pittsburgh University of Puget Sound University of Redlands University of Richmond University of Rochester University of Southern California University of Texas University of Texas at Dallas University of West Georgia University of Wyoming Vanderbilt University Wake Forest University Wayne State University Weber State University West Virginia University Whitman College Wichita State University -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051218/c66b367b/attachment.htm From hansonjb Sun Dec 18 15:09:36 2005 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 13:09:36 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] contact for u. illinois Message-ID: <016501c6041b$39db9dc0$6501a8c0@whitmanrrsukez> sorry for the hassle, but it turns out i need 1 more contact (name and email): University of Illinois jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From hansonjb Sun Dec 18 16:55:53 2005 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:55:53 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] got all the contact info--thanks! Message-ID: <01be01c60426$ea564af0$6501a8c0@whitmanrrsukez> thanks everyone for helping out--in addition to dallas and neil, i'll add in david hingstman, frank irizarry, and al louden for a specific shout out of thanks. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051218/4b3243fc/attachment.html From hansonjb Sun Dec 18 19:10:21 2005 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:10:21 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] top "rising" programs based on fall 2004 vs fall 2005 ndt rankings Message-ID: <01ef01c60439$158088f0$6501a8c0@whitmanrrsukez> in addition to the ndt rankings that will become official tonite--i would like to congratulate the following programs for being the most significant "risers" versus last year based on their increase in the overall ndt rankings from 2004-05 to 2005-06 (i did this based on rankings, not points). this is not anything official other than me doing it but congrats to these squads for their improvement! --if i missed anyone--email me and my apologies. --if you have comments on the below/the methodology involved, email me. my idea is that programs on the upswing ought to get some acknowledgement. --info below: school rising ranking, number of rankings rose versus last year, school name, point total, ranks rose noted again, new schools noted (120 was the baseline for determining their ranks). --schools had to move up 10 in the rankings to be included. 1. 60 Fresno City College 151 UP 60 NEW 2. 52 Vanderbilt 319 UP 52 3. 45 Louisville 233 UP 45 4. 45 Kansas State 260 UP 45 5. 41 Miami (Florida) 124 UP 41 6. 33 Gonzaga 207 UP 33 7. 31 Miami OH 251 UP 31 8. 31 George Washington 159 UP 31 9. 29 Georgia State 203 UP 29 10. 27 Northern Iowa 169 UP 27 11. 26 Marist College 99 UP 26 12. 23 CSU Sacramento 159 UP 23 13. 20 Notre Dame (College) 52 UP 20-NEW 14. 19 Johnson County 53 UP 19 15. 18 Puget Sound 71 UP 18 16. 18 Kings College 67 UP 18 17. 17 Mercer 72 UP 17 18. 17 Kansas City Kansas CC 191 UP 17 19. 17 John Carroll 221 UP 17 20. 17 Appalachian State 112 UP 17 21. 16 Texas-Dallas 243 UP 16 22. 16 Michigan University 182 UP 16 23. 16 Howard University 39 UP 16-NEW 24. 16 Florida 81 UP 16 25. 15 Wichita State 211 UP 15 26. 15 Piedmont College 58 UP 15 27. 15 Illinois State University 52 UP 15 28. 15 Georgia 299 UP 15 29. 15 Florida State 119 UP 15 30. 15 Concordia 230 UP 15 31. 12 Whitman College 265 UP 12 32. 12 Western Connecticut 73 UP 12 33. 12 Rochester 305 UP 12 34. 12 Pepperdine 139 UP 12 35. 10 San Diego State 22 UP 10 36. 10 Northwest College 36 UP 10 jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From john Mon Dec 19 02:25:50 2005 From: john (John Sullivan) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 03:25:50 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] open debate (response to sawyer, harris, and sullivan) In-Reply-To: (Kevin Sanchez's message of "Thu, 15 Dec 2005 19:11:36 -0600") References: Message-ID: <87d5jttrw1.fsf@ashbery.wjsullivan.net> "Kevin Sanchez" writes: > it's amazing that neither sawyer, harris, or sullivan sees the contradiction > of saying 'sharing? yeah, we already do that now' on the one hand and then > 'quit looking for handouts' or 'this is an unfair requirement' on the other. > I don't remember saying 'quit looking for handouts' or 'this is an unfair requirement'. My support one way or another doesn't matter too much, given how little I'm around tournaments anymore. My suggestion is that using the Law---which is what Creative Commons is--to promote a debate commons is a bad idea. Using technology and tournament rules to accomplish this might be a good idea. The Law came into it in Creative Commons and free software because the Law was and is telling communities of artists, programmers and consumers not to share with each other. An effective strategy for standing up to the Law is to get some Law of your own. The CC and FOSS licenses use copyright law to promote sharing instead of hoarding. But they would not have adopted this strategy had they not been forced to. This same context doesn't exist in debate as far as I can see, other than the case of handbooks and online debate publications. In debate, it seems like the reason people don't scan each other's evidence very often is because of an informal, social standard. You don't need the Law to change that, I don't think. > stories from their online publications onto political discussion forums. the > full-text library that google is trying to put together has run into similar > obstacles. as if to answer these restrictions, many authors are choosing to > publish their work online (under creative commons licenses, no less). > lawrence lessig was among the first with his book, 'free culture', which you > can find in multiple places on the net > (http://libreria.sourceforge.net/library/Free_Culture/contents.html). i've As a mostly irrelevant aside, the printed version of Free Culture is printed under a very traditional copyright that prohibits sharing. I believe this was some kind of compromise with Penguin, his publisher. > i'd like to bring up something that i remember from my debating days: our > squad had this quirk about not lending files against teams with whom we were > friends. so if team x was hitting team y and team y came up and asked us for > our 'heg good' file, for example, our decision to lend that file would > depend on our relationship to team x. could someone help me here - is this a > common practice? > My squad did not lend evidence to anyone except in very rare cases, partly to avoid having to make the kind of judgment call you're talking about. The copyright of the evidence here made no difference. We did not think, "I'd like to give you this evidence, but we have reserved all rights to it." Nor would CC have compelled us to get the evidence out of our tubs and give it to them. > i agree insofar as i don't think the obligation should be imposed from the > top-down, which is why i disagre with those who want to alter the tournament > rules to mandate sharing. what i'm talking about is a communal norm like > disclosure of your affirmative case prior to the round or not running > blatantly non-topical cases. i feel that winning ballots is an appropriate > way to instill these values because both sides are given equal time to > debate it out. if you don't think you should be forced to contribute to a CC licenses are top-down. They use the threat of the courts and federal law to enforce their particulars. This is not a bad thing in the contexts in which these licenses are being used. But I'm confused as to how you could consider something which uses the threat of congressionally defined statutory damages as bottom-up. You seem to have two ideas which are separate. One is for people to start claiming copyright on debate evidence they read during a round, and to then share it using the CC copyright license. This would mean that anyone who copies their evidence is under obligation to share that evidence alike with others if they read it in a round. If they read it and don't allow others to copy it, they would be doing something illegal. What happens after that would be up to the copyright holder. The second idea is for people to argue in a debate round that all evidence should be shared, and that they should win because a vote for them is an endorsement of that idea. Over time, people would start to share evidence so as not to lose. I don't see what those two ideas have to do with each other. I like the second one a lot better than the first one, though I've never been wild about the idea that people will necessarily change what they think or what they do when they lose debates. > caselist, for example, that's fine -- let's debate that, and if your > arguments suck, you'll lose rounds. this in-round opportunity of rebuttal > isn't valued in the allegedly 'weak' version of open debate, and i'd draw a > sharp line of separation between myself and such proposals (antonucci's and > maybe sullivan's). for directors to organize the means of file-sharing is > one thing - that's just being hospitable and helpful. to mandate that you > have to share is quite something else. i want free-riders to lose a lot of > ballots, not be automatically disqualified - there's a big difference. > There are many shades between mandate by the tournament host and ballots in round. How is the current norm that people not copy the full text of evidence enforced? That's the question I keep asking --- who is the proprietary party here --- and haven't gotten answered yet. As far as I know, it's informal. So, why not change it through the same informality? The foundations of CC and free software both were built this way. Sharing happened informally in the form of hacking, sampling and remixing. They only turned to the Law when the Law started telling them that they couldn't do those things. > the first is archival - the (cc)-tag would allow debaters to search for all > covered debate files through the (cc)-engine i already mentioned. > This could be done in many, many ways. My suggestion is that you come up with another mark, an _informal_ mark, like DC for Debate Commons, which makes no claim about copyright, and start marking things with that. After tweaking a few lines of the Creative Commons search indexing code, you could have a Debate Commons only search engine. > the second is symbolic - the (cc)-tag expresses discontent with the > restrictive 'all rights reserved' and would help build consensus for > file-sharing. > Same thing can be accomplished with an informal mark, without having to stake the claim that people have exclusive ownership over their work to begin with. And again, there is no 'all rights reserved' in debate outside of handbooks. The status quo is an informal balance between sharing and not sharing. So tying things to the CC tag in this context is not expressing discontent with 'all rights reserved'. > only the last one was that (cc) operates as a counter-point to the legal > stance taken by the handbook comapnies. > I see this as probably a separate issue from what happens at tournaments. The solution for one will probably not be the solution for the other. > first, this doesn't respond to the default copyright imposed on all work > whether debaters like it or not, but secondly, their being smaller doesn't > mean much: debate is already composed of nothing but small units (teams, > squads, etc.). in fact, as i said before, handbooks' claim to 'fair use' > might be weaker *because* they're commericial enterprises. speaking of... > There is a big difference between the silent copyright imposed on SOME work (stop saying all), which nobody actually pays any attention to, and the aggressive use of copyright you are proposing. This aggression is appropriate as a defensive move to protect sharing in the face of legal actions by those who wish to stop it. It is not appropriate in a context where you would be the first one to introduce the Law. Right now, when someone makes a decision about whether or not to let someone else copy a card, the first thought crossing their mind is not, "Do I want to give them copyright permission for this evidence?". -- -John Sullivan -http://www.wjsullivan.net -GPG Key: AE8600B6 From hansonjb Mon Dec 19 03:40:54 2005 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 01:40:54 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] fall 2005 ndt rankings Message-ID: <025301c60480$e044ad40$6501a8c0@whitmanrrsukez> congrats to the below programs as well as to all the programs actively participating in policy debate. a good note: while we lost one net school this fall, that is the smallest drop in our numbers in the five years that i have done this. the final and official fall 2005 report is at: http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/ndt/ Top 10 Overall Rankings 1. Liberty University 450 2. Wayne State 406 3. Emory 397 4. Kansas (Univ. of) 394 5. Missouri State 380 6. Dartmouth 364 7. Missouri-Kansas City 344 8. California 341 9. Mary Washington 323 10. Binghamton 321 10. Northwestern 321 Top 10 Varsity Rankings 1. Emory 386 2. Wayne State 371 3. Kansas 369 4. Missouri State 361 5. California 341 6. Dartmouth 333 7. Northwestern 321 8. Michigan State Univ. 306 9. Georgia 299 10. Baylor 292 Top CC Rankings 1. Kansas City Kansas CC 191 2. Fresno City College 151 3. Los Angeles City Col 92 4. Bakersfield College 64 5. Johnson County 53 6. Northwest College 36 7. Jefferson State Comm Coll 13 jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu From icievents Mon Dec 19 10:44:05 2005 From: icievents (Patty Patchrint) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 08:44:05 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Professional Grantwriting Workshop (St. Anne's College - Univ. of Oxford, UK) Message-ID: The Grant Institute's Grants 101: Professional Grant Proposal Writing Workshop will be held at St. Anne's College - University of Oxford, 01 - 03 February 2006. Interested development professionals, researchers, faculty, and graduate students should register as soon as possible, as demand means that seats will fill up quickly. Please forward, post, and distribute this e-mail to your colleagues and listservs. All participants will receive certification in professional grant writing from the Institute. For more information,visit The Grant Institute website at http://www.thegrantinstitute.com or send and email to info at thegrantinstitute.com. For additional assistance, please call our offices at 00 (1) 213-817-5308 between the hours of 5:00 pm and 2:00 am GMT. Please find the program description below: THE GRANT INSTITUTE GRANTS 101: Professional Grant Proposal Writing Workshop to be held at the St. Anne's College University of Oxford Oxford, England 01 - 03 February 2006 Mary Ogilvie Theatre 8:00 - 17:00 The Grant Institute's Grants 101 Course is an intensive and detailed introduction to the process, structure, and skill of professional proposal writing. This course is characterized by its ability to act as a thorough overview, introduction, and refresher at the same time. In this course, participants will learn the entire proposal writing process and complete the course with a solid understanding of not only the ideal proposal structure, but a holistic understanding of the essential factors, which determine whether or not a program gets funded. Through the completion of interactive exercises and activities, participants will complement expert lectures by putting proven techniques into practice. This course is designed for both the beginner looking for a thorough introduction and the intermediate looking for a refresher course that will strengthen their grant acquisition skills. This class, simply put, is designed to get results by creating professional grant proposal writers. Participants will become competent program planning and proposal writing professionals after successful completion of the Grants 101 course. In three active and informative days, students will be exposed to the art of successful grant writing practices, and led on a journey that ends with a masterful grant proposal. Grants 101 consists of three (3) courses that will be completed during the three-day workshop. FUNDAMENTALS OF PROGRAM PLANNING This course is centered on the belief that "it's all about the program." This intensive course will teach professional program development essentials and program evaluation. While most grant writing "workshops" treat program development and evaluation as separate from the writing of a proposal, this class will teach students the relationship between overall program planning and grant writing. PROFESSIONAL GRANT WRITING Designed for both the novice and experienced grant writer, this course will make each student an overall proposal writing specialist. In addition to teaching the basic components of a grant proposal, successful approaches, and the do's and don'ts of grant writing, this course is infused with expert principles that will lead to a mastery of the process. Strategy resides at the forefront of this course's intent to illustrate grant writing as an integrated, multidimensional, and dynamic endeavor. Each student will learn to stop writing the grant and to start writing the story. Ultimately, this class will illustrate how each component of the grant proposal represents an opportunity to use proven techniques for generating support. GRANT RESEARCH At its foundation, this course will address the basics of foundation, corporation, and government grant research. However, this course will teach a strategic funding research approach that encourages students to see research not as something they do before they write a proposal, but as an integrated part of the grant seeking process. Students will be exposed to online and database research tools, as well as publications and directories that contain information about foundation, corporation, and government grant opportunities. Focusing on funding sources and basic social science research, this course teaches students how to use research as part of a strategic grant acquisition effort. REGISTRATION ₤ 997.00 GBP tuition includes all materials and certificates. Each student will receive: * The Grant Institute Certificate in Professional Grant writing * The Grant Institute's Guide to Successful Grant Writing * A to Z Grant Writing * The Grant Institute Grant Writer's Workbook with sample proposals, forms, and outlines REGISTRATION METHODS 1) On-Line -Visit www.thegrantinstitute.com and click on the Registration area. Fill out the online registration form completely. We'll send your confirmation by e-mail. 2) By E-mail - Send an e-mail with your name, organization, and basic contact information to info at thegrantinstitute.com and we will reserve your slot and send your Confirmation Packet. You have received this invitation due to specific educational affiliation. We respect your privacy and want to ensure that interested parties are made aware of The Grant Institute programs and schedules. This is intended to be a one-time announcement. In any event, you should not receive any more announcements unless there is a program next year in your area. To be removed from next year's announcement, send an e-mail to remove at thegrantinstitute.com . Just write "remove" in the subject line. Professional Grantwriting Workshop (St. Anne's College - University of Oxford) _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/ From acculp Mon Dec 19 11:23:04 2005 From: acculp (Andrew Culp) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 11:23:04 -0600 (GMT-06:00) Subject: [eDebate] URGENT: Call Your Senators Today! Message-ID: <12102301.1135012984492.JavaMail.root@elwamui-hybrid.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Time for the rubber to hit the road you "activists" and actually do something political outside of debate, and if you're not a lefty, please ignore the ideological rhetoric... Senators are voting to cut programs including 12.7billion in student loans today. Please call your Senator to make sure this doesn't happen! included are details and talking points: NASTY DEAL TO CUT LOW-INCOME PROGRAMS NOW FACING FINAL VOTE: CALL YOUR SENATORS NOW!! House and Senate leaders in Congress have agreed upon nearly $40 billion in cuts over 5 years. Although early reports suggested that the agreement left out most cuts hurting low-income people initially proposed by the House, that is NOT the case. Many harmful cuts in Medicaid, child support, foster care, SSI, TANF, and student loans remain in the agreement. The agreement now stands or falls on the final vote in the Senate. The House voted to approve these cuts (212-206) after an all-night session and virtually no time for members to look at the 774 page bill. Here's how your member voted: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll670.xml These provisions are substantially worse than the bill the Senate initially approved. The Senate is expected to take up the agreement sometime Monday or Tuesday. Your calls to your Senators are urgently needed. While calls to all Senators are very important, it is urgently important that these Senators hear from their constituents: Chafee (RI), Coleman (MN), Collins (ME), DeWine (OH), Landrieu (LA), Nelson (NE), Smith (OR), Snowe (ME), Specter (PA) Please use the toll-free number: 800-426-8073. Ask to be connected to your Senators, and tell them: ??????? Please vote NO on the budget reconciliation conference report (S. 1932). It hurts low-income children, families, the elderly and disabled. Do not allow these one-sided sacrifices to be inflicted on low-income Americans while Congress is preparing to give still more tax breaks to the rich. Here are some of the cuts in this nasty deal: ??????? Medicaid: Low-income families will have to pay more than they can afford for medical care under Medicaid and face shrinking benefits. ??????? SSI: People with disabilities will have to wait as long as a year to receive the back SSI benefits they are owed because the government has taken so long to approve their application. ??????? Child Support: Children will be deprived of $2.9 billion over 5 years/$8.4 billion over 10 years in child support not collected because of cuts in enforcement. ??????? Foster Care: Grandparents or other relatives in certain states will lose foster care assistance. ??????? Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: The agreement assumes that work requirements will be made more harsh and expects states to fail ???????? and so estimates that states will pay penalties to the federal government. The Congressional Budget Office expects that states will in turn create harsher penalties for poor families, causing more to lose benefits. ??????? Child Care: CBO estimates that it will cost $12.5 billion in new funding to pay for the harsher work requirements and to keep up with the costs of providing existing child care. The budget deal only provides $1 billion ???????? a gap of $11.5 billion. That means 255,000 fewer children will receive child care in 2010 compared to this year. ??????? Student Loans: Cut $12.7 billion over 5 years. For more information about the conference agreement, see this paper by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: http://www.cbpp.org/12-18-05bud3.htm Although the deal is somewhat better than the bill originally passed in the House, the agreement is much closer to the $50 billion House version that made substantial cuts to low-income services than the $35 billion Senate version. Unlike the bill passed by the House November 18, the final deal does not make cuts to food stamps. Thanks so much to the American Friends Service Committee for donating the toll-free number. AFSC welcomes groups to circulate and use the toll-free number in support of the non-partisan budget goals towards which CHN always works and without linking the alert to a website soliciting donations or actions which may be used to support partisan lobbying or work. TALKING POINTS????????STUDENT AID CUTS Budget Reconciliation Conference Report December 18, 2005 ??????? The Republican budget bill cuts a net total of $12.7 billion from the federal student aid programs in order to help finance tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans. ??????? This Republican raid on student aid represents the single largest cut to the student aid programs ever. ??????? Seventy percent of the gross savings generated by the bill are achieved by continuing the practice of forcing student and parent borrowers to pay excessive interest rates in many cases and by assessing new charges on parent borrowers. ??????? The Republican bill puts billions of dollars in student aid at risk by cutting all of the critical funds ($2.2 billion) used to carry out and administer the student aid programs. As a result, we risk the safe delivery of Pell Grant scholarships, loans and other aid to millions of students. ??????? The Republican bill also requires lenders to either collect from borrowers, or to pay with non-federal funds, a 1% ???????insurance fee???????? on all student and parent loans????????which raises $1.47 billion. ??????? This bill puts college even further out of reach for millions of American students and families. ??????? In the face of rising college costs and soaring loan debt, Republicans have failed to provide any real relief for rising tuition costs and now to make matters even worse Republicans are going to make college even more expensive. ??????? Democrats support making college more affordable. Democrats oppose the Raid on Student Aid. Rolls Royce Republican Congress: Wrong Priorities for America A Republican Congress of corruption, cronyism, incompetence and cover-up is leaving town while the urgent needs of the American people remain unaddressed. The price of that corruption will be paid by the American people for six long weeks while Congress is in recess: ??????? Americans facing skyrocketing heating prices while Congress gives massive subsidies to the profit-rich oil industry, including drilling in the Arctic Refuge ??????? Seniors facing complicated and confusing Medicare Prescription Drug Bill ??????? Hurricane Katrina survivors facing holidays in tents and evictions in the New Year ??????? College students facing $13 billion in student loan cuts, the largest in history The Rolls Royce Republican Congress have the wrong priorities ???????? cutting national priorities just two weeks after giving huge new tax cuts to the wealthiest few. Here????????s who pays for the tax cuts for the super rich: ??????? Cuts to our troops in a time of war: $4 billion from defense, including military pay ??????? Cuts to kids in school: $1 billion from No Child Left Behind ??????? Cuts in border security enforcement: $19 million; and Immigration/Customs Enforcement: $32 million ??????? Slashing state and local law enforcement grants by $315 million ??????? Cuts in Clean Water improvements: $214 million cut from anti-pollution efforts ??????? Cuts in health centers: $256 million below budget request although 46 million lack health insurance For printable version: http://www.democraticleader.house.gov/MMP/121805b.doc Office of the Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi www.HouseDemocrats.gov || www.DemocraticLeader.house.gov From kkuswa Mon Dec 19 12:13:03 2005 From: kkuswa (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:13:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] looking for some rounds of judging Message-ID: <12E81F39195C00468C4DE42509951D3804BCD017@castor.richmond.edu> We are in need of some judging for a few tournaments coming up: 1. West Georgia (Jan 14-16): could use 2-4 rounds. 2. George Mason (Fri Jan 20- Jan 22): any rounds you might have 3. Mary Mash D7/concurrent jv/novi (Feb 18-19): any rounds you might have contact me if interested. we pay well. kevin ************************************************** Dr. Kevin Douglas Kuswa Director of Debate, Dept. of Rhetoric & Comm. Studies 400-A Weinstein Hall (U) University of Richmond, VA 23173 Spide(R)bate (804) 289-8269 ************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051219/0f63e3de/attachment.htm From ebeard Mon Dec 19 12:15:58 2005 From: ebeard (Beard, Erin) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 13:15:58 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Clarion debater please Message-ID: Could someone from the Clarion debate team please backchannel me? Erin Beard -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051219/fed873e9/attachment.html From elliottdarren Mon Dec 19 12:54:25 2005 From: elliottdarren (DARREN ELLIOTT) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 12:54:25 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Rounds for hire at TX Swing Message-ID: If you are short on judging and need to hire rounds to cover your commitment at the Texas 2-Step, KCK has extra rounds available. Cash offers are most enticing! : ) Please let me know and we will try and help you out. thanks, chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate KCKCC From let_the_american_empire_burn Mon Dec 19 20:26:22 2005 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:26:22 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] open debate (response to sullivan) In-Reply-To: <87d5jttrw1.fsf@ashbery.wjsullivan.net> Message-ID: it's nice to meet a guy who agrees with the ends of a debate commons, if not the means... at this point, i'll take what i can get. =) i feel that the creative commons public license is a good way of preempting any problems 'the Law' might pose before they occur. you say 'CC licenses are top-down', but what's the warrant here? the creative commons isn't the copyright office; they have no commissioners who approve or disapprove particular works. you don't even need a lawyer to use them -- you could just as easily write, 'here's how i'd like you to share this', and there's plenty of other public licenses to choose from which have good solvency too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft). if you're doing perm work, be as informal as you wanna be; i'm confident those debates will take care of themselves. what you've yet to adequately respond to is that every creative work is already copyrighted - that's 'the Law', whether you agree with it or not, whether it goes unheeded or not. i know it's bullshit, and you know it's bullshit, but when convincing others of the value of open debate (specifically, institutions who tremble at potential lawsuits like colleges and universities, institutions which can offer vast webspace), it's necessary to have all your legal ducks in a row and deal with any and all concerns caused by the new challenges surrounding internet publication. that's why every (cc) public license is also written in legalese (in addition to a computer-readable tag and a human-readable notification). by not presenting an alternative, you're essentially defending the status quo where all debate work is default copyrighted -- perhaps only the handbooks enforce this, but anyone could, which turns any 'you're letting the Law into our quiet debate community'-type argument. finally, the case of 'handbooks and online debate publications', as you say, is a prickly one. since open debaters will be cutting the same cards handbooks cut and posting them online for free, these companies might resist those who threaten to take away their market share. how? i don't know, but perhaps by barring their employees or debaters from helping out open debate projects. however it plays out, it's best that those interested in creating a commons distinguish themselves from those who profit by treating evidence as a proprietary resource. call it a strategy of preemption, if you like. the reason we haven't heard from the certain parties yet is probably because open debate has yet to hit it big -- wait a few years. "My squad did not lend evidence to anyone except in very rare cases..." this is precisely the (anti-)communal practices that this position hopes to effectively abolish, through winning ballots that affirm both digital sharing and public licenses. you argue that only the former is truly crucial, and that's fine, but you've provided little reason to avoid public licenses (what's the impact to 'formality'?) while i've provided three good reasons: (cc) operates as archival tag, symbolic gesture, and legal preempt. you're correct to say that most of practices that prohibit sharing are informal social norms. i don't see anything 'informal' about a team policy not to lend files at a tournament, but still i understand that most people aren't sharing not because they personally profit from the system as is, but because they probably haven't fully considered the benefits of an open system, or given much thought to changing. and what better way to demonstrate solvency than by arguing it out in-round? "I've never been wild about the idea that people will necessarily change what they think or what they do when they lose debates." on balance, debaters will do what wins ballots. you don't see many inherency throw downs anymore, nor a lot of debaters going for 'wrong forum' arguments against kritiks in their rebuttals. this is only to state the obvious: this is a competitive activity and encourages competitive behavior. this has more than a few nasty side-effects, ones i've tried to point out over the years, but now i'm piggy-backing on that competitive drive in order to propagate some of the cooperative memes which debate has traditionally only permitted to exist at the margins. antonucci called this 'knowing kung-fu'. so i'd turn your statement around: debaters won't necessarily change what they think or do when they lose rounds, it's true, but no lasting change will happen in this activity unless it affects the distribution of ballots. this position promises to do just that. after all, how does substantive change occur? you start doing a bunch of necessary things that are insufficient in themselves and suddenly they start adding up. however informal or formal, rules in this context only have weight when there's consensus underneath them: consider how folks laugh off the a.d.a. rules barring 'kritks without alternatives', for example, and consider how folks laughed at kritiks 15 years ago. if you create a debate-specific computer-readable tag (dc instead of cc), then i'm certaintly not going to argue against it. right now though i have a public license that's proven itself workable versus a good counterplan idea you just brainstormed on edebate. so i'll go with (cc) for the time being as opposed to some amorphous 'informal mark'. if the spirit moves you, develop (dc), and get back to me. kevin.sanchez at gmail.com http://creativecommons.org/about/legal http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb020603-2.htm From FijiPapabear Mon Dec 19 20:56:52 2005 From: FijiPapabear (FijiPapabear at aol.com) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 21:56:52 EST Subject: [eDebate] sarah holbrooke Message-ID: <66.65736260.30d8ccf4@aol.com> could you backchanell me please. thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051219/fa3c8dd4/attachment.htm From dave Tue Dec 20 06:55:19 2005 From: dave (dave at miami.edu) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 04:55:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] David Steinberg Is Challenging You to College Bowl Mania on ESPN.com Message-ID: <8483099.1135083319767.JavaMail._WDIGSvc0406@espnbar02> This message is from David Steinberg who is challenging you to play College Bowl Mania on ESPN.com. This game challenges you to select the winner of selected College Football Bowl games using a confidence scoring system. You receive the amount of confidence points you assigned to each game you correctly selected the winning team to win. Best of all, it's FREE to play. Get in the action now: http://games.espn.go.com/bowlmania/groupinfo?groupID=12901&password=Dallas2006 Game Front: http://games.espn.go.com/bowlmania/frontpage Group: CEDA Password: Dallas2006 Here's what else they had to say: From iank Tue Dec 20 15:34:27 2005 From: iank (Ian Kimbrell) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 16:34:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Transportation from San Diego to LA Message-ID: <200512202134.jBKLYUq19564@hsdebate.com> Does anyone have room for three people traveling from San Diego to LA for the USC tournament? Trying to keep costs low and trying to avoid renting a vehicle if possible. Any suggestions welcome. Ian Kimbrell Director of Debate Case Debate Team Case Western Reserve University 1807 West 58th Street Cleveland, OH 44102 216-905-8100 FAX: 216-334-1121 coach at casedebate.com www.casedebate.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051220/2598ef66/attachment.html From GatorDebate Wed Dec 21 11:20:06 2005 From: GatorDebate (GatorDebate at aol.com) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:20:06 EST Subject: [eDebate] University of Florida Gator Invitational Message-ID: <2c5.bad8e7.30dae8c6@aol.com> Greetings! The University of Florida Debate Team and the Dial Center for Written and Oral Communication invite you and your squad to attend the Gator Invitational Debate Tournament held in Gainesville, FL on January 27-29, 2006. We have scheduled six rounds of preliminary competition of Open and Novice CEDA Debate. Michael Davis will serve as our Tab Room Director and Marissa Silber will be in charge of tournament logistics and operations. We hope you will join us in beautiful Gainesville this January. Tournament hotel: Paramount Plaza Hotel, 2900 SW 13th Street, Gainesville, FL 32608 toll free phone 1-877-992-9229 local phone 352/377-4000 Rates $79.00/night for all rooms (king or double) for 1-4 people The cut-off date for making reservations is January 12, 2006. Refer to "Gator Debate" when making reservations. Driving Directions: To the Paramount: --From I-75 take exit 382 (Williston Road). Travel East to US Hwy 441 North (Southwest 13th Street) where you will make a left. The Paramount will be on your left in about a mile. UF is about 3 miles up the road on your right. --From the University of Florida, go South on US Hwy 441 (Southwest 13th Street) approximately 3 miles. The Paramount will be on your right. Debate: This tournament will use the 2005-2006 CEDA resolution. The format will be 9-3-6 with 10 minutes prep time. Novices must meet the CEDA definition of novice. Hybrid teams will be allowed to compete and clear. A debater can not enter the tournament maverick but if something happens during the tournament, a debater can remain in the tournament as a maverick. Judging: One Debate judge will cover 2 teams. Each school is asked to provide a qualified judge to cover all debate teams entered. Judges will be required to judge one round beyond their team?s elimination. We do not expect a large local pool to draw from therefore we would appreciate any additional commitment you may be willing to make. Each judge will be REQUIRED to declare ONE AND ONLY ONE WINNER and ONE AND ONLY ONE LOSER in each debate to which they are assigned by the tab room. Compliance with this rule requires each judge to complete an official judge ballot as designated by the tab room. Completion of the ballot requires the judge to clearly designate affirmative or negative to signify a winning team. Judges will also be required to confirm their choice by indicating the school with which the designated winner is affiliated. The side (affirmative or negative) and school affiliation must match the assignments made by the tab room. Judges will also be required to assign speaker points and speaker ranks to each participant in the debate. Speaker points are accepted in increments of 0.5 from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 30. Speaker ranks are accepted in whole numbers only from 1 to 4. If you or one of your judges is unable or unwilling to fulfill these requirements, please submit an alternative judge prior to the start of the tournament. If, during the course of the tournament, any judge representing your school refuses to comply with these requirements, teams affiliated with your school will be removed from the competition by the tab room. Fees Tournament Entry Fee: $80 per team. Uncovered team fees: $90 per uncovered team (in addition to the Tournament Entry Fee for that team) Make checks payable to Frank P. Irizarry. Amenities: We will provide breakfast on Saturday and Sunday. Our on campus food court will be open for lunch on both Saturday and Sunday and it offers a variety of dining options. There will be a ?cake break? that Marissa will be organizing that will take place between rounds 5 and 6. Marissa loves good cake and wants to share that cake love with the community ? she?s bringing some district 1 traditions out east. There will also be a coaches/judges reception on Saturday evening and a possible Poker Tournament if there is interest. Elimination Rounds: Teams will advance into elimination rounds based upon the following formula determined by our tab czar, Mike Davis. If this is a big issue for you, just drop him a line and I?m sure he will share his procedures with you. I assure you we won?t be doing anything funky or out of line with accepted community practices. University of Florida teams will be competing in the tournament and will not be allowed to debate in elimination rounds or be allowed to win speaker awards. CEDA Statement on Sexual Discrimination: This tournament abides by the CEDA Statement on Sexual Discrimination. Entry Deadlines, Limitations, and Procedures: Entries will be done via the debate results web page, available at _http://www.debateresults.com/_ (http://www.debateresults.com/) . Please complete your entry no later than Monday, January 23. Awards: The winning Open team will receive the Smathers Traveling Trophy. All teams in elimination rounds will receive awards. The top ten speakers in Open and Novice will receive speaker awards. Directions: Whether you are flying in or driving in, we have directions for you! >From Gainesville Regional Airport Approximately 10-15 minutes from UF Upon leaving the Gainesville Airport, make a right turn onto 39th Avenue (SR 222), heading west. At US 441 (N.W. 13th Street) make a left turn, heading south. Continue South on 13th Street for several miles. As you approach University Avenue, you will see the Holiday Inn on your left, and directly ahead you will see Bryan Hall just off to your right. Come down to the first right turn after University Avenue and enter the parking lot at S.W. 2nd Avenue. >From Jacksonville Airport Approximately 2 hours from UF Take I-10 only as far as US 301 (it will be one of the early exits) at Baldwin. Head south on 301 to Waldo. CAUTION: Beware of speed traps along 301, especially in Lawtey, Starke, Hampton, and Waldo. At Waldo, take a right onto SR 24 to Gainesville (has big sign for Gainesville). Follow SR 24 to University Avenue. Turn right (West) onto University Avenue heading west. At 13th Street make a left turn heading south until you arrive at S.W. 2nd Avenue and make a right into the parking lot . >From Orlando Airport Approximately 2.5 hours from UF Follow the directional signs to the Florida Turnpike and ride it until it merges with I-75. Take I-75 to exit 387, Newberry Road. When you get off of the ramp go east for five miles; eventually Newberry Road becomes University Avenue (Note: You should pass the Oaks Mall on your right shortly after traveling on Newberry road.) Continue traveling East on University Ave. At the intersection of University Avenue and 13th Street take a right. Enter the parking lot at S.W. 2nd Avenue. >From Tampa Airport Approximately 2.5 hours from UF Follow the directional signs to I-275 North. Stay on I-275 North until in merges with I-75. Take I-75 to exit 387, Newberry Road. When you get off of the ramp go east for five miles; eventually Newberry Road becomes University Avenue (Note: You should pass the Oaks Mall on your right shortly after traveling on Newberry road.) Continue traveling East on University Ave. At the intersection of University Avenue and 13th Street take a right. Enter the parking lot at S.W. 2nd Avenue. >From I-75 Take I-75 to exit 387, Newberry Road. When you get off of the ramp go east for five miles; eventually Newberry Road becomes University Avenue (Note: You should pass the Oaks Mall on your right shortly after traveling on Newberry road.) Continue traveling East on University Ave. At the intersection of University Avenue and 13th Street take a right. Enter the parking lot at S.W. 2nd Avenue. Schedule: Friday, January 27 1-3pm Registration?Turlington Hall, 2nd Floor 3:30pm Pairings released for Rounds I&II 4:00pm Round I 6:30pm Round II Saturday, December 29 8:30am Breakfast and pairings, UF, Turlington Hall, 2nd Floor 9:00am Round III 11:30pm Round IV 3:30pm Round V 5:30pm Cake break (see amenities for further details) 6:30pm Round VI 9:30pm Coaches/Judges reception at the Paramount Sunday, December 30 8:30am Breakfast and elim round pairings, UF, Turlington Hall, 2nd Floor 9:00am First Elimination Debate 11:00pm Awards 12:00pm Elimination Debates continue We are looking forward to having our friends join us in Gainesville! With Regards, Frank P. Irizarry Policy Debate Coach University of Florida *************************************************** Frank P. Irizarry Debate Coach/Lecturer/Doctoral Student University of Florida Center for Written and Oral Communication 413 Rolfs Hall PO Box 112032 Gainesville, FL 32611-2032 Tel: 352-392-5421 (Office) Tel: 386-216-3193 (Cell) Fax: 352-392-5420 Gatordebate at aol.com "Then I got myself a factory job, I ran an old machine And I bought a little cottage in a neighborhood serene And every night when I'd come home with every muscle sore She'd drag me through the streets of Baltimore Well I did my best to bring her back to what she used to be Then I soon learned she loved those bright lights more than she loved me Now I'm a going back on that same train that brought me here before While my baby walks the streets of Baltimore" - Gram Parsons, "Streets of Baltimore" *************************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051221/e357eca4/attachment.htm From bsumekpk Wed Dec 21 11:42:05 2005 From: bsumekpk (pete bsumek) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:42:05 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Madison Cup Invitation: March 15, 2006 Message-ID: <4b8ec8f8.6e3dbc62.d798300@mpmail1.jmu.edu> Hi all, we hope everyone is enjoying the holiday season. I have also attached a "word" copy of this invitation. For those unfamilir with our format, an example format for the debates can be found at the end of the invitation. On behalf of the James Madison Center and JMU Debate we are pleased and excited to invite you to compete for the Madison Cup at the fourth annual ?James Madison Commemorative Debate and Citizens Forum? on Wednesday March 15, 2006. The James Madison Commemorative Debate and Citizens Forum is a unique inter-collegiate debate competition, which combines the excitement and challenge of tournament competition with the relevance and empowerment of a public audience and audience participation. It is also one of the showcase events of our university?s James Madison Day Celebration. 2006 Topic: Resolved "That the theory of Intelligent Design (in both its historical and its contemporary versions) has a proper role in America?s High School biology courses." Other cool and unique features: *$10,000.00 in prize money *Debating and competing in front of public audiences *No entry fees *Continental breakfast, snacks and lunch provided *Improved video web-cast *Great PR for your debate program *DVD copies of the final round *Bibliography: we?ll have a resource web page up by mid-January Even cooler: We are very pleased to announce that Dr. John Angus Campbell has agreed to act as a jury member for both the preliminary rounds and the final round. Even more exciting, Dr. Campbell will ?make the case for Intelligent Design? in a public forum the evening before the debate, and you are all invited. For those unfamiliar, Dr. Campbell is a rhetorician who specializes in the rhetoric of science. He has published extensively on the rhetoric of Charles Darwin, and is one the very best public speakers you will ever see. The tournament details follow. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. We look forward to hosting you in March! Background: Timed to coincide with James Madison University's yearly celebration of James Madison's birthday in mid-March, The James Madison Commemorative Debate and Citizen Forum centers on an important question facing American democracy. Last year debaters argued both sides of the resolution; Resolved: That the time has come for the United States to reinstate ?a draft? for compulsory military service. The James Madison Center at James Madison University sponsors the event in the spirit of James Madison's ideal that a republican democracy is healthy only when informed and civil debate thrives. The entire event will be broadcast live on the World Wide Web. Last year?s debate featured teams from Clarion University, Fordham University, George Mason University, Georgetown University, James Madison University, Liberty University, Rochester University, Towson University, the University of Mary Washington, the University of Richmond, the University of Virginia, and Yale University. 2006 Topic: Resolved "That the theory of Intelligent Design (in both its historical and its contemporary versions) has a proper role in America?s High School biology courses." Eligible Participants: Each school may enter one two-person team. The debate is open to undergraduate students who are in good standing at their respective institutions. Second teams will be considered on a case-by-case basis, if space permits. Competition Format: The debate uses a ?long table? format. This is a public debate. Last year there was an audience of around 250 people for the final round, preliminary rounds were smaller (audiences of 20-30 people). The ?long table? format features three (two person) teams on each side of the question. Speeches start with the affirmative and alternate between the affirmative and negative throughout the debate. Teams are randomly assigned to sides and speaker positions. In other words, if a team is selected to be the first affirmative, they will give the first two affirmative speeches in the debate. The first and last speech on each side of the question are uninterruptible. Any member of the opposing team may interrupt the speeches in the middle of the debate in order to ask the speaker to yield to a question. Speakers are not required to answer these questions (although not answering questions may cause the audience to think that the speaker is ?dodgy?). Please see the example format below for more information. Jury Adjudication Procedure: A three to seven member panel, or jury, will adjudicate the debate. Juries will be comprised of local residents, students, professors, distinguished JMU alumni, and special invited guests. At the completion of the debate, the panel will adjourn to discuss, deliberate and decide upon the winners as a group. The jury votes for (2-person) teams, not sides of the question. In other words, first place could go to an affirmative team, while second place could be awarded to a negative team. This year we will institutionalize jury feedback for the participants. Tournament Procedures: *Number of rounds: This year we will offer two preliminary rounds of debate and one final round. *Switch side debate: Each team will debate once on the affirmative and once on the negative. *Side & position: Sides (affirmative or negative), and positions (first affirmative team, first negative team, second affirmative team, etc) for the preliminary debates will be determined by random drawing. *Judging: Judges will rank teams 1-6 in each preliminary debate, and assign each team quality points based on a thirty-point scale (1-30). *Advancing to the final round: The six teams with the lowest total ranks will advance to the final round. Quality points will be used to break ties. *Sides and Speaking Positions in the final round: Sides and speaking positions in the final round will be based on seeding after the preliminary rounds. For example, the first seeded team will choose their ?side and position,? then the second seed will choose ?side and position,? and so on. Public Participation: While the jury deliberates, the floor will be opened for audience comments and speeches. An award for the best floor speech will be presented. Local newspapers, politicians, and the general public are invited. We hope to have C-SPAN type coverage in the not too distant future. Awards: The first place team will leave with the Madison Cup?a very nice traveling trophy. Once again this year there is a $10,000.00 purse of prize money. All participants in the final round will be recognized with awards. Prize money will be awarded as follows: 1st place: $5000.00 donation to your debate program 2nd place: $2500.00 donation to your debate program 3rd place: $1000.00 donation to your debate program 4th-6th place: $500.00 donation to your debate program Entry: There are no entry fees. We prefer a field of 18 teams; we can accommodate a field of up to 24 teams. Entry is on a first come, first serve basis. The first 18 teams to enter are guaranteed a spot in the field, after that we will accept teams, if we can generate a field divisible by 4 or 6. Deadline for entry is March 3. This is necessary so we can determine how many debates there will be in each round. Send school info, team info (first and last names of debaters) and requests for additional teams to: Dr. Pete Bsumek Lodging: We have reserved a block of hotel rooms at the newly renovated Best Western Inn of Harrisonburg (formerly the Guest House Inn). The Best Western Inn is located at exit 247A off of I-81. Go east on Highway 33?the hotel is on the right side of the road. The phone number for the Best Western is 540-433-6089. The rate for 1-4 people per room is $51.00 + tax. This special tournament rate will be available until March 3. When calling the Best Western Inn please ask for Gini Boyers, and mention that you are attending the Madison Cup debates at JMU. Travel: James Madison University is located in Harrisonburg, VA, which is two hours southwest of Washington, D.C. on I-81. If you plan to fly consider Dullas and Washington National/Reagan Airports in Washington DC (2 hours away), Richmond airport (2 hours away), Charlottesville airport (one hour away) and the Shenandoah Regional Airport (15 minutes away). We will arrange transport from Shenandoah and Charlottesville, we?ll do are best to work with you from the others. Schedule: Tuesday March 14, 2006: Town hall meeting on Intelligent Design featuring Dr. John Angus Campbell. TBA (OPTIONAL) Wednesday March 15, 2006: James Madison Commemorative Debate and Citizens Forum 8:00 AM registration and Announcements 8:30 AM: Preliminary debate round 1 11:00 AM Preliminary debate round 2 1:30 PM Lunch 2:30 PM: Madison Day Address (participants recognized and finalists announced) 4:30 PM: Final round (presentation of the Madison Cup) ****************************** Example Debate Format: The 2004 final round proceeded as follows. 1st Affirmative Speech (Wake Forest #1): (4 minutes) uninterrupted 1st Negative Speech (George Mason #1): (4 minutes) uninterrupted 2nd Affirmative Speech (Wake Forest #2): (5 minutes): The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question. 2nd Negative Speech (George Mason #2): (5 minutes): The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question. 3rd Affirmative Speech (Georgetown # 1): (5 minutes): The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question. 3rd Negative Speech (James Madison #1): (5 minutes): The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question. 4th Affirmative Speech (Georgetown #2): (5 minutes) The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question. 4th Negative Speech (James Madison #2): (5 minutes) The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question. 5th Affirmative Speech (Mary Washington #1): (5 minutes) The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question. 5th Negative Speech (Towson #1): The first and last minute of the speech are uninterruptible. In the 2nd-4th minutes of the speech any opposition debater may ask the speaker to yield to a question. The speaker may accept, or decline the question. 6th Affirmative Speech (Mary Washington #2): (4 minutes) Uninterrupted 6th Negative Speech (Towson University #2): (4 minutes) Uninterrupted Pete Bsumek, Ph.D. Assistant Professor/Dir. of Debate MSC 2106 1276 Harrison Hall School of Communication Studies James Madison University Harrisonburg, VA 22807 (o) 540-568-3386 (c) 540-421-4105 (f) 540-568-6059 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Madiosn Cup Invite 06.21413DEFANGED-doc Type: application/defanged Size: 44032 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051221/48780be8/attachment.bin From dave Thu Dec 22 06:35:34 2005 From: dave (Steinberg, David L) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 07:35:34 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Hurricane Debates! Message-ID: If you haven't yet entered the University of Miami Hurricane Debates, please do so! We are determined to show you great hospitality and offer an excellent tournament experience. The invitation is available at http://com.miami.edu/debate/ I just did an Orbitz search, and affordable airfares are still available from all over the country; you might even be able to get a sweet last minute deal. Let me know if I can help your travel at this end. We look forward to having you in South Florida! Happy Holidays! dave David L. Steinberg, Director of Debate University of Miami PO Box 248127 Coral Gables, FL 33124 Wolfson Building #3015 305-284-5553 (office) 305-284-5216 (fax) dave at miami.edu From john Fri Dec 23 04:53:29 2005 From: john (John Sullivan) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 05:53:29 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] open debate (response to sullivan) In-Reply-To: (Kevin Sanchez's message of "Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:26:22 -0600") References: Message-ID: <87hd90f5jq.fsf@ashbery.wjsullivan.net> "Kevin Sanchez" writes: > i feel that the creative commons public license is a good way of preempting any > problems 'the Law' might pose before they occur. you say 'CC licenses are > top-down', but what's the warrant here? the creative commons isn't the > copyright office; they have no commissioners who approve or disapprove > particular works. you don't even need a lawyer to use them -- you could just as > easily write, 'here's how i'd like you to share this', and there's plenty of > other public licenses to choose from which have good solvency too > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft). I don't mean to describe Creative Commons as a movement as top-down in its history or organizational structure. But the solution of licensing is top-down. In that sense, the enforcement arm of the Creative Commons is the US Copyright Office. It shares this fact with the MPAA, RIAA, and I guess debate handbooks. The way to enforce the share-alike provisions of a CC license is identical to the way to enforce the All Rights Reserved non-license. So, although having these debates in-round may be a bottom-up approach to getting the word out, the tool in the end relies on top-down enforcement, and in the context of the debate community this top --- the actual USFG --- is a little higher than the top that is usually the top in debate --- tournament administration or the NDT and CEDA organizations. Part of my argument here is that there are downsides to involving this top in debate where it has not previously been involved, and that I don't think CC or free software would have made this move unless their opponents had done so first. > what you've yet to adequately respond to is that every creative work is already > copyrighted - that's 'the Law', whether you agree with it or not, whether it > goes unheeded or not. i know it's bullshit, and you know it's bullshit, but > when convincing others of the value of open debate (specifically, institutions > who tremble at potential lawsuits like colleges and universities, institutions > which can offer vast webspace), it's necessary to have all your legal ducks in > a row and deal with any and all concerns caused by the new challenges > surrounding internet publication. that's why every (cc) public license is also > written in legalese (in addition to a computer-readable tag and a > human-readable notification). by not presenting an alternative, you're > essentially defending the status quo where all debate work is default > copyrighted -- perhaps only the handbooks enforce this, but anyone could, which > turns any 'you're letting the Law into our quiet debate community'-type > argument. I believe there is some doubt about the "anyone could" part, as I've said. By adopting the use of copyright licenses, you will certainly be shoring up that position. The downside to doing that is that it may actually make people more likely to make the All Rights Reserved move than they are now, in the status quo --- where supposedly copyright applies by default, but yet nobody has been able to point to a single example in debate history where one debater has told her opponent, "No, you cannot see my evidence, because I hold copyright on it and choose not to license it to you." If the problem is handbooks, then my suggestion is to start a CC enterprise to compete with the handbooks. That context has already been formalized. I could see a narrower application of your argument in-round in that context, in comparing evidence from a CC handbook to a non-CC one. If you are talking about publishing evidence on the Internet in a public way, so that anyone whether familiar or unfamiliar with the debate community can have access to it, then yes, I would agree with using a license that promotes sharing (though I would suggest dual-licensing under the GFDL and CC, in order to be compatible with Wikipedia and other wikis), because in that context too, the copyright cat is already out of the bag. > > finally, the case of 'handbooks and online debate publications', as you say, is > a prickly one. since open debaters will be cutting the same cards handbooks cut > and posting them online for free, these companies might resist those who > threaten to take away their market share. how? i don't know, but perhaps by > barring their employees or debaters from helping out open debate > projects. however it plays out, it's best that those interested in creating a > commons distinguish themselves from those who profit by treating evidence as a > proprietary resource. call it a strategy of preemption, if you like. the reason > we haven't heard from the certain parties yet is probably because open debate > has yet to hit it big -- wait a few years. > A lot of ifs would have to happen to actually justify that preemption, and I don't see any indication of a trend that you seem to believe in. I think the best form of preemption anyway is to first resist the idea of copyright ownership. If that resistance fails, and people start claiming exclusive ownership of materials, then in those contexts, you meet them with the copyleft. > "My squad did not lend evidence to anyone except in very rare cases..." > > this is precisely the (anti-)communal practices that this position hopes to > effectively abolish, through winning ballots that affirm both digital sharing > and public licenses. you argue that only the former is truly crucial, and > that's fine, but you've provided little reason to avoid public licenses (what's > the impact to 'formality'?) while i've provided three good reasons: (cc) > operates as archival tag, symbolic gesture, and legal preempt. > How would a CC license have compelled sharing in this instance? Team MyGoodBuddy1 is debating Team MyGoodBuddy2. I don't want to lend evidence to either one of them because that would be helping one of them win, and one of them might think that I don't like them anymore. Would a CC license have compelled me to produce the evidence from my tub and give it to one of them? Both of them? The rule is anti-sharing, but it has nothing to do with the kind of thing you're talking about. > you're correct to say that most of practices that prohibit sharing are informal > social norms. i don't see anything 'informal' about a team policy not to lend > files at a tournament, but still i understand that most people aren't sharing > not because they personally profit from the system as is, but because they > probably haven't fully considered the benefits of an open system, or given much > thought to changing. and what better way to demonstrate solvency than by > arguing it out in-round? > Sure. It's a question of what you say in the round. Do you say, "I own this evidence. I will share it with you on the legally enforced condition that you share it with others." Or, do you say, "I don't have exclusive ownership of this evidence, and you don't either. Please share it with others as I have shared it with you." I think the second is far superior in contexts where legal ownership has not yet been asserted. Eventually it may be necessary to say, "I don't believe I own this evidence, but others are making the claim that we all legally own our evidence, and they are using that to stop people from copying their blocks. In the event that they are correct, I will use my rights to share this evidence with you on the condition that you share it with others as well." > if you create a debate-specific computer-readable tag (dc instead of cc), then > i'm certaintly not going to argue against it. right now though i have a public > license that's proven itself workable versus a good counterplan idea you just > brainstormed on edebate. so i'll go with (cc) for the time being as opposed to > some amorphous 'informal mark'. if the spirit moves you, develop (dc), and get > back to me. kevin.sanchez at gmail.com > I wasn't really clear at the beginning that your goal was to put debate evidence on the internet to be shared with people inside and outside the debate community. If that is the goal, then you're right that the CC tag would make more sense, to be included in the existing search engines and to speak in terms that people may already be familiar with. But I still believe the approach that may be best for making a debate repository online to compete with proprietary handbooks may not be best for addressing the question of how the commons should be at debate tournaments, in and after debates, and whether things like full-text scanning should be encouraged or facilitated. -- -John Sullivan -http://www.wjsullivan.net -GPG Key: AE8600B6 From debate Fri Dec 23 08:59:22 2005 From: debate (debate at ou.edu) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:59:22 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UNT - UTD - Breaks! Message-ID: <25d8c9c91597a.43abbc6a@ou.edu> So I was looking at the amazing amount of teams entered at UNT and UTD. I was wondering if the tournament directors could tell us how they will deal with breaks. I am sure this might be important to some, at least I am curious! Thanks Jackie From stables Fri Dec 23 10:47:33 2005 From: stables (Gordon Stables) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 11:47:33 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] USC 'Alan Nichols' Preferences are now active Message-ID: <43AC2A25.8020506@usc.edu> We have activated the judge preferences for the 2005 Alan Nichols tournament. We hope to keep changes to a minimum, but we will finalize the form on the 26th. All preference sheets are due by 10 pm on 12/28. Thanks and happy holidays. Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 http://usctrojandebate.com From jthomas1 Fri Dec 23 14:43:44 2005 From: jthomas1 (James Churchill Thomas) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 15:43:44 -0500 (EST) Subject: [eDebate] summer institute jobs available...? Message-ID: <5830522.1135370624499.JavaMail.jthomas1@my.westga.edu> Anyone looking for another faculty member? My summer looks wide open. Holla back. James Thomas From Alfred.Snider Fri Dec 23 14:50:52 2005 From: Alfred.Snider (Alfred C. Snider) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 15:50:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Chile Debate Opportunity Message-ID: <20051223155052.gb95s53tjxj48cgo@webmail.uvm.edu> As you may know I have been to Chile twice as a debate trainer. They have developed an excellent debate program at the secondary school and university levels, and there is some debating as well in the middle grades. Here is an excellent opportunity to meet with and interact with some outstanding high school debaters from Chile. This is a great opportunity for any program but especially if you have Spanish speaking students or are in one of America?s many communities where Spanish is often spoken. There are four of them with their teacher. They won a national tournament and the prize was a trip to the USA. They are seeking a host for their visit sometime in February. The visit would last about four or five days. Dates are flexible in February. They are seeking a home stay opportunity. During their visit they would like to stage one or more debates in Spanish and would like to see how your debate program operates and also see the town you live in. They have funds for plane tickets and food. While they speak English they are uncomfortable debating in English, but would appreciate any training available and would love to observe at a tournament, if possible. They are very flexible about accommodations and activities. They would like to buy tickets soon. If you are interested please get back to me. Alfred Snider University of Vermont alfred.snider at uvm.edu From joe_koehle Sat Dec 24 11:33:37 2005 From: joe_koehle (Joe Koehle) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 09:33:37 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Fed questioning over Mao book a hoax Message-ID: <20051224173337.78763.qmail@web50207.mail.yahoo.com> looks like we can go back to not worrying about government intrusions... http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/12-05/12-24-05/a01lo719.htm Student admits he lied about Mao book By AARON NICODEMUS, Standard-Times staff writer NEW BEDFORD -- The UMass Dartmouth student who claimed to have been visited by Homeland Security agents over his request for "The Little Red Book" by Mao Zedong has admitted to making up the entire story. The 22-year-old student tearfully admitted he made the story up to his history professor, Dr. Brian Glyn Williams, and his parents, after being confronted with the inconsistencies in his account. Had the student stuck to his original story, it might never have been proved false. But on Thursday, when the student told his tale in the office of UMass Dartmouth professor Dr. Robert Pontbriand to Dr. Williams, Dr. Pontbriand, university spokesman John Hoey and The Standard-Times, the student added new details. The agents had returned, the student said, just last night. The two agents, the student, his parents and the student's uncle all signed confidentiality agreements, he claimed, to put an end to the matter. But when Dr. Williams went to the student's home yesterday and relayed that part of the story to his parents, it was the first time they had heard it. The story began to unravel, and the student, faced with the truth, broke down and cried. It was a dramatic turnaround from the day before. For more than an hour on Thursday, he spoke of two visits from Homeland Security over his inter-library loan request for the 1965, Peking Press version of "Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-Tung," which is the book's official title. His basic tale remained the same: The book was on a government watch list, and his loan request had triggered a visit from an agent who was seeking to "tame" reading of particular books. He said he saw a long list of such books. In the days after its initial reporting on Dec. 17 in The Standard-Times, the story had become an international phenomenon on the Internet. Media outlets from around the world were requesting interviews with the students, and a number of reporters had been asking UMass Dartmouth students and professors for information. The story's release came at a perfect storm in the news cycle. Only a day before, The New York Times had reported that President Bush had allowed the National Security Agency to conduct wiretaps on international phone calls from the United States without a warrant. The Patriot Act, created in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to allow the government greater authority to monitor for possible terrorism activities, was up for re-authorization in Congress. There was an increased sense among some Americans that the U.S. government was overstepping its bounds and trampling on civil liberties in order to thwart future attacks of terrorism. The story of a college student being questioned for requesting a 40-year old book on Communism fed right into that atmosphere. In Thursday's retelling of the story, the student added several new twists, ones that the professors and journalist had not heard before. The biggest new piece of information was an alleged second visit of Homeland Security agents the previous night, where two agents waited in his living room for two hours with his parents and brother while he drove back from a retreat in western Massachusetts. He said he, the agents, his parents and his uncle all signed confidentiality agreements that the story would never be told. He revealed the agents' names: one was Nicolai Brushaev or Broshaev, and the other was simply Agent Roberts. He said they were dressed in black suits with thin black ties, "just like the guys in Men in Black." He had dates and times and places, things he had signed and sent back in order to receive the book. The tale involved his twin brother, who allegedly requested the book for him at UMass Amherst; his uncle, a former FBI attorney who took care of all the paperwork; and his parents, who signed those confidentiality agreements. But by now, the story had too many holes. Every time there was a fact to be had that would verify the story -- providing a copy of the confidentiality agreements the student and agent signed, for example -- there would be a convenient excuse. The uncle took all the documents home to Puerto Rico, he said. What was the address of the Homeland Security building in Boston where he and his uncle visited the agency and actually received a copy of the book? It was a brick building, he said, but he couldn't remember where it was, or what was around it. He said he met a former professor at the mysterious Homeland Security building who had requested a book on bomb-making, along with two Ph.D. students and a one pursuing a master's degree who had also been stopped from accessing books. The student couldn't remember their names, but the former professor had appeared on the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox News recently, he said. The former professor's appearance on The O'Reilly Factor did not check out. Other proof was sought. Were there any copies of the inter-library loan request? No. Did the agents leave their cards, or any paperwork at your home? No. His brother, a student at Amherst, told Dr. Williams that he had never made the inter-library loan request on behalf of his brother. While The Standard-Times had tape recorded the entire tale on Thursday, the reporter could not reach the student for comment after he admitted making up the story. Phone calls and a note on the door were not returned. At the request of the two professors and the university, The Standard-Times has agreed to withhold his name. During the whole episode, the professors said that while they wanted to protect the student from the media that were flooding their voice mails and e-mail boxes seeking comment and information, they also wanted to know: Was the story true? "I grew skeptical of this story, as did Bob, considering the ramifications," Dr. Williams said yesterday. "I spent the last five days avoiding work, and the international media, and rest, trying to get names and dates and facts. My investigation eventually took me to his house, where I began to investigate family matters. I eventually found out the whole thing had been invented, and I'm happy to report that it's safe to borrow books." Dr. Williams said he does not regret bringing the story to light, but that now the issue can be put to rest. "I wasn't involved in some partisan struggle to embarrass the Bush administration, I just wanted the truth," he said. Dr. Pontbriand said the entire episode has been "an incredible experience and exposure for something a student had said." He said all along, his only desire had been to "get to the bottom of it and get the truth of the matter." "When it blew up into an international story, our only desire was to interview this student and get to the truth. We did not want from the outset to declare the student a liar, but we wanted to check out his story," he said. "It was a disastrous thing for him to do. He needs attention, he needs care. I feel for the kid. We have great concern for this student's health and welfare." Mr. Hoey, the university spokesman, said the university had been unable to substantiate any of the facts of the story since it first was reported in The Standard-Times on Dec. 17. As to any possible repercussions against the student, Mr. Hoey said, "We consider this to be an issue to be handled faculty member to student. We wouldn't discuss publicly any other action. Student discipline is a private matter." Dr. Williams said the whole affair has had one bright point: The question of whether it is safe for students to do research has been answered. "I can now tell my students that it is safe to do research without being monitored," he said. "With that hanging in the air like before, I couldn't say that to them." The student's motivation remains a mystery, but in the interview on Thursday, he provided a glimpse. "When I came back, like wow, there's this circus coming on. I saw my cell phone, and I see like, wow, I have something like 75 messages and like something like 87 missed calls," he said. "Wow, I was popular. I usually get one or probably two a week and that's about it, and I usually pick them up." --------------------------------- Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051224/c8d63f8d/attachment.htm From FijiPapabear Sat Dec 24 12:21:22 2005 From: FijiPapabear (FijiPapabear at aol.com) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 13:21:22 EST Subject: [eDebate] piedmont Message-ID: <88.3462d4f4.30deeba2@aol.com> can someone from this fine ga school hit me back. Alex Acosta Miami Fl -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051224/02972d96/attachment.html From ilanaks Sat Dec 24 18:20:57 2005 From: ilanaks (Ilana Kaplan-Shain) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 18:20:57 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Space for a male debater at UNT? Message-ID: <8b7e1daa0512241620o4c139b2fode1528267cdb40ed@mail.gmail.com> Does anyone have extra room for one male debater at the UNT tournament hotel? We'd be willing to share costs. Thank You, Ilana Kaplan-Shain University of Miami Graduate Assistant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051224/633ccc97/attachment.htm From stables Mon Dec 26 11:55:18 2005 From: stables (Gordon Stables) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:55:18 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] USC Alan Nichols preferences have been updated Message-ID: <43B02E86.3080903@usc.edu> We have adjusted the preference sheets for the Nichols to account for changes made in the last 72 hours. Please review your information as the categories have changed to reflect the reduced number of rounds at the tournament. You may enter your final information now as the sheets will not change. As a reminder, we need all preference information completed by 10 pm on the 28t. Happy Holidays to all. Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 http://usctrojandebate.com From garretttjdi24 Mon Dec 26 17:48:50 2005 From: garretttjdi24 (garrett tuck) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:48:50 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] DARTMOUTH AL Message-ID: Have you been out this year?? If so what Aff or Affs have you run? and what if any caselists might you be on? Thank You Garrett KCKCC Debate From FijiPapabear Tue Dec 27 14:20:07 2005 From: FijiPapabear (FijiPapabear at aol.com) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:20:07 EST Subject: [eDebate] poker ettiquete Message-ID: <203.f9a88be.30e2fbf7@aol.com> I am currently out of the country and engaged n a discussion of how many decks to use in an 8 person game, my contention is that only 1, however my foreign friends think we shoulduse two. all help appreciated. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051227/610f9f48/attachment.html From mharris02 Tue Dec 27 16:48:32 2005 From: mharris02 (Martin Harris) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 16:48:32 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] I need a Fullerton hotel room Message-ID: Anyone releasing any rooms at the Chase or Marriott for the Fullerton tournament? I think Drury got our hotel room after block expiration because our rate at the Marriott seems to be $169 a night. If anyone has a room to release we need one from 1/1-1/5. Martin Harris Computer and Graphics Support Specialist Hammons School of Architecture, Drury University Office Phone: (417) 873-7497 From jtedebate Tue Dec 27 21:32:00 2005 From: jtedebate (J T) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:32:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] paging Baylor LO Message-ID: <20051228033200.58392.qmail@web33204.mail.mud.yahoo.com> please backchannel about one of your nepal cites JT Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University --------------------------------- Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051227/140b07e0/attachment.htm From justin_schuffert Wed Dec 28 04:59:09 2005 From: justin_schuffert (Justin Schuffert) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 04:59:09 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] poker ettiquete In-Reply-To: <203.f9a88be.30e2fbf7@aol.com> Message-ID: 2 _________________________________________________________________ Don?t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/ From kstatedebate Wed Dec 28 12:04:11 2005 From: kstatedebate (Justin Green) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:04:11 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] Swing partner needed for the Texas 2-Step Message-ID: <5a6e2a80512281004w411535f2k74c7c1c408a2327d@mail.gmail.com> We have a novice debater who planned on debating JV at the 2-step. She's easy going and coachable. If you have a partner, please contact me. For quicker response - call 703-855-6177. Thanks Justin Green Kansas State Debate From blain Wed Dec 28 16:09:01 2005 From: blain (Brian Lain) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:09:01 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Please Finalize Judge Information For UNT Demougeot Debates Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, Please take a moment to finalize your entires for the UNT Demougeot debates. I will turn the entry system off tomorrow and open the preference system. We plan to release preset rounds at registration if possible, so entering preferences is especially important this year. At this point, we are planning to clear to a partial Double-octafinals in the open division and a full quarterfinals in the JV division. Thanks -Brian Assistant Professor of Communication Director of Debate University of North Texas Box 305268 Denton, TX, 76203 (o) 940-565-4534 (c) 940-453-2359 (fax) 940-565-3630 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Brian Lain.19787DEFANGED-vcf Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051228/d9fc2bd9/attachment.asc From i_pastrana Wed Dec 28 19:32:13 2005 From: i_pastrana (Israel Pastrana) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:32:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [eDebate] Toni Nielson please Message-ID: <20051229013213.76539.qmail@web34714.mail.mud.yahoo.com> toni could you give me a call as soon as you get a chance? thanks israel 619.760.6067 --------------------------------- Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051228/de1fbbd4/attachment.htm From jamesherndon3 Thu Dec 29 12:20:01 2005 From: jamesherndon3 (James Herndon) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 13:20:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] In Search Of - John Mast Message-ID: I need to speak with John - formerly of MTSU - now in the highschool world. If he, or someone with contact info, could backchannel that would be great. -- James H. Herndon III Director of Speech & Debate Chattahoochee High School 5230 Taylor Rd. Alpharetta, GA 30022 (770) 596-1559 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051229/de31b9fa/attachment.html From stables Fri Dec 30 11:05:16 2005 From: stables (Gordon Stables) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 09:05:16 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC Alan Nichols caselist - day 1 available Message-ID: <43B568CC.8040608@usc.edu> The information is available at http://www.usctrojandebate.com/college_tournaments.html Gordon -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 http://usctrojandebate.com From illinoisdebate Fri Dec 30 11:36:09 2005 From: illinoisdebate (Illinois Debate) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 11:36:09 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Rounds for Hire at Miami (OH) Message-ID: <804f062d0512300936u1fce0207j500cc59788a023fc@mail.gmail.com> Hey all, I still have up to 4 rounds for hire at Miami OH. Steve has assured me Miami has no rounds to sell so if you need judging, hit me up. -Tim Glass Coach, U of I -- Policy Debate Team University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051230/ad60fe20/attachment.htm From korryharvey Fri Dec 30 12:07:04 2005 From: korryharvey (Korry Harvey) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:07:04 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] teenager who went to iraq on his own a high school debater Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051230/c64499be/attachment.html From cherburdette Fri Dec 30 16:53:50 2005 From: cherburdette (Dr. Cheryl Burdette, ND) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 17:53:50 -0500 (GMT-05:00) Subject: [eDebate] Fullerton Judging Message-ID: <18364283.1135983230690.JavaMail.root@elwamui-lapwing.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Stanford is looking for a judge to cover 3 rounds for us at Fullerton. We'll pay $25 per round. Please e-mail me asap if available. Thanks, Robert Thomas Stanford Debate From stables Sat Dec 31 01:15:03 2005 From: stables (Gordon Stables) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 23:15:03 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC 'Alan Nichols' tournament updates - judge info for tomorrow morning included Message-ID: <43B62FF7.5020909@usc.edu> Thanks to all the participants for a great tournament. The following is the news from the 2005 Alan Nichols Debate Tournament at the University of Southern California. (Scroll down to the bottom if you are just interested in judges for the morning rounds). We have also updated our caselist information through today?s debates at www.usctrojandebate.com/ Just follow the link to ?college tournaments?. _Open Division Speaker Awards_ 1. Michael Klinger (Harvard) 2. Josh Branson (Northwestern) 3. Stephen Chaudoin (Emory) 4. Craig Wickersham (California) 5. Casey Harrigan (Michigan State) 6. Mike Burshteyn (California) 7. Ryan Burke (Michigan State) 8. Mattias Bostick (Missouri State) 9. Nikhil Mirchandani (Harvard) 10. Michael Mapes (Missouri State) 11. Roy Levkovitz (Emory) 12. Gabe Murillo (Wayne State) 13. Brad Hall (Wake) 14. Jamie Carroll (Wake) 15. David Marks (Dartmouth) 16. Hunter Brooks (Dartmouth) 17. Noah Chestnut (Northwestern) 18. Eric Suni (Whitman) 19. Jeff Buntin (Whitman) 20. Dale Morrison (CSU Fullerton) _JV Division Speaker Awards_ 1. Brett Beeler (CSU Fullerton) 2. Candi Kissinger (Whitman) 3. Luke Sanford (Whitman) 4. David Jordan (Navy) 5. Jake Ginsbach (Whitman) 6. Alex Powers (Navy) 7. Aly Fiebrantz (Long Beach) 8. Darren Letendre (Fullerton) 9. Kathryn Bergh (Whitman) 10. Sean Hurley (Navy) _Open Division Teams Winning Four Debates but not participating in elimination rounds:_ Binghamton (Jake Gartman & Matt Malia) Gonzaga (Nick Bormann & Charlie Hutchison) Texas (Sarah Heaton & Spencer Johnson) Whitman (Sam Allen & Meghan Hughes) Whitman (Eric Chalfant & Mike Meredith) _JV Quarter-Finals Results_ Whitman (Kathryn Bergh & Jake Ginsbach) (Aff) def. Navy (Sean Hurley & Alex Powers) 3-0 (Johnson, Russell, Schatz) Whitman (Candi Kissinger & Luke Sanford) (Neg) def. Northridge (Terence Smith & Brandon Sweeney) 3-0 (Dolbin, Sternhagen, Kimbrell) Fullerton (Brett Beeler & Darren Letendre) (Aff) def. Southwestern (Jose Baglon & Luis Quinoez) 3-0 (Dennis, Neeson, Verney) Long Beach (Kristine Calicdan & Aly Fiebrantz) (Neg) def. Navy (David Jordan & Brett Wessley) 3-0 (Ward, Simas, Wiener) _Open Double-Octofinals Results_ Wayne State Gabe Murillo & Matt Farmer (Neg) def. Wyoming Will Jensen & Josh Schmerge 3-0 (Pointer, Feldman, Mauer) California Craig Wickersham & Mike Burshteyn (Aff) def. North Texas Max Archer & Ben Patterson 3-0 (Lacy, Schueler, Turoff) George Washington Brett Wallace & Brian Linder (Neg) def. North Texas Kuntal Cholera & Rachel Schy 3-0 (Tarloff, Greenstein, Forslund) Harvard Michael Klinger & Nikhil Mirchandani (Neg) def. Case Western Nick Dorsey & Nick Denissen 3-0 (Ceren, Mancuso, Steele) Missouri State Matthias Bostick & Michael Mapes (Aff) def. Emory Aimi Hamraie & Rob Mills 2-1 (Ramachandrappa, *Olney, Hanson) Wake Forest Seth Gannon & Alex Lamballe (Aff) def. Texas (Austin) Jenny Davis & Chris Thiele 3-0 (Achten, Arnett, D?Amico) Emory Chipp Schwab & Chris Sun (Aff). Def. Michigan State Univ. Jimi Durkee & Jillian Tietjen 3-0 (Nathan, Strait, Southworth) Whitman College Matt Schissler & Eric Suni (Neg) def. West Georgia Jane Munksgaard & Geoff Lundeen 2-1 (*Walters, Bowman, Morris) Northwestern Josh Branson & Noah Chestnut (Neg) def. Wake Forest Elizabeth Gedmark & Chris Sedelmyer 3-0 (Gonzalez, Repko, Warner). Georgia Brent Culpepper & Kevin Rabinowitz (Neg) def. Emory Stephen Chaudoin & Roy Levkovitz 3-0 (Strauss, Turner, Reddy) Dartmouth Hunter Brooks & David Marks (Aff) def. Emory Nicholas Miller & Pradeep Pramanick 3-0 (Hardy, Atchison, More). Dartmouth Josh Kernoff & Kade Olsen (Neg). def. Redlands Scott Schneider & Jake Ziering 2-1 (Malumphy, *Kephart, Holbrook) Whitman College Jeff Buntin & Ben Meiches (Aff) def. Missouri State Mike Kearney & Martin Osborn 3-0 (Varda, Powers, Holland) Harvard Jason Murray & Tripp Rebrovick (Neg) def. Iowa Todd Lantz & Brian Severson 2-1 (Hamrick, *Silber, Blank) Michigan State Univ. Ryan Burke & Casey Harrigan def. Texas (Austin) Phillip Ripper & Nick Whitaker 3-0 (Kelly, Watson, Grayson) Wake Forest Jamie Carroll & Brad Hall (Neg) def. Texas (Austin) Benjamin Durham & Reid Jones 3-0 (Lupo, Lee, Borden) _ Judges for the Morning Elimination Rounds _ Pairings and bracket released at hotel and school 7:00 am. Round begins at 8:15 am. All elimination rounds on campus. Abbott, Blake Achten, Greg Arnett, Dave Atchison, Jarrod Blank, Thad Evans, Kirk Feldman, Jonah Frappier, Glen Gonzalez, Josh Grayson, Brian Hamrick, Kevin Holbrook, Sarah Lacy, JP Lee, Ed Lupo, Jon-Paul Malumphy, Christine Mancuso, Steve Morris, Eric Nathan, Stacey Neeson, Bill Olney, Charles Ramachandrappa, Naveen Repko, Will Russell, Nick Shueler, Beth Silber, Marissa Strauss, David Turner, John Walters, Heather Ward, Cameron -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 http://usctrojandebate.com From blain Sat Dec 31 11:53:00 2005 From: blain (Brian Lain) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 11:53:00 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UNT Prefs OnLine now Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, The Mutual Preference system for the UNT Debates has been turned on. Preferences are due by 3pm Jan 2nd. One special note, I am very interested in preserving a novice division if we can, because we may nee to do some measures where the divisions are merged for some but not all of the rounds, I have turned on preferences for the three novice teams as well. We look forward to seeing everyone in Denton, Registration will begin at 6pm in Room 820 of the Raddisson -Brian If you have any problems, please contact me. Assistant Professor of Communication Director of Debate University of North Texas Box 305268 Denton, TX, 76203 (o) 940-565-4534 (c) 940-453-2359 (fax) 940-565-3630 -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: Brian Lain.2153DEFANGED-vcf Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051231/192d05a9/attachment.pot From drwiese1 Sat Dec 31 16:23:36 2005 From: drwiese1 (DANIELLE WIESE) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:23:36 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] FSU Tournament Invitation Message-ID: Florida State University Tournament Invitation February 10-12, 2006 Tallahassee, Florida December 30, 2005 Dear Friends, We are delighted to invite you to Tallahassee for our first annual Marilyn J. Young College Invitational to be held the weekend of February 10-12, 2006. We hope to provide excellent hospitality and competition in the winter warmth of Florida with competition in novice, junior varsity, and varsity divisions. Our tournament will feature 6-rounds of varsity competition beginning on Friday afternoon with elimination debates on Sunday. Dr. Mike Davis, from Georgia State University will run our tab room. All rounds will be held in the Bellamy Building located on Florida State?s main campus. Free parking is available next to the tournament site and the Bellamy Building is within walking distance to a number of convenient eateries. Our conference hotel is the Holiday Inn?Capitol East, located 3 miles from the Tournament. The Ale House Bar & Grill is attached to the hotel and is open until 2am every evening. Members of our team have also agreed to house a limited number of participants should you or your students need a place to stay. Registration will take place on Friday afternoon from 1:00-3:00 pm. Competition will begin at 3:30pm. If you are running late, or need to contact us for any reason, please feel free to call Danielle Wiese at (319) 621-3117. Dinner on Friday and lunch Saturday will be provided by the tournament. In addition, the FSU Public Debate Society will provide drinks and snacks throughout the competition. Details are provided below. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions. We look forward to hosting you at Florida State University. Sincerely, Danielle R. Wiese, PhD Matthew Grindy Director of Debate Graduate Assistant 1st Annual Marilyn J. Young College Invitational Florida State University ELIGIBILITY & EXPECTATIONS: The tournament is open to any two-person team of undergraduate students. Teams in all divisions will be expected to engage in switch-sides debating. Maverick entries will not be accepted. Florida State University may enter teams, but will not do so if it creates a bye situation, and our teams will not be eligible to clear in the Varsity or Junior Varsity divisions. Hybrid teams will be accepted. Novices should be in their first year of college debate and conform to ADA expectations for Novice. We will do our best to avoid collapsing divisions This year?s CEDA/NDT debate resolution will be used. ENTRIES: Please register for the tournament via the Brushke website at www.debateresults.com. Entries can also be e-mailed to Danielle Wiese at danielle.wiese at comm.fsu.edu. Entries will be accepted until Friday, 3, 2006. FORMAT: The tournament will have 6 preliminary rounds; advancement to elimination rounds will be based on (1) win-loss record, (2) total speaker points, (3) adjusted speaker points, and (4) strength of opposition. Speaker points may be given in .5 increments. Time limits will be 9-3-6 with 10 minutes prep time. Elimination round sides will be determined based on (1) reversing sides from a prelim meeting, (2) individual coin flips. FEES: $90 for all divisions. This fee will cover dinner Friday, coffee & snacks throughout the tournament, breakfast on Saturday and Sunday, trophies, and administrative expenses. Please make checks payable to: Danielle Wiese?FSU Debate. We ask that District 6/SE/SEC CEDA teams add a $10 contribution to the District tournament fund to their entry fee. JUDGES: Schools are required to provide three rounds of preliminary judging for each team entered. Each judge is required to hear the first elimination round plus one round beyond her or his school?s elimination. We will have a decent number of judges available for hire. Hired judges can be purchased for $120 for a full commitment or $25 per round. Judges are expected to disqualify themselves from hearing any debater, team or school with which they may have a personal or professional conflict. Judges should enter their conflicts through the Bruschke web site. If the pool makes it feasible we will attempt to use a judge preference or strike system. In each debate, judges are asked to award one win and one loss, within 1 hour of the conclusion of the debate. HOTELS: The tournament hotel is the Holiday Inn Tallahassee?Capitol East located at 1355 Apalachee Parkway approximately 3 miles from the tournament. The hotel features free wireless, a workout room, and a full-service restaurant. We also think their staff is super nice. We have secured a rate of $69.00 per night for doubles, which is good until January 11th, so we encourage you to make reservations as soon as possible. Reservations can be made by contacting the hotel at: (850) 877-3171. Tell them that you are with FSU Debate. There are many other hotels located close to the tournament including: The Holiday Inn Select (approx. $89) 850-222-9555 University Motel (1 block from tournament?no Wireless) (approx. $55) 850-224-8161 LaQuinta South (near tournament hotel) (approx. $69) 850-878-5099 Quality Inn (near tournament hotel) (approx. $85) 850-877-4437 TRAVEL: Tallahassee is conveniently located approx. a 4 ? hour from Atlanta or Orlando. There are a limited, but decent number of flights into Tallahassee Regional Airport through Delta, US Airways, United, and Northwest. You can also fly into Valdosta, GA (approx. 1 ? hours) or Jacksonville (approx. 2 ? hours). CAMPUS/PARKING: A map of Tallahassee (Downtown) is available online from the local visitor?s bureau at http://www.seetallahassee.com. A campus map is available on the FSU website at: http://www.fsu.edu/Campus/newmap/. You can enlarge the map, and specifically the Tournament site by selecting the ?Bellamy Building? from the drop-down list. Parking is available in the lot adjacent between the Sandels building and the library, just behind Bellamy. FSU Debate team students and members from the Public Debate Society will be on-site to greet you. Maps to the tournament will be available at the hotel. If traveling from I-10 East or West, Exit Monroe Street ?South. Travel approx. 3 miles to Tennessee Street (HWY 90). Turn right, if you see the Capitol Building pass you on the right, you?ve gone too far. Turn left at the McDonald?s onto Dewey, into campus. The parking lot will be directly in front of you. HOSPITALITY: The FSU Debate Teams are excited about the opportunity to provide entertainment throughout the tournament. In addition to a coaches? reception, student events are planned throughout the weekend. Details will be available at registration. We also invite you to enjoy the warm weather and hospitality in the Tallahassee area. If you choose to arrive on Thursday, you can take a boat tour and see alligators at Wakulla Springs. For more information see: www.seetallahassee.com. TOURNAMENT SCHEDULE Friday, February 10, 2006 1-3 p.m. Registration ? Bellamy Building, main lobby 3:30pm Round I 5:30pm Dinner 6:45pm Round II Saturday, February 11, 2006 8:00 a.m. Pairings, Holiday Inn & Bellamy Building 9:00 a.m. Round III 11:30 a.m. Round IV 1:30 p.m. Lunch break (lunch provided) 2:30 p.m. Round V 5:00 p.m. Round VI Sunday, February 12, 2006 7:30 a.m. Breakfast and Pairings, Holiday Inn & Bellamy Building 8:30 a.m. First Elimination Round TBA Awards Ceremony and remaining elimination debates From katerichey Sat Dec 31 18:29:54 2005 From: katerichey (Katie Richey) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 18:29:54 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] UNT prefs - i won't be there Message-ID: <51ab18c80512311629g541e0bcesadfc7806dcc2c893@mail.gmail.com> I'm entered as a critic but i'm not going to be there - so don't waste the 1 i'm sure you were all going to give me. kate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20051231/0f30900a/attachment.html From stables Sat Dec 31 19:38:49 2005 From: stables (Gordon Stables) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 17:38:49 -0800 Subject: [eDebate] USC Alan Nichols Updates Message-ID: <43B732A9.7020809@usc.edu> USC Alan Nichols Updates JV Semi-finals Fullerton BL (Neg) def. Whitman BG 2-1 (Russell, Neeson, *Walters) Whitman SS (Neg) def. Long Beach CF 3-0 (Abbott, Ward, Silber) JV Finals Fullerton DL (Neg) def. Whitman SS 2-1 (Silber, Frappier, *Tarloff) Open Octofinals Michigan State BH (Aff) def. Dartmouth KO 2-1 (*Grayson, Lee, Scueler) Harvard KM (Aff) def. Wake GL 3-0 (Frappier, Morris, Mancuso) California BW (Neg) def. Emory SS (Blank, Strauss, Olney) Northwestern BC (Aff) def. Georgia CR 3-0 (Lupo, Lacy, Evans) Wake CH (Aff) def. Whitman SS 3-0 (Repko, Ramachandrappa, Hamrick) Dartmouth BM (Aff) def. George Washington LW 2-1 (*Achten, Atchison, Feldman) Harvard MR (Neg) def. Missouri State BM 2-1 (Nathan, Arnett, *Gonzalez) Wayne State FM (Aff) def. Whitman BM 2-1 (Turner, *Malumphy, Holbrook) Quarterfinals Michigan State BH (Neg) def. Wayne State FM 2-1 (*Lee, Morris, Ceren) Harvard KM advances over Harvard MR California BW (Aff) def. Dartmouth BM 3-0 (Hardy, Atchison, Lacy) Northwestern BC (Aff) def. Wake CH 3-0 (Repko, Gonzalez, Achten) Semifinals (rounds just finishing up) Northwestern BC vs. Michigan State BH (Lacy, Achten, Kelly) California BW vs. Harvard KM (Deatherage, Mancuso, Abbott) -- Gordon Stables, Ph.D. Director of Debate Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California Office: 213 740 2759 Fax: 213 740 3913 http://usctrojandebate.com