From joe_koehle Tue May 1 14:41:27 2007 From: joe_koehle (Joe Koehle) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 12:41:27 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] TOC work--one last time Message-ID: <114370.22400.qm@web50212.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I was planning on coming up sunday and monday only, as my ride back to PA for the summer is going to be in lexington, but now things have changed. i will now be there friday, and was wondering if anyone would be willing to provide my services for REAL CHEAP....i'm willing to cut cards, scout, coach, whatever. i am looking for a place to crash and some food money. Joe --------------------------------- Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070501/677552e3/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Tue May 1 17:00:33 2007 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 16:00:33 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wyoming Debate Cooperative: Call for Registrations Message-ID: As we are rolling into the month of May, it's time for people to begin registering for the 2007 Wyoming Debate Cooperative, which will take place August 1-14. During the next several weeks we will be posting information about labs, lecture options, and activities. But for now, we want to know who already knows they are coming. First, a few reminders: 1. NDT/CEDA debaters and coaches will all enroll for the 2-week option. 2. Registration AND lab activities will take place on August 1, so people can arrive on that date, or the night before. For those doing the 2-week option, checkout is either on the evening of the 14th or the morning of the 15th. However, those wishing to come in the night before check-in, or stay the evening after, will be charged $19 per extra dorm night. 3. The cost of the cooperative is $275 for the 2-week option. Payment is due at registration. TO REGISTER FOR THE COOPERATIVE: Send an email to stannard at uwyo.edu with the following information: --Your name --Your school --Your phone number --Your email address --The type of debate you'll be participating in at the cooperative (eg, NDT/CEDA) --Your experience level (in the form of completing the following sentence: "This fall, I will begin my _____ year of academic debate.") Please let me know if you have any questions. Stay tuned for further information. We look forward to seeing many of you in August! Matt Stannard Wyoming Speech and Debate Union _________________________________________________________________ News, entertainment and everything you care about at Live.com. Get it now! http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070501/729e07eb/attachment.htm From leslynn Wed May 2 02:51:17 2007 From: leslynn (Les Lynn) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 03:51:17 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [eDebate] Job Posting Message-ID: <58958.192.168.1.71.1178092277.webmail@192.168.1.71> Hi. The NAUDL is undertaking a hiring process for the position of Regional Program Officer. If you think you might be interested, please see the attached job announcement, the content of which is pasted below. Thanks. Les Les Lynn Executive Director National Association for Urban Debate Leagues 332 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 500 Chicago, Illinois 60604 (o) 312-427-8101 (f) 312-427-6130 (c) 312-848-2271 Regional Program Officer Job Description Qualifications ? B.A. or higher degree ? Strong interpersonal skills and ability to work collaboratively ? Excellent communications skills, written and oral ? Significant (5 years or more) experience in the non-profit sector, preferably education non-profits ? Working knowledge of urban education systems, at the school-site and administrative levels ? Experience in urban education ? non-profit, administrative, or classroom ? and/or academic debate is a plus ? Capacity to implement NAUDL Model guidelines, adapting to local variations and overcoming obstacles ? Capacity to negotiate effectively with diverse institutions and individuals ? e.g. urban school systems, local high school debate leadership, law firms and corporations, local UDL Advisory Board members, and universities ? Ability to supervise local initiatives and coach a range of professional skills, including organizing, prioritizing, and scheduling work assignments ? Capacity to juggle multiple priorities and projects simultaneously, and a demonstrated ability to execute complex projects and work under tight deadlines. ? Knowledge of budgeting, cost estimating, and fiscal management principles and procedures ? Demonstrated success in advocacy, customer service, and problem solving ? High degree of determination, innovation, initiative, and persistence ? Intermediate to advanced proficiency with personal computers and Microsoft Office products ? A demonstrated record of performing high-caliber work independently within general guidelines and to know when and where to involve other members of the staff and/or the board Job Description The Regional Program Officer will principally be responsible for working intensively with four Urban Debate Leagues. The primary responsibility of the Regional Officer is to increase the breadth (number of schools and students benefiting from urban debate), depth (program quality), sustainability, and local ownership of each of the four UDLs which he or she manages. The Regional Program Officer will: ? Coordinate project schedules and task lists in accord with the NAUDL?s League Building blueprint ? Analyze the prospects for success of each new UDL methodically, through research and interviews with local leaders and experts, and develop practical implementation strategies ? Collaborate with and engage local stakeholders across various constituencies in each city in order to organize and catalyze support for the UDL ? Identify, develop relationships with, and activate additional local stakeholders and strategic partner entities to expand the political efficacy of the UDL ? Recruit train, and support the local UDL Advisory Board, ensuring the proper blend of leadership and successful execution of its mission ? Help the local UDL Advisory Board specify required resources, establish performance benchmarks, and design operations ? Lead efforts to secure school system institutionalization by mapping the terrain, cultivating administrative allies, and helping overcome obstacles ? Conduct technical assistance site visits that offer substantive on-site guidance and lead supporters toward a sustainability-orientation. ? Orient and train local UDL Coordinators ? Demonstrate and initiate training of all local UDL Coaches ? Provide ongoing consultation to help build a strong, stable financial and organizational infrastructure ? Represent the NAUDL at community, school system, development, business, and civic meetings and present information on NAUDL programs and approach ? Contribute to NAUDL efforts to encapsulate and promote the use of best practices in curricular and after-school urban education programming. ? Create opportunities for knowledge-sharing amongst UDLs, engendering a network that fosters innovation and leverages experience ? Monitor the fidelity of implementation and help create quality assurance mechanisms for local UDLs ? Help coordinate events that cultivate local support, raise money, and recruit volunteers ? Research, identify, reach out to, and apply for funding from local foundations and corporations, in conjunction with the NAUDL External Affairs Director and the local UDL Advisory Board ? Regularly report to the Executive Director as to the progress and current status of the local UDLs relative to the NAUDL League Building blueprint. ? Provide stories for each Urban Debate NewsBlast Additional Information Compensation will be commensurate with experience, $50,000 and up. Candidates who pass through an initial screening process will be interviewed by the NAUDL Senior Staff and Board of Directors and must provide three references. It is the policy of the NAUDL to provide employment opportunities without regard to race, color, religion, creed, national origin, age, marital status, disability, sexual orientation, gender (sex) as required by law. Submit your c.v. and a cover letter by June 1st to: Les Lynn Executive Director NAUDL 332 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60604 (e) leslynn at urbandebate.org Applications may be emailed or mailed, but not faxed. Please do not phone the NAUDL office regarding this position. Questions may be sent to info at urbandebate.org. Thank you for your interest. Les Lynn Executive Director National Association for Urban Debate Leagues 332 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 500 Chicago, Illinois 60604 (o) 312-427-8101 (f) 312-427-6130 (c) 312-848-2271 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RegionalProgramOfficer03.doc Type: application/msword Size: 53760 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070502/6e4e9518/attachment.doc From gacggc Wed May 2 08:48:32 2007 From: gacggc (David Glass) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 09:48:32 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Andy Nolan only Message-ID: <8371758b0705020648h821a6c3i71ed10f5bae8044a@mail.gmail.com> Hi Andy, please finish posting your philosophy http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Nolan%2C+Andy follow instructions on that page thanks djg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070502/8b76e82e/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 Wed May 2 13:31:12 2007 From: jbhdb8 (Josh Hoe) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 14:31:12 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Stars of the Lid - debate drone legend McBride Message-ID: Congrats to B Mc B - nice review! Stars of the Lid And Their Refinement of the Decline [Kranky; 2007] Rating: 8.6 http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/42058-and-their-refinement-of-the-decline Drone legends Stars of the Lid find their music drifting toward this rarefied place on their first album after an almost six-year absence. On first listen, *And Their Refinement of the Decline *seems a continuation of its beloved precursor, 2001's *The Tired Sounds of...* It is again a double CD with about two hours of music; it uses a similar palette of violin, cello, and Stuart Dempster-inspired horns to augment the electronically generated drones. Song titles again refer to brain chemistry ("Dopamine Clouds Over Craven Cottage"), altered states ("Another Ballad for Heavy Lids"), and the nuts and bolts of the music's creation (Apreludes (in C sharp major)"). And yet, upon putting on *Tired Sounds of...* again for comparison, I see Adam Wiltzie and Brian McBride have actually come some distance in the last half-decade. And the place they're moving to is starker, quieter, somehow even more subtle, where the tiniest amount of sound information is put upon to do the greatest amount of work. Where *Tired Sounds of...* sounded genteel and stately next to the raw four-track feedback fests they'd started with ("Tape Hiss Makes Me Happy" summed up their debut nicely), it now sounds about halfway between their genesis and this album; "refinement" turns out to be the perfect word. The first thing that becomes apparent is that there's less discernible guitar here. The acoustic instruments once served as foils to the channeled electricity, but now they've taken center stage, and the horns and strings are often used in a curious way. Rather than being stretched out to push against silence with drone music proper, on tracks like "Dungtitled (in A Major)" and "The Evil that Never Arrived", flugelhorn, cello, and violin are used in short, slowly decaying bursts, keeping skeletal tunes aloft by bumping them with a chord every few seconds. The added space between the notes makes the pieces seem less forward and pervasive, like they might vanish into the air at any moment. It also cuts the drama and leaves the music more open to interpretation. While SOTL will always be tagged as "cinematic," the music here rarely leads. You get the sense that this it could be used to color a wide array of images. The brief "Hiberner Toujours" on the second disc is a three-note phrase played on a cello with an intense vibrato and heavy reverb, first alone, then doubled, with muted electronic treatments lurking just behind. I could just as easily see it soundtracking a morning-after newsreel of a WWII firebombing or a stop-motion blooming of a flower. And then "Humectez La Mouture" extends an idea developed by the sorely missed Labradford and perfected by the Books: A deceptively simple and spacious bit of music with a neutral emotional cast is presented without additional cues and allowed to live or die on its own. Here SOTL take a couple of piano chords lightly kissed with electronics and let the progression play with small bits of shading, including what sounds like manipulated pedal steel and the dialog track from a French film. It doesn't "go" anywhere, really, and it's hard to say what it projects; the music could be crushingly sad, lightly melancholic, or even uplifting, depending on the state of mind of the hearer. It becomes a sound divorced from intention and its ambiguity is its strength. This stripping down and moving away from easily definable mood makes *And Their Refinement of the Decline *a bit harder to grasp initially than any previous SOTL record. The less pronounced changes and more sparing use of dynamic range means that the music can easily slip into the background when something else requires attention. That's par for the course with ambient music, of course, but I get the sense this music is shortchanged by being functional. There's too much focus on the careful layering of sounds, and too many small but still important tweaks happening from moment to moment to let everything slide by in an undifferentiated blob of sound. It's the rare moment when SOTL tip their hand and let more expressionistic feelings seep into the music that you understand how well the album works as a whole. The brilliant "Even if You're Never Awake (Deuxi?me)" is one such place, as its surges of strings are gradually cut with curled shavings of backward guitar, and some almost sub-sonic bass halfway through its 9 minutes announces an even wearier turn into the lament's final section. It "develops" in the conventional sense, as does "December Hunting for Vegetarian Fuckface", the album's final track. After almost two hours we arrive at perhaps the most playful title ever from a band known for playful titles, and also what could be SOTL's defining statement. "December Hunting" is like the band's entire history playing out in a single piece, all the tensions in their music-- acoustic vs. electric, cryptic vs. obvious, joyous vs. sorrowful-- are articulated and probed in 17 heavenly minutes of drone without a tedious moment. It's the final and greatest example of that special thing that happens, with all due respect to their fine solo material, only when these two get together. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070502/dcdabde7/attachment.htm From woodyardkm Wed May 2 13:41:04 2007 From: woodyardkm (WoodyardKM) Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 13:41:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Visiting Assistant Professor Position at NIU Message-ID: Northern Illinois University The Department of Communication invites applications for a Visiting Assistant Professor position effective August 16, 2007. This position is a one-year appointment. Qualified candidates will hold the Ph.D. in communication, with training in rhetorical studies and argumentation. The successful candidate can teach from among the following undergraduate courses: political communication, rhetorical theory, argumentation and debate; and graduate coursework in theory and uses of argument. The teaching load is 9 hours (3 sections) per semester. NIU offers a competitive salary and benefits package. Applicants must send a letter of application identifying their qualifications relevant to the job description, evidence of teaching qualifications and effectiveness, current curriculum vita, and the names and contact information of at least three professional references. Electronic submission of materials is required. Send application materials to: Robert Brookey Department of Communication rbrookey at niu.edu Review of completed applications will begin immediately and will continue until the positions are filled. University and Department: NIU is a Carnegie Doctoral/Research Extensive University and member of the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant 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 Journalism and Communication Studies and a MA in Communication Studies. The department serves a diverse student body including approximately 700 undergraduate majors and 83 graduate students with 24 tenure-track faculty, 15 full-time instructors, and 5 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 a nearby cosmopolitan atmosphere in semi-rural setting. http://www.niu.edu AA/EEO Institution -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070502/9c858639/attachment.htm From jpzompe Wed May 2 19:00:14 2007 From: jpzompe (jpzompe at ilstu.edu) Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 19:00:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] ISU welcomes Justin Stanley! In-Reply-To: References: <017e01c78b7a$333ff910$a9e6a186@CHFA.ad.uni.edu> Message-ID: <20070502190014.38fxp4z4w088kso8@webmail2.ilstu.edu> Illinois State University is very excited to announce that Justin Stanley will be ISU's new Director of Debate! Justin is a welcomed addition to our growing NDT/CEDA debate program. Not only is Justin a fantastic coach, but he's also a great guy! So I'm personally very excited to get to work with Justin this fall. zomp -- Joseph P. Zompetti, Ph.D. Director of Forensics Illinois State University School of Communication www.isuforensics.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using Illinois State University Webmail. From roubidou Thu May 3 07:41:15 2007 From: roubidou (Douglas Roubidoux) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 07:41:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Assistant Debate Coach Position Message-ID: Attached is the position description for an assistant debate coaching position at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh. This is a full time position. Feel free to contact me or the department chair if you have any questions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070503/3778601a/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Position Announcement 2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 68608 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070503/3778601a/attachment.doc From jwpatt00 Thu May 3 12:08:45 2007 From: jwpatt00 (JW Patterson) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 13:08:45 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] While in Lexington Message-ID: OFF TRACK BETTING ON THE DERBY You Gamblers may or may not know that you can do off track betting on the Kentucky Derby in Lexington. Just go to the Keeneland Race Track near the airport and place your bets. If you are free you can also watch the Derby there on the big screen. As usual, the vast majority of local betters aren"t betting on the apparent favorite, Curlin, but instead are split between Street Sense and Nobiz Like Shobiz. Remember, only two favorites have won since 1979. 2000 and 2004. BIG SALE AT JOSEPH BETH"S BOOK STORE One Of Lexington"s big plums is the Joseph Beth Book Store on the Lexington Greene. The store is having a store-wide sale of twenty percent off everything in the store on Saturday and Sunday. In addition to books, the sale includes peridociles, gifts, CD"s etc. LEXINGTON HERALD LEADER RECOMMENDS FOR YOUR I POD ON DERBY DAY Bryan Adams--"Get off my Back" Randy Newman-- "Theme from Seabiscut" The Sundays--"Wild Horses" Prince "Little Red Corvette" Merle Haggard "Kentucky Gambler" George Harrison--"Dark Horse" Booker T and the MGs 'The Horse" Emmylou Harris--Blue Kentucky Girl PLEASE NOTE; The Herald Leader missed the most obvious" Art Fogelberg and "Run for the ROSES" Chet Atkins--"The Derby" Sarah Vaughan--"One Mint Julep" KT Tunstall "Black Horse and the Cherry Tree" Goldfrapp--"Ride a Wild Horse" Rolling Stones--"Dead Flowers" Mean Time, back in the Classroom Bldg. JW Patterson From smithr Thu May 3 12:25:53 2007 From: smithr (Ross K. Smith) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 13:25:53 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Wake Grad assistanships still open! Message-ID: <463A1B21.4050702@wfu.edu> Because the rest of the dept. may not get their share, debate may well have openings for mor graduate assistant coaches for next year. Brad Hall, Casey Harrigan and Brian DeLong will still be with us and will be joined by Andrea Reed and Sean Luchtenfeld. Why do it? 1) If might ever want to coach debate longer term, Wake Debate coach alums have been among the most successful at all levels. 2) Studying communication means writing a thesis on whatever interests you most. Really, whatever you enjoy learning and writing about. 3) Face it, your alternative to debate is . . . 4) Most importantly, we have an awesome group of debaters -- young, talented, hard working, nice, and fun. Flip me a backchannel or call the cell if you are at all interested. -- Ross K. Smith Debate Coach Wake Forest University 336-758-5268 (o) 336-251-2076 (cell) www.DebateScoop.org From Pacedebate Thu May 3 14:05:31 2007 From: Pacedebate (Pacedebate at aol.com) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 15:05:31 EDT Subject: [eDebate] Wake Grad assistanships still open!/TOC judging conflicts Message-ID: In a message dated 5/3/2007 12:26:24 P.M. Central Daylight Time, smithr at wfu.edu writes: Because the rest of the dept. may not get their share, debate may well have openings for mor graduate assistant coaches for next year. Brad Hall, Casey Harrigan and Brian DeLong This email reminded me of a small way in which college directors could help the high school community. This weekend many of your students/assistant coaches will be judging at the TOC and should be conflicted from judging those students who will be attending your school next year or who are being recruited by your school. If you could please send your students/assistant coaches that plan to judge at the TOC a list of those students who have committed to attend your institution and/or you have been recruiting to attend your institution. This is necessary because, to be honest, many of us in the high school community can't/don't keep track of who all the graduate assistants and debaters at each program are. For example, I have a student who will be attending Wake next year and while I knew that we should constrain Brad and Casey I didn't know Brian was at Wake. It is also very possible that Brian doesn't even know my student. That's not a problem until Round 5 when he judges us and in casual conversation it comes up that they will both be at Wake next year. I'd prefer to avoid even the hint of a conflict when my students are debating and I'm sure most of my colleagues would also. So please give us a hand. Thanks, Tim ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070503/65159245/attachment.htm From smithr Thu May 3 14:12:40 2007 From: smithr (Ross K. Smith) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 15:12:40 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] GOP debate coverage tonight Message-ID: <463A3428.9050403@wfu.edu> Join us (register to write comments or your own story) at www.DebateScoop.org and/or Call (646) 478-4670 or IM me (rossyourboss) during my blogtalk radio show tonight at midnight EDT. SPECIAL GUESTS tonight include: Kelly McDonald, Allan Louden, and Tim O'Donnell. -- Ross K. Smith Debate Coach Wake Forest University 336-758-5268 (o) 336-251-2076 (cell) www.DebateScoop.org From smithr Thu May 3 14:34:15 2007 From: smithr (Ross K. Smith) Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 15:34:15 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] GOP debate coverage tonight addendum In-Reply-To: <463A3428.9050403@wfu.edu> References: <463A3428.9050403@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <463A3937.8010208@wfu.edu> Should have given the url of the radio deal (even though there is a neat little button at DebateScoop): http://blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?show_id=23720 On 5/3/2007 3:12 PM, Ross K. Smith wrote: > Join us (register to write comments or your own story) at > www.DebateScoop.org > > and/or > > Call (646) 478-4670 or IM me (rossyourboss) during my blogtalk radio > show tonight at midnight EDT. > > SPECIAL GUESTS tonight include: Kelly McDonald, Allan Louden, and Tim > O'Donnell. > -- > Ross K. Smith > Debate Coach > Wake Forest University > > 336-758-5268 (o) > 336-251-2076 (cell) > > www.DebateScoop.org > > _______________________________________________ > CEDA-L mailing list > CEDA-L at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/ceda-l > > -- Ross K. Smith Debate Coach Wake Forest University 336-758-5268 (o) 336-251-2076 (cell) www.DebateScoop.org From crb012000 Thu May 3 15:44:17 2007 From: crb012000 (Burk, Christopher R) Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 15:44:17 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Seeking Odekirk Message-ID: Hey, Please email me. Thanks, cb Christopher Burk Director of Debate University of Texas at Dallas www.utdallas.edu/orgs/debate/new/ From brentonculpepper Fri May 4 11:25:19 2007 From: brentonculpepper (Brent Culpepper) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 12:25:19 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Dr. Jarrod Atchison Message-ID: <9831d3d30705040925qfd835e2qebc82b12e74bb289@mail.gmail.com> Hello All, With my inaugural post, I wish to inform everyone that yesterday afternoon Jarrod Atchison successfully defended his dissertation and is now Dr. Jarrod Atchison. Everyone who knows him knows how incredible an academic and debate coach Jarrod will be at Trinity beginning in the fall. Congratulations Jarrod. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070504/fa8e34bb/attachment.htm From bbricker Fri May 4 14:11:07 2007 From: bbricker (Bricker, Brett Jacob) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 14:11:07 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #10 - ANDREW JENNINGS Message-ID: <77F5C25BB3DA234BA41147650860C48001D2B426@MAILBOXONE.home.ku.edu> "DCA Debater #10 - ANDREW JENNINGS. Andrew received 24 total points THE STORY OF ANDREW (PETER PAN) JENNINGS AS RETOLD BY THE LOST BOYS, AND TINKERBELL This is the (more or less) true story of Andrew J. Jennings. Really it is more than a story--it is a tale, a legend if you will. Jennings? tale is a cautionary one and is not for the thin skinned or weak hearted. This biography is based on a true story of a boy who became well a boy. In many ways this is the story of Peter Pan (if you can imagine Peter Pan in a wife beater, drunk, pooping, and saying some of the most offensive things known to man) or should I say the Bizarro Peter Pan. In this story Peter doesn?t fly or vanquish Captain Hook (read: Oklahoma CJ) instead Peter spends all his time in Neverland drinking and searching for the next object of Jon?s to deposit his ass butter on or in. So enjoy the tale as told by the Lost Boys and Girls of the KU squad.* From here on out whenever you read the name Jennings you should replace it with Peter Pan it will make everything all the more ridiculous. Trust me. Lastly, no animals were harmed in the making of this bio. ** Chapter 1: The beginning: a recount of the early years by Nibs Jennings grew up in Western Kansas, where, he had to walk 8 miles to the nearest store. Many people don?t know about the major differences between eastern Kansas and western Kansas (because the whole state is so backward) but western Kansas barely qualifies as livable. It?s too underdeveloped for even the Quakers to inhabit. The people are so savage that they make Conor and Blake?s people look almost civilized. The savages of western Kansas did teach Jennings one thing, and that was that nothing is more important than family. I guess that?s why for almost a year he tried to fuck his sister. Sure, she?s technically his step-sister, and she?s really hot, but we still had to explain to him that intercourse with a family member is not socially acceptable, unless your sister?s name is Andy Casey. Nonetheless she is H-O-T (ask Bryce D., he definitely got shot down by her for a full semester). In fact, Jennings has three sisters who are all really fucking hot; I wish you could see them. In the words of Ben Warner, ?I would cut off my left nut and four of my toes for one chance to pop it in her pooper.? It?s like his sisters didn?t come from the same parents as that savage. Jennings never lets anyone see what?s on his computer. We think it?s because he has a ton of granny-porn. He also has 4 gigs of videos of his sisters. Bricker stole these, and jerks off to them all the time. Speaking of weird porn collections, everyone should ask Jon Wright about his file of pictures titled ?nudy pb debate pics?. Jennings still has a few things he takes from his time in western Kansas: the way he holds a fork, a horrible fear of Chucky dolls and his complete inability to act like a human in almost every situation. The fork thing is easy to understand. He holds it in a balled up fist like it?s a sword. This is probably because of how he was raised. People in western Kansas don?t have easy access to food and need to be constantly ready to stab their dinner. I suspect that Jennings once tried to eat before his food was all the way dead and it ran away, forcing him to go to bed hungry. He?ll only make that mistake once. The Chucky doll thing is a bit more difficult to explain. He is terrified of them. In fact, I recommend Bard add Chucky dolls to their argumentative*** arsenal---it is likely to secure them a few big wins next year. We suspect his fear comes from the time a hobo dressed as a clown stumbled through his village and made friendly with little Jennings (by ?made friendly?--we mean molested?that?s right, Jennings was molested by a clown. Explains a lot doesn?t it?). Chapter 2: Trapped in the Kensington Gardens or The high school years, ibid (and for those of you who don?t know what ibid means I refer you to: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2003-February/046668.html) Jennings sucked at debate. He was top in his high school class by virtue of his ability to read and write, but he was still absolutely incontinent (I was trying to write incompetent but Word mis-corrected my misspelling?I decided to keep incontinent because it seemed accurate enough). He once told Mick, ?Most people don't know this, but I might be retarded.? In reality, everybody knows this. Every member of the KU debate team and coaching staff even Joel Kasten (who is absolutely terrible at debate and life now that I think about it) qualified for NFL Nationals. Everyone that is, except for Andrew Jennings, who took a severe beating at the hands of Samantha Foley (of Baylor Fame) in his qualifying round. Joel actually qualified twice, infinitely more times than Jennings. Again, Jennings never went to NFL and really sucked at debate. Every single one of our debaters that is not Jennings qualified for nationals; even Quigley, who is a total bitch. Jennings also tried wrestling, which he sucked at. He was once getting his ass whipped by some dude and decided to ?check his oil? mid match. When I say ?check his oil? I mean Jennings got two knuckles deep in this dudes ass. Two knuckles. Chapter 3: Tinkerbell details Jennings? academic prowess Once described as the "smartest dumb person we know," it should come as no surprise that Jennings is sometimes lacking in terms of academic excellence. While it is true that Jennings does attend class (sometimes), he does not always attend class sober. In fact, during one drunken class session, Jennings was responsible for presenting a project that he and members of his group had completed. In order to successfully complete the presentation, Jennings needed to connect his laptop to the projector to show some slides to the class. After getting set up, Jennings began his presentation. Almost immediately Jennings noticed some snickering, which soon turned into laughing and pointing. The professor then screeched, "OH MY! INAPPROPRIATE MATERIAL!" Alarmed by her response, Jennings turned around to see "I LOVE PENIS!" displayed prominently in the center of the screen, as the title of one of his word documents and there it was for the whole class to see. Even when he is sober, however, he does not necessarily strive for total academic success. In fact, just the other day, Jennings was in a race with the clock to finish an online econ exam before the 12PM deadline. With less than 30 minutes to complete the test, he sat down on the couch with Sara Stephens looking over his shoulder. The two endeavored to successfully complete the exam together. After reading each question, Sara would ask, "What does that mean?" Jennings would respond, "I don't fuckin' know" and then promptly close his eyes to choose one of the multiple choice answers. They were done with the exam in 4 minutes. No word yet on his score Chapter 4: Slightly explains Jennings love of the scatological Jennings loves pooping. He loves it so much that there's an entire section of this DCA bio committed to stories about Jennings pooping. Places Jennings has actually pooped: -The floor of Nate's dining room -The windshield of Jon's car -The upper deck of Jon's toilet -Jon?s chest -The chest of his girlfriends, then they reciprocated. -In a bag, which was then surreptitiously given to Jon Places Jennings has actually peed: -In pop bottles in his car, while driving -Shumaker's closet -Jon's patio -Ronnie's shower -The parking lot at the Westin in Dallas The man has no soul. If you don?t believe me here's a video of Jennings pooping while obviously intoxicated: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctsCiuSy76s, **** If you're not willing to click the link, here are some of the more choice lines: "Oh yeah, it burns. It burns so much." "Hopefully I didn't just get my jimmy on camera." "God damn, Maker, I'm gonna need you to lick my butthole later tonight." It might not be so bad if this were a one time occurence but it isn?t. Jennings loves to be ?caught on tape? when he poops, more evidence @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0LdpsDSxgk Please note that the embarrassment in this video stems from being caught with his shirt off, not from being taped taking a dump. Needless to say, all of this is not as embarrassing as when Phil got caught whacking off on all fours to National Geographic. Jennings' fascination with pooping runs so deep that he has invested in a colon cleanser. You know, one of those pills you take for a few weeks that's supposed to make you poop out all the hardened poop that's stored inside your colon. When asked why anyone would want to use such a product, Jennings replied, "Dude, I was watching the infomercial, and this lady said that the hard poops feel as hard as rubber hoses, and you sometimes have to pull them out of your butt with your hands. Isn't that fucked up? ...I gotta buy some." I guess in the world of Andrew Jennings, it doesn't get much better than a rubber hose up your ass. Take note, Sara. Chapter 5: Curly and Tootles reminisce on Jennings love of the ladies Jennings? parents: I?m sorry. I understand that you are reading this, but you should seriously stop, seriously. If you still are reading, you should know that not everything in this bio is true, a lot of the stories and examples are blown out of proportion. Like: if I mention that ?Jennings has the hiv?, it probably just means he has multiple other non-life threatening STD?s. And, he doesn?t really have ED, he?s usually just too drunk to get it up. Jennings tactics for attracting women have been described as ?savagely guerilla? in nature. While only mildly effective, these tactics, combined with his recent debate success, have skyrocketed his poon level to astronomical heights. But for Jennings, success didn?t always come so easy. There was once a time when he had to work for the poonani. Jennings will readily admit that in order to get a girl to touch his penis for the first time he used the pick up line, ?I?ve got a secret if you come to my room? Jennings didn?t really have a secret, but she did have 12 fingers. Speaking of the number 12, Jennings once hooked up with a 16-year-old girl. Upon hearing this story, Quigley insisted that he had hooked up with the very same girl, only he was in high school at the time. This was obviously a lie, since Quigley doesn?t have a penis, and his parents are polyamorous. He?s a little touchy about the subject because until the DNA tests come we won?t know the true identity of his father, but that?s a story for another time (that is, if they make a separate bio for 4-year NDT scouts). Another time, Jennings also dated a retarded girl? (not Sara Stephens ? this was a different one) To make matters worse Jennings is an alcoholic (for proof see yet another YouTube moment in the life of A.J.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG6L2rzD7dY) Not a social drinker, I mean a full blown alcoholic, he drinks heavily everyday. He was so drunk at the NDT that he didn?t remember meeting Sara Stephens. His new girlfriend, Sara, seems to be working out pretty well, and we?re all happy to welcome her to the Kansas family (if Nate didn?t do that already). But Jennings drinking to the point of amnesia is not unusual; Jennings usually doesn?t remember anything after 8 o?clock. He even drinks on family holidays, like Christmas. This year on Christmas he talked to Jessica Yeats at 3 in the afternoon, after a long morning of drinking. This conversation ensued: Jesukamarie: hey Jennings, how?s your Christmas Studaj13: I?m dronk, wil yu go out with me? Jesukamarie: Jennings, I have a boyfriend, and if I didn?t, I wouldn?t date you Studaj13: will you come be a grad stdent at KU? You can love with me and brinker. Jesukamarie: No. Jennings you are making me feel uncomfortable. Studaj13: But I love you. Like I serious love you. Not like I love my mom, or brinker. I am in love with you. Jesukamarie: Alright Jennings, have a good Christmas. Jennings always makes the best decisions when he?s drunk. Sara Stephens? Yea I know she?s sucking out his soul. She always does this, why do you think Casey is such a douchebag? We?re just kidding Sara, Casey?s always been a douchebag. With Jennings? fast paced lifestyle, women come and go. However, his one true love always remains the same: titties. Manboobs, chicks, it doesn?t matter. He just loves them. Jennings loves gigantor tits so much, he once said, ?I mean, if Repko had a fat set of tits, I?d totally fuck?em. BALLIN!? Now, this isn?t to say Jennings won?t grab an ass or two. He actually loves asses; he?s just a little more particular about which asses he will grab One time Jennings was so fucked up that he thought it would be a good idea to fight Bricker, needless to say, Bricker ?Debbie Lai?ed? his ass, and Jennings was down for the count. You get it? Like when Debbie punched Julie Hoehn? Only Bricker actually connected the punch. Last year at the ADI, at the Dream Palace (a live nude dancing establishment), Monique and Jasmine rode Jennings around for 25 minutes: Jennings shelled out 852 dollars. Sorry Papa Jennings, that ?emergency money? he asked for didn?t pay his tuition. By ?rode? I mean, they stripped him down to his boxers, tied him up with a leather leash, made him get down on all fours, and whipped him until he barked like a dog. At least he got a free T-Shirt. This story isn?t even all that funny. We just love to tell it?it makes Jennings blush. On top of all this shame, we actually went out and solicited comments about Jennings from his past uhh girlfriends? Here is what one young woman (who wished to remain anonymous) had to say: Bricker312: Did you have any nicknames for Jeninngs? TigerLily: Yeah, I liked to call him the minnow. He called me the pond. Bricker312: The minnow? TigerLily: Yeah, like the slimy little green things that hang out in dirty ponds. It?s a play on his penis and my vagina. Bricker312: Gotcha. One not so anonymous D3 (Natalie Pennington) young woman also had some contributions: Bricker312: Hey natpen, we?re trying to come up with some nicknames for Jennings, did you have any? Promisingpenny: Well, one time we were about to have sex and he was too drunk to get it up. So we laid there awhile and it was pretty awkward. Then, he stood up on the bed with the covers wrapped around his shoulders like a cape, and screamed ?I?M BATMAN?. I almost shit myself. Bricker312: Holy shit, are you fucking serious? Please tell me you?re making that up. Promisingpenny: No, I?m not. The weird thing is, after he got into the role, he finally got it up, and it was the best sex of my life. So I usually call him batman. Chapter 6: Captain Hook, the Jolly Roger, and the ticking crocodile Every good story needs a villan(s) and our story is no different. For every Peter Pan there is always a Captain Hook and for Jennings that Captain Hook was OU CJ. In their last 11 debates, ranging back to second semester last year, Jennings was 2-9 against them. While that is truly a staggering record of defeat it was not like they were breaking new arguments against him either he keep losing on Nietzsche and the Environmental Management K. One would think that if you kept losing to those two positions that you rectify this situation, but then again we are talking about Jennings here. Luckily for Jennings the Crocodile ate Captain Hook and the Jolly Roger. But the ticking crocodile has another important function in the story of Peter Pan it represents the inescapable time. Time is chasing after all of us. It got OU CJ and soon it will get Peter and Lost Boys. So live it up Jennings we all hope next year will be your best. For those of you who don?t know Andrew he is possibly the nicest and most humble debater you will ever meet. And like Peter he lives his life as the happy go lucky wanderer who never seems like he is going to grow up. This is a good thing. Andrew is one guy that no matter the situation he always has a smile on his face, and the best thing about it is its infectious. But behind that smile is kid who works his ass off. To give you an example I called him the other day and had this conversation: Me: Jennings what up? Jennings: I?m drunk baby Me: It 3 in the afternoon Jennings: I know I?m also cutting cards Me: cutting cards on what? Jennings: the Middle East Ballin! This was the week before they announced the topic area. To conclude Jennings is truly a cool cat and we all love him. When the ticking crocodile finally catches up with you You will be missed. Congratulations on a great year and being recognized as one of the best debaters in the country because we already knew you were. The Appendix *At the outset would like to sincerely apologize for offending anyone. Many members of the KU debate team and coaching staff contributed to this but all final edits were made by Brett Bricker so please direct all complaints and criticism to him at charrigan at gmail.com. We are sure that some people will read this bio and believe that the Lost Boys must be vanquished. Just keep in mind it is all in jest. We really love Jennings and everyone mentioned in the bio?well we really do love everyone mentioned in the bio?Jennings is another story. ** Or people for that matter. Everyone that we mention we explicitly got their permission, this includes, Nat Pen, Tiara, Sara Stephens, and the entire KU debate squad. We promise. My bad we forgot to ask Bryce but I?m sure he?s cool. One other thing when I said animals?I was using something I saw on a movie once?I was not referring to women or men as animals. Just keep that in mind ***we don?t actually consider what Bard does ?making arguments? but I suppose lots of you debate hippies think Chucky dolls would be very interesting and postmodern. **** That video is kinda gross. Click at your own risk! From berchnorto Fri May 4 14:14:45 2007 From: berchnorto (NEIL BERCH) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 15:14:45 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #10 - ANDREW JENNINGS References: <77F5C25BB3DA234BA41147650860C48001D2B426@MAILBOXONE.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Good to see that last year's lessons were learned so well. --Neil Berch West Virginia University ----- Original Message ----- From: Bricker, Brett Jacob To: edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 3:11 PM Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #10 - ANDREW JENNINGS "DCA Debater #10 - ANDREW JENNINGS. Andrew received 24 total points THE STORY OF ANDREW (PETER PAN) JENNINGS AS RETOLD BY THE LOST BOYS, AND TINKERBELL This is the (more or less) true story of Andrew J. Jennings. Really it is more than a story--it is a tale, a legend if you will. Jennings' tale is a cautionary one and is not for the thin skinned or weak hearted. This biography is based on a true story of a boy who became.well a boy. In many ways this is the story of Peter Pan (if you can imagine Peter Pan in a wife beater, drunk, pooping, and saying some of the most offensive things known to man) or should I say the Bizarro Peter Pan. In this story Peter doesn't fly or vanquish Captain Hook (read: Oklahoma CJ) instead Peter spends all his time in Neverland drinking and searching for the next object of Jon's to deposit his ass butter on or in. So enjoy the tale as told by the Lost Boys and Girls of the KU squad.* From here on out whenever you read the name Jennings you should replace it with Peter Pan.it will make everything all the more ridiculous. Trust me. Lastly, no animals were harmed in the making of this bio. ** Chapter 1: The beginning: a recount of the early years by Nibs Jennings grew up in Western Kansas, where, he had to walk 8 miles to the nearest store. Many people don't know about the major differences between eastern Kansas and western Kansas (because the whole state is so backward) but western Kansas barely qualifies as livable. It's too underdeveloped for even the Quakers to inhabit. The people are so savage that they make Conor and Blake's people look almost civilized. The savages of western Kansas did teach Jennings one thing, and that was that nothing is more important than family. I guess that's why for almost a year he tried to fuck his sister. Sure, she's technically his step-sister, and she's really hot, but we still had to explain to him that intercourse with a family member is not socially acceptable, unless your sister's name is Andy Casey. Nonetheless she is H-O-T (ask Bryce D., he definitely got shot down by her for a full semester). In fact, Jennings has three sisters who are all really fucking hot; I wish you could see them. In the words of Ben Warner, "I would cut off my left nut and four of my toes for one chance to pop it in her pooper." It's like his sisters didn't come from the same parents as that savage. Jennings never lets anyone see what's on his computer. We think it's because he has a ton of granny-porn. He also has 4 gigs of videos of his sisters. Bricker stole these, and jerks off to them all the time. Speaking of weird porn collections, everyone should ask Jon Wright about his file of pictures titled "nudy pb debate pics". Jennings still has a few things he takes from his time in western Kansas: the way he holds a fork, a horrible fear of Chucky dolls and his complete inability to act like a human in almost every situation. The fork thing is easy to understand. He holds it in a balled up fist like it's a sword. This is probably because of how he was raised. People in western Kansas don't have easy access to food and need to be constantly ready to stab their dinner. I suspect that Jennings once tried to eat before his food was all the way dead and it ran away, forcing him to go to bed hungry. He'll only make that mistake once. The Chucky doll thing is a bit more difficult to explain. He is terrified of them. In fact, I recommend Bard add Chucky dolls to their argumentative*** arsenal---it is likely to secure them a few big wins next year. We suspect his fear comes from the time a hobo dressed as a clown stumbled through his village and made friendly with little Jennings (by "made friendly"--we mean molested-that's right, Jennings was molested by a clown. Explains a lot doesn't it?). Chapter 2: Trapped in the Kensington Gardens or The high school years, ibid (and for those of you who don't know what ibid means I refer you to: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2003-February/046668.html) Jennings sucked at debate. He was top in his high school class by virtue of his ability to read and write, but he was still absolutely incontinent (I was trying to write incompetent but Word mis-corrected my misspelling-I decided to keep incontinent because it seemed accurate enough). He once told Mick, "Most people don't know this, but I might be retarded." In reality, everybody knows this. > Every member of the KU debate team and coaching staff even Joel Kasten (who is absolutely terrible at debate and life now that I think about it) qualified for NFL Nationals. Everyone that is, except for Andrew Jennings, who took a severe beating at the hands of Samantha Foley (of Baylor Fame) in his qualifying round. Joel actually qualified twice, infinitely more times than Jennings. Again, Jennings never went to NFL and really sucked at debate. Every single one of our debaters that is not Jennings qualified for nationals; even Quigley, who is a total bitch. Jennings also tried wrestling, which he sucked at. He was once getting his ass whipped by some dude and decided to "check his oil" mid match. When I say "check his oil" I mean Jennings got two knuckles deep in this dudes ass. Two knuckles. Chapter 3: Tinkerbell details Jennings' academic prowess Once described as the "smartest dumb person we know," it should come as no surprise that Jennings is sometimes lacking in terms of academic excellence. While it is true that Jennings does attend class (sometimes), he does not always attend class sober. In fact, during one drunken class session, Jennings was responsible for presenting a project that he and members of his group had completed. In order to successfully complete the presentation, Jennings needed to connect his laptop to the projector to show some slides to the class. After getting set up, Jennings began his presentation. Almost immediately Jennings noticed some snickering, which soon turned into laughing and pointing. The professor then screeched, "OH MY! INAPPROPRIATE MATERIAL!" Alarmed by her response, Jennings turned around to see "I LOVE PENIS!" displayed prominently in the center of the screen, as the title of one of his word documents.and there it was for the whole class to see. Even when he is sober, however, he does not necessarily strive for total academic success. In fact, just the other day, Jennings was in a race with the clock to finish an online econ exam before the 12PM deadline. With less than 30 minutes to complete the test, he sat down on the couch with Sara Stephens looking over his shoulder. The two endeavored to successfully complete the exam together. After reading each question, Sara would ask, "What does that mean?" Jennings would respond, "I don't fuckin' know" and then promptly close his eyes to choose one of the multiple choice answers. They were done with the exam in 4 minutes. No word yet on his score. Chapter 4: Slightly explains Jennings love of the scatological Jennings loves pooping. He loves it so much that there's an entire section of this DCA bio committed to stories about Jennings pooping. Places Jennings has actually pooped: -The floor of Nate's dining room -The windshield of Jon's car -The upper deck of Jon's toilet -Jon's chest -The chest of his girlfriends, then they reciprocated. -In a bag, which was then surreptitiously given to Jon Places Jennings has actually peed: -In pop bottles in his car, while driving -Shumaker's closet -Jon's patio -Ronnie's shower -The parking lot at the Westin in Dallas The man has no soul. If you don't believe me here's a video of Jennings pooping while obviously intoxicated: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctsCiuSy76s, **** If you're not willing to click the link, here are some of the more choice lines: "Oh yeah, it burns. It burns so much." "Hopefully I didn't just get my jimmy on camera." "God damn, Maker, I'm gonna need you to lick my butthole later tonight." It might not be so bad if this were a one time occurence but it isn't. Jennings loves to be "caught on tape" when he poops, more evidence @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0LdpsDSxgk Please note that the embarrassment in this video stems from being caught with his shirt off, not from being taped taking a dump. Needless to say, all of this is not as embarrassing as when Phil got caught whacking off on all fours to National Geographic. Jennings' fascination with pooping runs so deep that he has invested in a colon cleanser. You know, one of those pills you take for a few weeks that's supposed to make you poop out all the hardened poop that's stored inside your colon. When asked why anyone would want to use such a product, Jennings replied, "Dude, I was watching the infomercial, and this lady said that the hard poops feel as hard as rubber hoses, and you sometimes have to pull them out of your butt with your hands. Isn't that fucked up? ...I gotta buy some." I guess in the world of Andrew Jennings, it doesn't get much better than a rubber hose up your ass. Take note, Sara. Chapter 5: Curly and Tootles reminisce on Jennings love of the ladies Jennings' parents: I'm sorry. I understand that you are reading this, but you should seriously stop, seriously. If you still are reading, you should know that not everything in this bio is true, a lot of the stories and examples are blown out of proportion. Like: if I mention that "Jennings has the hiv", it probably just means he has multiple other non-life threatening STD's. And, he doesn't really have ED, he's usually just too drunk to get it up. Jennings tactics for attracting women have been described as "savagely guerilla" in nature. While only mildly effective, these tactics, combined with his recent debate success, have skyrocketed his poon level to astronomical heights. But for Jennings, success didn't always come so easy. There was once a time when he had to work for the poonani. Jennings will readily admit that in order to get a girl to touch his penis for the first time he used the pick up line, "I've got a secret if you come to my room" Jennings didn't really have a secret, but she did have 12 fingers. Speaking of the number 12, Jennings once hooked up with a 16-year-old girl. Upon hearing this story, Quigley insisted that he had hooked up with the very same girl, only he was in high school at the time. This was obviously a lie, since Quigley doesn't have a penis, and his parents are polyamorous. He's a little touchy about the subject because until the DNA tests come we won't know the true identity of his father, but that's a story for another time (that is, if they make a separate bio for 4-year NDT scouts). Another time, Jennings also dated a retarded girl? (not Sara Stephens - this was a different one) To make matters worse Jennings is an alcoholic (for proof see yet another YouTube moment in the life of A.J.: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG6L2rzD7dY) Not a social drinker, I mean a full blown alcoholic, he drinks heavily everyday. He was so drunk at the NDT that he didn't remember meeting Sara Stephens. His new girlfriend, Sara, seems to be working out pretty well, and we're all happy to welcome her to the Kansas family (if Nate didn't do that already). But Jennings drinking to the point of amnesia is not unusual; Jennings usually doesn't remember anything after 8 o'clock. He even drinks on family holidays, like Christmas. This year on Christmas he talked to Jessica Yeats at 3 in the afternoon, after a long morning of drinking. This conversation ensued: Jesukamarie: hey Jennings, how's your Christmas Studaj13: I'm dronk, wil yu go out with me? Jesukamarie: Jennings, I have a boyfriend, and if I didn't, I wouldn't date you Studaj13: will you come be a grad stdent at KU? You can love with me and brinker. Jesukamarie: No. Jennings you are making me feel uncomfortable. Studaj13: But I love you. Like I serious love you. Not like I love my mom, or brinker. I am in love with you. Jesukamarie: Alright Jennings, have a good Christmas. Jennings always makes the best decisions when he's drunk. Sara Stephens? Yea I know she's sucking out his soul. She always does this, why do you think Casey is such a douchebag? We're just kidding Sara, Casey's always been a douchebag. With Jennings' fast paced lifestyle, women come and go. However, his one true love always remains the same: titties. Manboobs, chicks, it doesn't matter. He just loves them. Jennings loves gigantor tits so much, he once said, "I mean, if Repko had a fat set of tits, I'd totally fuck'em. BALLIN!" Now, this isn't to say Jennings won't grab an ass or two. He actually loves asses; he's just a little more particular about which asses he will grab. > One time Jennings was so fucked up that he thought it would be a good idea to fight Bricker, needless to say, Bricker "Debbie Lai'ed" his ass, and Jennings was down for the count. You get it? Like when Debbie punched Julie Hoehn? Only Bricker actually connected the punch. Last year at the ADI, at the Dream Palace (a live nude dancing establishment), Monique and Jasmine rode Jennings around for 25 minutes: Jennings shelled out 852 dollars. Sorry Papa Jennings, that "emergency money" he asked for didn't pay his tuition. By "rode" I mean, they stripped him down to his boxers, tied him up with a leather leash, made him get down on all fours, and whipped him until he barked like a dog. At least he got a free T-Shirt. This story isn't even all that funny. We just love to tell it-it makes Jennings blush. On top of all this shame, we actually went out and solicited comments about Jennings from his past.uhh girlfriends? Here is what one young woman (who wished to remain anonymous) had to say: Bricker312: Did you have any nicknames for Jeninngs? TigerLily: Yeah, I liked to call him the minnow. He called me the pond. Bricker312: The minnow? TigerLily: Yeah, like the slimy little green things that hang out in dirty ponds. It's a play on his penis and my vagina. Bricker312: Gotcha. One not so anonymous D3 (Natalie Pennington) young woman also had some contributions: Bricker312: Hey natpen, we're trying to come up with some nicknames for Jennings, did you have any? Promisingpenny: Well, one time we were about to have sex and he was too drunk to get it up. So we laid there awhile and it was pretty awkward. Then, he stood up on the bed with the covers wrapped around his shoulders like a cape, and screamed "I'M BATMAN". I almost shit myself. Bricker312: Holy shit, are you fucking serious? Please tell me you're making that up. Promisingpenny: No, I'm not. The weird thing is, after he got into the role, he finally got it up, and it was the best sex of my life. So I usually call him batman. Chapter 6: Captain Hook, the Jolly Roger, and the ticking crocodile Every good story needs a villan(s) and our story is no different. For every Peter Pan there is always a Captain Hook and for Jennings that Captain Hook was OU CJ. In their last 11 debates, ranging back to second semester last year, Jennings was 2-9 against them. While that is truly a staggering record of defeat it was not like they were breaking new arguments against him either he keep losing on Nietzsche and the Environmental Management K. One would think that if you kept losing to those two positions that you rectify this situation, but then again we are talking about Jennings here. Luckily for Jennings the Crocodile ate Captain Hook and the Jolly Roger. But the ticking crocodile has another important function in the story of Peter Pan it represents the inescapable.time. Time is chasing after all of us. It got OU CJ and soon it will get Peter and Lost Boys. So live it up Jennings we all hope next year will be your best. For those of you who don't know Andrew he is possibly the nicest and most humble debater you will ever meet. And like Peter he lives his life as the happy go lucky wanderer who never seems like he is going to grow up. This is a good thing. Andrew is one guy that no matter the situation he always has a smile on his face, and the best thing about it is its infectious. But behind that smile is kid who works his ass off. To give you an example I called him the other day and had this conversation: Me: Jennings what up? Jennings: I'm drunk baby Me: It 3 in the afternoon Jennings: I know I'm also cutting cards Me: cutting cards on what? Jennings: the Middle East Ballin! This was the week before they announced the topic area. To conclude Jennings is truly a cool cat and we all love him. When the ticking crocodile finally catches up with you.You will be missed. Congratulations on a great year and being recognized as one of the best debaters in the country because we already knew you were. The Appendix *At the outset would like to sincerely apologize for offending anyone. Many members of the KU debate team and coaching staff contributed to this but all final edits were made by Brett Bricker so please direct all complaints and criticism to him at charrigan at gmail.com. We are sure that some people will read this bio and believe that the Lost Boys must be vanquished. Just keep in mind it is all in jest. We really love Jennings and everyone mentioned in the bio-well we really do love everyone mentioned in the bio-Jennings is another story. ** Or people for that matter. Everyone that we mention we explicitly got their permission, this includes, Nat Pen, Tiara, Sara Stephens, and the entire KU debate squad. We promise. My bad we forgot to ask Bryce but I'm sure he's cool. One other thing when I said animals-I was using something I saw on a movie once-I was not referring to women or men as animals. Just keep that in mind ***we don't actually consider what Bard does "making arguments" but I suppose lots of you debate hippies think Chucky dolls would be very interesting and postmodern. **** That video is kinda gross. Click at your own risk! _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070504/03756866/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 Fri May 4 14:25:13 2007 From: jbhdb8 (Josh) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 15:25:13 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #10 - ANDREW JENNINGS In-Reply-To: <77F5C25BB3DA234BA41147650860C48001D2B426@MAILBOXONE.home.ku.edu> References: <77F5C25BB3DA234BA41147650860C48001D2B426@MAILBOXONE.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Well, ironic depictions of women given the controversy including KU last year that ended in an NDT affirmative? One wonders if the "entire" KU squad was on board...and if so? How? Josh On 5/4/07, Bricker, Brett Jacob wrote: > > "DCA Debater #10 - ANDREW JENNINGS. Andrew received 24 total points > > THE STORY OF ANDREW (PETER PAN) JENNINGS AS RETOLD BY THE LOST BOYS, AND > TINKERBELL > This is the (more or less) true story of Andrew J. Jennings. Really it is > more than a story--it is a tale, a legend if you will. Jennings' tale is a > cautionary one and is not for the thin skinned or weak hearted. This > biography is based on a true story of a boy who became?well a boy. In > many ways this is the story of Peter Pan (if you can imagine Peter Pan in a > wife beater, drunk, pooping, and saying some of the most offensive things > known to man) or should I say the Bizarro Peter Pan. In this story Peter > doesn't fly or vanquish Captain Hook (read: Oklahoma CJ) instead Peter > spends all his time in Neverland drinking and searching for the next object > of Jon's to deposit his ass butter on or in. So enjoy the tale as told by > the Lost Boys and Girls of the KU squad.* From here on out whenever you read > the name Jennings you should replace it with Peter Pan?it will make > everything all the more ridiculous. Trust me. Lastly, no animals were > harmed in the making of this bio. ** > Chapter 1: The beginning: a recount of the early years by Nibs > Jennings grew up in Western Kansas, where, he had to walk 8 miles to the > nearest store. Many people don't know about the major differences between > eastern Kansas and western Kansas (because the whole state is so backward) > but western Kansas barely qualifies as livable. It's too underdeveloped for > even the Quakers to inhabit. The people are so savage that they make Conor > and Blake's people look almost civilized. > The savages of western Kansas did teach Jennings one thing, and that was > that nothing is more important than family. I guess that's why for almost a > year he tried to fuck his sister. Sure, she's technically his step-sister, > and she's really hot, but we still had to explain to him that intercourse > with a family member is not socially acceptable, unless your sister's name > is Andy Casey. Nonetheless she is H-O-T (ask Bryce D., he definitely got > shot down by her for a full semester). In fact, Jennings has three sisters > who are all really fucking hot; I wish you could see them. In the words of > Ben Warner, "I would cut off my left nut and four of my toes for one chance > to pop it in her pooper." It's like his sisters didn't come from the same > parents as that savage. > Jennings never lets anyone see what's on his computer. We think it's > because he has a ton of granny-porn. He also has 4 gigs of videos of his > sisters. Bricker stole these, and jerks off to them all the time. Speaking > of weird porn collections, everyone should ask Jon Wright about his file of > pictures titled "nudy pb debate pics". > Jennings still has a few things he takes from his time in western Kansas: > the way he holds a fork, a horrible fear of Chucky dolls and his complete > inability to act like a human in almost every situation. The fork thing is > easy to understand. He holds it in a balled up fist like it's a sword. This > is probably because of how he was raised. People in western Kansas don't > have easy access to food and need to be constantly ready to stab their > dinner. I suspect that Jennings once tried to eat before his food was all > the way dead and it ran away, forcing him to go to bed hungry. He'll only > make that mistake once. > The Chucky doll thing is a bit more difficult to explain. He is > terrified of them. In fact, I recommend Bard add Chucky dolls to their > argumentative*** arsenal---it is likely to secure them a few big wins next > year. We suspect his fear comes from the time a hobo dressed as a clown > stumbled through his village and made friendly with little Jennings (by > "made friendly"--we mean molested?that's right, Jennings was molested by a > clown. Explains a lot doesn't it?). > Chapter 2: Trapped in the Kensington Gardens or The high school years, > ibid (and for those of you who don't know what ibid means I refer you to: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2003-February/046668.html) > Jennings sucked at debate. He was top in his high school class by virtue > of his ability to read and write, but he was still absolutely incontinent (I > was trying to write incompetent but Word mis-corrected my misspelling?I > decided to keep incontinent because it seemed accurate enough). He once told > Mick, "Most people don't know this, but I might be retarded." In reality, > everybody knows this. http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2651/1455/1600/11-18-05_1604.jpg> Every > member of the KU debate team and coaching staff even Joel Kasten (who is > absolutely terrible at debate and life now that I think about it) qualified > for NFL Nationals. Everyone that is, except for Andrew Jennings, who took a > severe beating at the hands of Samantha Foley (of Baylor Fame) in his > qualifying round. Joel actually qualified twice, infinitely more times than > Jennings. Again, Jennings never went to NFL and really sucked at debate. > Every single one of our debaters that is not Jennings qualified for > nationals; even Quigley, who is a total bitch. > Jennings also tried wrestling, which he sucked at. He was once getting his > ass whipped by some dude and decided to "check his oil" mid match. When I > say "check his oil" I mean Jennings got two knuckles deep in this dudes ass. > Two knuckles. > Chapter 3: Tinkerbell details Jennings' academic prowess > Once described as the "smartest dumb person we know," it should come as no > surprise that Jennings is sometimes lacking in terms of academic excellence. > While it is true that Jennings does attend class (sometimes), he does not > always attend class sober. In fact, during one drunken class session, > Jennings was responsible for presenting a project that he and members of his > group had completed. In order to successfully complete the presentation, > Jennings needed to connect his laptop to the projector to show some slides > to the class. After getting set up, Jennings began his presentation. Almost > immediately Jennings noticed some snickering, which soon turned into > laughing and pointing. The professor then screeched, "OH MY! INAPPROPRIATE > MATERIAL!" Alarmed by her response, Jennings turned around to see "I LOVE > PENIS!" displayed prominently in the center of the screen, as the title of > one of his word documents?and there it was for the whole class to see. > Even when he is sober, however, he does not necessarily strive for total > academic success. In fact, just the other day, Jennings was in a race with > the clock to finish an online econ exam before the 12PM deadline. With less > than 30 minutes to complete the test, he sat down on the couch with Sara > Stephens looking over his shoulder. The two endeavored to successfully > complete the exam together. After reading each question, Sara would ask, > "What does that mean?" Jennings would respond, "I don't fuckin' know" and > then promptly close his eyes to choose one of the multiple choice > answers. They were done with the exam in 4 minutes. No word yet on his > score? > Chapter 4: Slightly explains Jennings love of the scatological > Jennings loves pooping. He loves it so much that there's an entire > section of this DCA bio committed to stories about Jennings pooping. > Places Jennings has actually pooped: > -The floor of Nate's dining room > -The windshield of Jon's car > -The upper deck of Jon's toilet > -Jon's chest > -The chest of his girlfriends, then they reciprocated. > -In a bag, which was then surreptitiously given to Jon > Places Jennings has actually peed: > -In pop bottles in his car, while driving > -Shumaker's closet > -Jon's patio > -Ronnie's shower > -The parking lot at the Westin in Dallas > > The man has no soul. If you don't believe me here's a video of Jennings > pooping while obviously intoxicated: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctsCiuSy76s, **** > > If you're not willing to click the link, here are some of the more choice > lines: > "Oh yeah, it burns. It burns so much." > "Hopefully I didn't just get my jimmy on camera." > "God damn, Maker, I'm gonna need you to lick my butthole later tonight." > It might not be so bad if this were a one time occurence but it > isn't. Jennings loves to be "caught on tape" when he poops, more evidence @ > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0LdpsDSxgk > Please note that the embarrassment in this video stems from being caught > with his shirt off, not from being taped taking a dump. Needless to say, all > of this is not as embarrassing as when Phil got caught whacking off on all > fours to National Geographic. > Jennings' fascination with pooping runs so deep that he has invested in a > colon cleanser. You know, one of those pills you take for a few weeks > that's supposed to make you poop out all the hardened poop that's stored > inside your colon. When asked why anyone would want to use such a product, > Jennings replied, "Dude, I was watching the infomercial, and this lady said > that the hard poops feel as hard as rubber hoses, and you sometimes have to > pull them out of your butt with your hands. Isn't that fucked up? ...I > gotta buy some." I guess in the world of Andrew Jennings, it doesn't get > much better than a rubber hose up your ass. Take note, Sara. > Chapter 5: Curly and Tootles reminisce on Jennings love of the ladies > Jennings' parents: I'm sorry. I understand that you are reading this, but > you should seriously stop, seriously. If you still are reading, you should > know that not everything in this bio is true, a lot of the stories and > examples are blown out of proportion. Like: if I mention that "Jennings has > the hiv", it probably just means he has multiple other non-life threatening > STD's. And, he doesn't really have ED, he's usually just too drunk to get > it up. > Jennings tactics for attracting women have been described as "savagely > guerilla" in nature. While only mildly effective, these tactics, combined > with his recent debate success, have skyrocketed his poon level to > astronomical heights. But for Jennings, success didn't always come so > easy. There was once a time when he had to work for the poonani. Jennings > will readily admit that in order to get a girl to touch his penis for the > first time he used the pick up line, "I've got a secret if you come to my > room" Jennings didn't really have a secret, but she did have 12 fingers. > Speaking of the number 12, Jennings once hooked up with a 16-year-old > girl. Upon hearing this story, Quigley insisted that he had hooked up with > the very same girl, only he was in high school at the time. This was > obviously a lie, since Quigley doesn't have a penis, and his parents are > polyamorous. He's a little touchy about the subject because until the DNA > tests come we won't know the true identity of his father, but that's a story > for another time (that is, if they make a separate bio for 4-year NDT > scouts). Another time, Jennings also dated a retarded girl? (not Sara > Stephens ? this was a different one) > To make matters worse Jennings is an alcoholic (for proof see yet another > YouTube moment in the life of A.J.: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG6L2rzD7dY) Not a social drinker, I mean a > full blown alcoholic, he drinks heavily everyday. He was so drunk at the > NDT that he didn't remember meeting Sara Stephens. His new girlfriend, Sara, > seems to be working out pretty well, and we're all happy to welcome her to > the Kansas family (if Nate didn't do that already). But Jennings drinking > to the point of amnesia is not unusual; Jennings usually doesn't remember > anything after 8 o'clock. He even drinks on family holidays, like > Christmas. This year on Christmas he talked to Jessica Yeats at 3 in the > afternoon, after a long morning of drinking. This conversation ensued: > Jesukamarie: hey Jennings, how's your Christmas > Studaj13: I'm dronk, wil yu go out with me? > Jesukamarie: Jennings, I have a boyfriend, and if I didn't, I wouldn't > date you > Studaj13: will you come be a grad stdent at KU? You can love with me and > brinker. > Jesukamarie: No. Jennings you are making me feel uncomfortable. > Studaj13: But I love you. Like I serious love you. Not like I love my > mom, or brinker. I am in love with you. > Jesukamarie: Alright Jennings, have a good Christmas. > > Jennings always makes the best decisions when he's drunk. Sara > Stephens? Yea I know she's sucking out his soul. She always does this, why > do you think Casey is such a douchebag? We're just kidding Sara, Casey's > always been a douchebag. With Jennings' fast paced lifestyle, women come > and go. However, his one true love always remains the > same: titties. Manboobs, chicks, it doesn't matter. He just loves them. > Jennings loves gigantor tits so much, he once said, "I mean, if Repko had a > fat set of tits, I'd totally fuck'em. BALLIN!" Now, this isn't to say > Jennings won't grab an ass or two. He actually loves asses; he's just a > little more particular about which asses he will grab? > > One time Jennings was so fucked up that he thought it would be a > good idea to fight Bricker, needless to say, Bricker "Debbie Lai'ed" his > ass, and Jennings was down for the count. You get it? Like when Debbie > punched Julie Hoehn? Only Bricker actually connected the punch. > Last year at the ADI, at the Dream Palace (a live nude dancing > establishment), Monique and Jasmine rode Jennings around for 25 minutes: > Jennings shelled out 852 dollars. Sorry Papa Jennings, that "emergency > money" he asked for didn't pay his tuition. By "rode" I mean, they stripped > him down to his boxers, tied him up with a leather leash, made him get down > on all fours, and whipped him until he barked like a dog. At least he got a > free T-Shirt. This story isn't even all that funny. We just love to tell > it?it makes Jennings blush. > On top of all this shame, we actually went out and solicited > comments about Jennings from his past?uhh girlfriends? Here is what one > young woman (who wished to remain anonymous) had to say: > Bricker312: Did you have any nicknames for Jeninngs? > TigerLily: Yeah, I liked to call him the minnow. He called me the pond. > Bricker312: The minnow? > TigerLily: Yeah, like the slimy little green things that hang out in dirty > ponds. It's a play on his penis and my vagina. > Bricker312: Gotcha. > > One not so anonymous D3 (Natalie Pennington) young woman also had some > contributions: > Bricker312: Hey natpen, we're trying to come up with some nicknames for > Jennings, did you have any? > Promisingpenny: Well, one time we were about to have sex and he was too > drunk to get it up. So we laid there awhile and it was pretty > awkward. Then, he stood up on the bed with the covers wrapped around his > shoulders like a cape, and screamed "I'M BATMAN". I almost shit myself. > Bricker312: Holy shit, are you fucking serious? Please tell me you're > making that up. > Promisingpenny: No, I'm not. The weird thing is, after he got into the > role, he finally got it up, and it was the best sex of my life. So I > usually call him batman. > Chapter 6: Captain Hook, the Jolly Roger, and the ticking > crocodile > Every good story needs a villan(s) and our story is no > different. For every Peter Pan there is always a Captain Hook and for > Jennings that Captain Hook was OU CJ. In their last 11 debates, ranging > back to second semester last year, Jennings was 2-9 against them. While > that is truly a staggering record of defeat it was not like they were > breaking new arguments against him either he keep losing on Nietzsche and > the Environmental Management K. One would think that if you kept losing to > those two positions that you rectify this situation, but then again we are > talking about Jennings here. > Luckily for Jennings the Crocodile ate Captain Hook and the Jolly > Roger. But the ticking crocodile has another important function in the > story of Peter Pan it represents the inescapable?time. Time is chasing after > all of us. It got OU CJ and soon it will get Peter and Lost Boys. So live > it up Jennings we all hope next year will be your best. For those of you > who don't know Andrew he is possibly the nicest and most humble debater you > will ever meet. And like Peter he lives his life as the happy go lucky > wanderer who never seems like he is going to grow up. This is a good > thing. Andrew is one guy that no matter the situation he always has a smile > on his face, and the best thing about it is its infectious. But behind that > smile is kid who works his ass off. To give you an example I called him the > other day and had this conversation: > Me: Jennings what up? > Jennings: I'm drunk baby > Me: It 3 in the afternoon > Jennings: I know I'm also cutting cards > Me: cutting cards on what? > Jennings: the Middle East Ballin! > This was the week before they announced the topic area. To conclude > Jennings is truly a cool cat and we all love him. When the ticking > crocodile finally catches up with you?You will be missed. Congratulations on > a great year and being recognized as one of the best debaters in the country > because we already knew you were. > The Appendix > *At the outset would like to sincerely apologize for offending anyone. > Many members of the KU debate team and coaching staff contributed to this > but all final edits were made by Brett Bricker so please direct all > complaints and criticism to him at charrigan at gmail.com. We are sure that > some people will read this bio and believe that the Lost Boys must be > vanquished. Just keep in mind it is all in jest. We really love Jennings > and everyone mentioned in the bio?well we really do love everyone mentioned > in the bio?Jennings is another story. > > ** Or people for that matter. Everyone that we mention we explicitly got > their permission, this includes, Nat Pen, Tiara, Sara Stephens, and the > entire KU debate squad. We promise. My bad we forgot to ask Bryce but I'm > sure he's cool. One other thing when I said animals?I was using something I > saw on a movie once?I was not referring to women or men as animals. Just > keep that in mind > > ***we don't actually consider what Bard does "making arguments" but I > suppose lots of you debate hippies think Chucky dolls would be very > interesting and postmodern. > > **** That video is kinda gross. Click at your own risk! > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070504/a256a459/attachment.htm From andyliudebate Fri May 4 14:35:09 2007 From: andyliudebate (andy liu) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 19:35:09 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Dear Dallas fans, Message-ID: Enjoy your unbearably hot summer. yours, Don Nelson Watching Stackhouse and Cuban lose is the only thing that tops watching Chicago beat Miami, who by the way were much more gracious losers (except for Shaq). Side predictions: 1) Phoenix beats Detroit in seven and disproves all the conservative crapfactories (99 percent of sportswriters) who say things like 'defense never wins' and 'Dallas will win because of experience.' Who thought Golden State had a shot after game one? Who thought Detroit had a shot in the 2004 finals? 2) The Nets will win tonight. Bosh is a great player, but he most certainly did not actually read all of the Odyssey: http://us.penguinclassics.com/static/html/nba/bosh.html But when he had busily performed his tasks, then he rekindled the fire, and caught sight of us, and asked: ??Strangers, who are ye? Whence do ye sail over the watery ways? Is it on some business, or do ye wander at random over the sea, even as pirates, who wander, [255] hazarding their lives and bringing evil to men of other lands?? ?So he spoke, and in our breasts our spirit was broken for terror of his deep voice and monstrous self; yet even so I made answer and spoke to him, saying: ??We, thou must know, are from Troy, Achaeans, driven wandering [260] by all manner of winds over the great gulf of the sea. Seeking our home, we have come by another way, by other paths; so, I ween, Zeus was pleased to devise. And we declare that we are the men of Agamemnon, son of Atreus, whose fame is now mightiest under heaven, [265] so great a city did he sack, and slew many people; but we on our part, thus visiting thee, have come as suppliants to thy knees, in the hope that thou wilt give us entertainment, or in other wise make some present, as is the due of strangers. Nay, mightiest one, reverence the gods; we are thy suppliants; [270] and Zeus is the avenger of suppliants and strangers--Zeus, the strangers' god--who ever attends upon reverend strangers.? ?So I spoke, and he straightway made answer with pitiless heart: ?A fool art thou, stranger, or art come from afar, seeing that thou biddest me either to fear or to shun the gods. [275] For the Cyclopes reck not of Zeus, who bears the aegis, nor of the blessed gods, since verily we are better far than they. Nor would I, to shun the wrath of Zeus, spare either thee or thy comrades, unless my own heart should bid me. But tell me where thou didst moor thy well-wrought ship on thy coming. [280] Was it haply at a remote part of the land, or close by? I fain would know.? Also, since they're translating this from Ancient Greek, why do translators use old English like 'fain,' 'thy,' 'art,' 'thou' and 'verily'? Any modern vernacular will sound anachronistic no_matter_what; do they think that this is what Ancient Greek sounded like in English? Oh my god, I hate classicists. _________________________________________________________________ Download Messenger. Join the i?m Initiative. Help make a difference today. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_APR07 From jbhdb8 Fri May 4 14:53:55 2007 From: jbhdb8 (Josh) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 15:53:55 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #10 - ANDREW JENNINGS In-Reply-To: <77F5C25BB3DA234BA41147650860C48001D2B426@MAILBOXONE.home.ku.edu> References: <77F5C25BB3DA234BA41147650860C48001D2B426@MAILBOXONE.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Hello, My understanding is that the authors are suprised by this response....in fact, saying, "how is this like last year." Several issues: "The savages of western Kansas did teach Jennings one thing, and that was that nothing is more important than family. I guess that's why for almost a year he tried to fuck his sister. Sure, she's technically his step-sister, and she's really hot, but we still had to explain to him that intercourse with a family member is not socially acceptable, unless your sister's name is Andy Casey. Nonetheless she is H-O-T (ask Bryce D., he definitely got shot down by her for a full semester). In fact, Jennings has three sisters who are all really fucking hot; I wish you could see them. In the words of Ben Warner, "I would cut off my left nut and four of my toes for one chance to pop it in her pooper." It's like his sisters didn't come from the same parents as that savage." * I feel fairly certain that Andrew's sisters did not sign on for this...nor is the language used anything but objectifying....Are you honestly telling me that Andrew and his sisters would like this being googled in later years by employers...That Andrews sisters want people to read about them in this way? Really? This is different then last year how? "He was once getting his ass whipped by some dude and decided to "check his oil" mid match. When I say "check his oil" I mean Jennings got two knuckles deep in this dudes ass. Two knuckles." **Explain this as appropriate in a public forum if you would? "While it is true that Jennings does attend class (sometimes), he does not always attend class sober. In fact, during one drunken class session, Jennings was responsible for presenting a project that he and members of his group had completed. In order to successfully complete the presentation, Jennings needed to connect his laptop to the projector to show some slides to the class. After getting set up, Jennings began his presentation. Almost immediately Jennings noticed some snickering, which soon turned into laughing and pointing. The professor then screeched, "OH MY! INAPPROPRIATE MATERIAL!" Alarmed by her response, Jennings turned around to see "I LOVE PENIS!" displayed prominently in the center of the screen, as the title of one of his word documents?and there it was for the whole class to see." ** See above, appropriate how? "Jennings loves pooping. He loves it so much that there's an entire section of this DCA bio committed to stories about Jennings pooping. Places Jennings has actually pooped: -The floor of Nate's dining room -The windshield of Jon's car -The upper deck of Jon's toilet -Jon's chest -The chest of his girlfriends, then they reciprocated. -In a bag, which was then surreptitiously given to Jon Places Jennings has actually peed: -In pop bottles in his car, while driving -Shumaker's closet -Jon's patio -Ronnie's shower -The parking lot at the Westin in Dallas The man has no soul. If you don't believe me here's a video of Jennings pooping while obviously intoxicated: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctsCiuSy76s, **** If you're not willing to click the link, here are some of the more choice lines: "Oh yeah, it burns. It burns so much." "Hopefully I didn't just get my jimmy on camera." "God damn, Maker, I'm gonna need you to lick my butthole later tonight." It might not be so bad if this were a one time occurence but it isn't. Jennings loves to be "caught on tape" when he poops, more evidence @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0LdpsDSxgk" ** More questionable, see above "Jennings tactics for attracting women have been described as "savagely guerilla" in nature. While only mildly effective, these tactics, combined with his recent debate success, have skyrocketed his poon level to astronomical heights." ** Do you find this to be empowering and affirming to women in the community? "Another time, Jennings also dated a retarded girl? (not Sara Stephens ? this was a different one)" ** I repeat the question "One time Jennings was so fucked up that he thought it would be a good idea to fight Bricker, needless to say, Bricker "Debbie Lai'ed" his ass, and Jennings was down for the count. You get it? Like when Debbie punched Julie Hoehn? Only Bricker actually connected the punch." ** more nice work "Last year at the ADI, at the Dream Palace (a live nude dancing establishment), Monique and Jasmine rode Jennings around for 25 minutes: Jennings shelled out 852 dollars. Sorry Papa Jennings, that "emergency money" he asked for didn't pay his tuition. By "rode" I mean, they stripped him down to his boxers, tied him up with a leather leash, made him get down on all fours, and whipped him until he barked like a dog. At least he got a free T-Shirt. This story isn't even all that funny. We just love to tell it?it makes Jennings blush." ** yet more "One not so anonymous D3 (Natalie Pennington) young woman also had some contributions: Bricker312: Hey natpen, we're trying to come up with some nicknames for Jennings, did you have any? Promisingpenny: Well, one time we were about to have sex and he was too drunk to get it up. So we laid there awhile and it was pretty awkward. Then, he stood up on the bed with the covers wrapped around his shoulders like a cape, and screamed "I'M BATMAN". I almost shit myself. Bricker312: Holy shit, are you fucking serious? Please tell me you're making that up. Promisingpenny: No, I'm not. The weird thing is, after he got into the role, he finally got it up, and it was the best sex of my life. So I usually call him batman." ** Even if this is with permission - probably not exactly positive community information or appropriate for a public forum Let me mention the obligatory - oh and he is a hard working and good debater was less then a paragraph, I came out in support of a member of your own squad last year for defending herself against not just what was said about her but the ATTITUDE toward women and women in debate that the post took......perhaps her message did not even manage its way through Castellaw? Josh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070504/ec043f0e/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 Fri May 4 14:55:50 2007 From: jbhdb8 (Josh) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 15:55:50 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Dear Dallas fans, In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Stay Classy Andy :) Josh On 5/4/07, andy liu wrote: > > Enjoy your unbearably hot summer. > > yours, > Don Nelson > > Watching Stackhouse and Cuban lose is the only thing that tops watching > Chicago beat Miami, who by the way were much more gracious losers (except > for Shaq). > > Side predictions: > > 1) Phoenix beats Detroit in seven and disproves all the conservative > crapfactories (99 percent of sportswriters) who say things like 'defense > never wins' and 'Dallas will win because of experience.' Who thought > Golden > State had a shot after game one? Who thought Detroit had a shot in the > 2004 > finals? > > 2) The Nets will win tonight. Bosh is a great player, but he most > certainly > did not actually read all of the Odyssey: > > http://us.penguinclassics.com/static/html/nba/bosh.html > > > But when he had busily performed his tasks, then he rekindled the fire, > and > caught sight of us, and asked: "'Strangers, who are ye? Whence do ye sail > over the watery ways? Is it on some business, or do ye wander at random > over > the sea, even as pirates, who wander, [255] hazarding their lives and > bringing evil to men of other lands?' "So he spoke, and in our breasts our > spirit was broken for terror of his deep voice and monstrous self; yet > even > so I made answer and spoke to him, saying: "'We, thou must know, are from > Troy, Achaeans, driven wandering [260] by all manner of winds over the > great > gulf of the sea. Seeking our home, we have come by another way, by other > paths; so, I ween, Zeus was pleased to devise. And we declare that we are > the men of Agamemnon, son of Atreus, whose fame is now mightiest under > heaven, [265] so great a city did he sack, and slew many people; but we on > our part, thus visiting thee, have come as suppliants to thy knees, in the > hope that thou wilt give us entertainment, or in other wise make some > present, as is the due of strangers. Nay, mightiest one, reverence the > gods; > we are thy suppliants; [270] and Zeus is the avenger of suppliants and > strangers--Zeus, the strangers' god--who ever attends upon reverend > strangers.' "So I spoke, and he straightway made answer with pitiless > heart: > 'A fool art thou, stranger, or art come from afar, seeing that thou > biddest > me either to fear or to shun the gods. [275] For the Cyclopes reck not of > Zeus, who bears the aegis, nor of the blessed gods, since verily we are > better far than they. Nor would I, to shun the wrath of Zeus, spare either > thee or thy comrades, unless my own heart should bid me. But tell me where > thou didst moor thy well-wrought ship on thy coming. [280] Was it haply at > a > remote part of the land, or close by? I fain would know.' > > Also, since they're translating this from Ancient Greek, why do > translators > use old English like 'fain,' 'thy,' 'art,' 'thou' and 'verily'? Any modern > vernacular will sound anachronistic no_matter_what; do they think that > this > is what Ancient Greek sounded like in English? Oh my god, I hate > classicists. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Download Messenger. Join the i'm Initiative. Help make a difference today. > http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_APR07 > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070504/62d13a29/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 Fri May 4 14:56:49 2007 From: jbhdb8 (Josh) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 15:56:49 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #10 - ANDREW JENNINGS In-Reply-To: References: <77F5C25BB3DA234BA41147650860C48001D2B426@MAILBOXONE.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Whoops, catelaw might not be KU (Baylor?) apologies, Josh On 5/4/07, Josh wrote: > > Hello, > > My understanding is that the authors are suprised by this response....in > fact, saying, "how is this like last year." > > Several issues: > > "The savages of western Kansas did teach Jennings one thing, and that was > that nothing is more important than family. I guess that's why for almost a > year he tried to fuck his sister. Sure, she's technically his step-sister, > and she's really hot, but we still had to explain to him that intercourse > with a family member is not socially acceptable, unless your sister's name > is Andy Casey. Nonetheless she is H-O-T (ask Bryce D., he definitely got > shot down by her for a full semester). In fact, Jennings has three sisters > who are all really fucking hot; I wish you could see them. In the words of > Ben Warner, "I would cut off my left nut and four of my toes for one chance > to pop it in her pooper." It's like his sisters didn't come from the same > parents as that savage." > > * I feel fairly certain that Andrew's sisters did not sign on for > this...nor is the language used anything but objectifying....Are you > honestly telling me that Andrew and his sisters would like this being > googled in later years by employers...That Andrews sisters want people to > read about them in this way? Really? This is different then last year > how? > > "He was once getting his ass whipped by some dude and decided to "check > his oil" mid match. When I say "check his oil" I mean Jennings got two > knuckles deep in this dudes ass. Two knuckles." > > **Explain this as appropriate in a public forum if you would? > > "While it is true that Jennings does attend class (sometimes), he does not > always attend class sober. In fact, during one drunken class session, > Jennings was responsible for presenting a project that he and members of his > group had completed. In order to successfully complete the presentation, > Jennings needed to connect his laptop to the projector to show some slides > to the class. After getting set up, Jennings began his presentation. Almost > immediately Jennings noticed some snickering, which soon turned into > laughing and pointing. The professor then screeched, "OH MY! INAPPROPRIATE > MATERIAL!" Alarmed by her response, Jennings turned around to see "I LOVE > PENIS!" displayed prominently in the center of the screen, as the title of > one of his word documents?and there it was for the whole class to see." > > ** See above, appropriate how? > > "Jennings loves pooping. He loves it so much that there's an entire > section of this DCA bio committed to stories about Jennings pooping. > Places Jennings has actually pooped: > -The floor of Nate's dining room > -The windshield of Jon's car > -The upper deck of Jon's toilet > -Jon's chest > -The chest of his girlfriends, then they reciprocated. > -In a bag, which was then surreptitiously given to Jon > Places Jennings has actually peed: > -In pop bottles in his car, while driving > -Shumaker's closet > -Jon's patio > -Ronnie's shower > -The parking lot at the Westin in Dallas > > The man has no soul. If you don't believe me here's a video of Jennings > pooping while obviously intoxicated: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctsCiuSy76s, **** > > If you're not willing to click the link, here are some of the more choice > lines: > "Oh yeah, it burns. It burns so much." > "Hopefully I didn't just get my jimmy on camera." > "God damn, Maker, I'm gonna need you to lick my butthole later tonight." > It might not be so bad if this were a one time occurence but it > isn't. Jennings loves to be "caught on tape" when he poops, more evidence @ > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0LdpsDSxgk" > > ** More questionable, see above > > "Jennings tactics for attracting women have been described as "savagely > guerilla" in nature. While only mildly effective, these tactics, combined > with his recent debate success, have skyrocketed his poon level to > astronomical heights." > > ** Do you find this to be empowering and affirming to women in the > community? > > "Another time, Jennings also dated a retarded girl? (not Sara Stephens ? > this was a different one)" > > ** I repeat the question > > > > "One time Jennings was so fucked up that he thought it would be a good > idea to fight Bricker, needless to say, Bricker "Debbie Lai'ed" his ass, and > Jennings was down for the count. You get it? Like when Debbie punched > Julie Hoehn? Only Bricker actually connected the punch." > > > ** more nice work > > "Last year at the ADI, at the Dream Palace (a live nude dancing > establishment), Monique and Jasmine rode Jennings around for 25 minutes: > Jennings shelled out 852 dollars. Sorry Papa Jennings, that "emergency > money" he asked for didn't pay his tuition. By "rode" I mean, they stripped > him down to his boxers, tied him up with a leather leash, made him get down > on all fours, and whipped him until he barked like a dog. At least he got a > free T-Shirt. This story isn't even all that funny. We just love to tell > it?it makes Jennings blush." > > ** yet more > > "One not so anonymous D3 (Natalie Pennington) young woman also had some > contributions: > Bricker312: Hey natpen, we're trying to come up with some nicknames for > Jennings, did you have any? > Promisingpenny: Well, one time we were about to have sex and he was too > drunk to get it up. So we laid there awhile and it was pretty > awkward. Then, he stood up on the bed with the covers wrapped around his > shoulders like a cape, and screamed "I'M BATMAN". I almost shit myself. > Bricker312: Holy shit, are you fucking serious? Please tell me you're > making that up. > Promisingpenny: No, I'm not. The weird thing is, after he got into the > role, he finally got it up, and it was the best sex of my life. So I > usually call him batman." > > ** Even if this is with permission - probably not exactly positive > community information or appropriate for a public forum > > Let me mention the obligatory - oh and he is a hard working and good > debater was less then a paragraph, > > I came out in support of a member of your own squad last year for > defending herself against not just what was said about her but the ATTITUDE > toward women and women in debate that the post took......perhaps her message > did not even manage its way through Castellaw? > > Josh > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070504/8da9a28e/attachment.htm From dave Fri May 4 15:23:00 2007 From: dave (Steinberg, David L) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:23:00 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] unofficial tournament calendar Message-ID: Please send your tournament information and updates. The calendar is posted for your convenience at http://debate.miami.edu/calendar/ I would love to know about the Texas swing tournaments, Northwestern, Kansas, and of course, all tournaments. Thanks. David steinberg 09/15-09/17 Gonzaga O,JV Glen Frappier frappier at calvin.gonzaga.edu 09/15-09/16 Towson, Thurgood Marshall Andy Ellis andy.edebate at gmail.com 09/15-09/17 UNI Ulrich Season Opener O,JV,NOV Cate Palczewski palczewski at uni.edu 09/22-09/24 UC Berkeley Greg Achten gregachten at berkeley.edu 09/22-09/24 Georgia State University O,JV,NOV Joe Bellon joe.bellon at gmail.com 09/29-09/30 Vermont O,JV,NOV Tuna Snider asnider at zoo.uvm.edu 10/03-10/04 Kentucky Round Robin O J.W. Patterson jwpatt00 at uky.edu 10/06-10/07 Towson, Frederick Douglass Andy Ellis andy.edebate at gmail.com 10/06-10/08 Nevada Las Vegas Jake Thompson jacob.thompson at uni.edu 10/06-10/08 Kentucky O J.W. Patterson jwpatt00 at uky.edu 10/13-10/15 Richmond O,JV,NOV Kevin Kuswa kkuswa at richmond.edu 10/19-10/21 West Point O,JV,NOV MAJ Joe Scrocca william.skimmyhorn at usma.edu 10/19-10/21 Vanderbilt O,JV,NOV M.L. Sandoz mary.l.sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu 10/19-10/21 Pepperdine O,JV,NOV Sue Peterson sue.peterson at pepperdine.edu 10/26-10/28 Diablo Valley College Becky Opsata becky.opsata at csun.edu 10/27-10/29 Harvard Dallas Perkins dperkins at fas.harvard.edu 11/02-11/04 Liberty O,JV,NOV Michael Hall mphall at liberty.edu 11/10-11/12 Wake Forest O Ross Smith smithr at wfu.edu 11/17-11/18 Whitman Jim Hanson hansonjb at whitman.edu 11/17-11/18 Rochester O,JV,NOV Ken Johnson kenrjohnson at msn.com 12/01-12/02 Macalester O,JV,NOV David Cram Helwich helwich at macalester.edu 12/29-12/31 USC Alan Nicols O,JV Gordon Stables stables at usc.edu 01/02-01/04 CSU-Fullerton Jon Bruschke jbruschke at Exchange.FULLERTON.EDU 01/12-01/14 UC Berkeley Greg Achten gregachten at berkeley.edu 01/19-01/20 Towson, Harriet Tubman Andy Ellis andy.edebate at gmail.com 01/18-01/20 George Mason 01/25-01/27 US Naval Academy verney at usna.edu 02/01-02/03 Miami Hurricane Debates O,JV,NOV David Steinberg dave at miami.edu 02/02-02/03 Baruch O,JV,NOV Vik Keenan vikeenan at gmail.com 02/09-02/10 Cornell O,JV,NOV Sam Nelson samnelson4 at aol.com 02/08-02/10 NCFA @ DVC Becky Opsata becky.opsata at csun.edu 03/01-03/03 Northwest CEDA Champs Jim Hanson hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070504/989994d1/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: unofficial calendar 07-08.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 27648 bytes Desc: unofficial calendar 07-08.xls Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070504/989994d1/attachment.xls From dave Fri May 4 15:25:01 2007 From: dave (Steinberg, David L) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:25:01 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Nats Pics Message-ID: Pictures from 2006 and 2007 CEDA Nats can be viewed at http://debate.miami.edu/gallery/main.php David steinberg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070504/a58851bf/attachment.htm From matt_gerber27 Fri May 4 15:43:47 2007 From: matt_gerber27 (Matt Gerber) Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 15:43:47 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #10- Andrew Jennings Message-ID: Yeah Josh, you are looking for Bailey Hall. Castellaw is the home of the Baylor Bears. ~Gerber _________________________________________________________________ Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon. http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglineapril07 From jbhdb8 Fri May 4 15:50:18 2007 From: jbhdb8 (Josh) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 16:50:18 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: DCA Debater #10 - ANDREW JENNINGS In-Reply-To: References: <77F5C25BB3DA234BA41147650860C48001D2B426@MAILBOXONE.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: Forwarded from Florida, Josh ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: joseph carver Date: May 4, 2007 4:49 PM Subject: Re: [eDebate] DCA Debater #10 - ANDREW JENNINGS To: Josh Josh, As I no longer subscribe, I can't post. Would you forward this: My annual reminder to the community that people OTHER than those who find your uneducated, irresponsible discourse reprehensible, read these. Until recently, my own high school students read it. Perhaps the chairs of your departments will enjoy this reading? Your deans? Wise up. This forum is not the appropriate place to embarrass yourselfs, or your schools. Eventually someone will have had enough and someone in an administration will read these. And then your program and others will be jeapordized. Joe Carver Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart On 5/4/07, Josh wrote: > Whoops, catelaw might not be KU (Baylor?) apologies, > > Josh > > > On 5/4/07, Josh wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > My understanding is that the authors are suprised by this response....in > > fact, saying, "how is this like last year." > > > > Several issues: > > > > "The savages of western Kansas did teach Jennings one thing, and that > > was that nothing is more important than family. I guess that's why for > > almost a year he tried to fuck his sister. Sure, she's technically his > > step-sister, and she's really hot, but we still had to explain to him that > > intercourse with a family member is not socially acceptable, unless your > > sister's name is Andy Casey. Nonetheless she is H-O-T (ask Bryce D., he > > definitely got shot down by her for a full semester). In fact, Jennings has > > three sisters who are all really fucking hot; I wish you could see them. In > > the words of Ben Warner, "I would cut off my left nut and four of my toes > > for one chance to pop it in her pooper." It's like his sisters didn't come > > from the same parents as that savage." > > > > * I feel fairly certain that Andrew's sisters did not sign on for > > this...nor is the language used anything but objectifying....Are you > > honestly telling me that Andrew and his sisters would like this being > > googled in later years by employers...That Andrews sisters want people to > > read about them in this way? Really? This is different then last year > > how? > > > > "He was once getting his ass whipped by some dude and decided to "check > > his oil" mid match. When I say "check his oil" I mean Jennings got two > > knuckles deep in this dudes ass. Two knuckles." > > > > **Explain this as appropriate in a public forum if you would? > > > > "While it is true that Jennings does attend class (sometimes), he does > > not always attend class sober. In fact, during one drunken class session, > > Jennings was responsible for presenting a project that he and members of his > > group had completed. In order to successfully complete the presentation, > > Jennings needed to connect his laptop to the projector to show some slides > > to the class. After getting set up, Jennings began his presentation. Almost > > immediately Jennings noticed some snickering, which soon turned into > > laughing and pointing. The professor then screeched, "OH MY! INAPPROPRIATE > > MATERIAL!" Alarmed by her response, Jennings turned around to see "I LOVE > > PENIS!" displayed prominently in the center of the screen, as the title of > > one of his word documents?and there it was for the whole class to see." > > > > ** See above, appropriate how? > > > > "Jennings loves pooping. He loves it so much that there's an entire > > section of this DCA bio committed to stories about Jennings pooping. > > Places Jennings has actually pooped: > > -The floor of Nate's dining room > > -The windshield of Jon's car > > -The upper deck of Jon's toilet > > -Jon's chest > > -The chest of his girlfriends, then they reciprocated. > > -In a bag, which was then surreptitiously given to Jon > > Places Jennings has actually peed: > > -In pop bottles in his car, while driving > > -Shumaker's closet > > -Jon's patio > > -Ronnie's shower > > -The parking lot at the Westin in Dallas > > > > The man has no soul. If you don't believe me here's a video of Jennings > > pooping while obviously intoxicated: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctsCiuSy76s, **** > > > > If you're not willing to click the link, here are some of the more > > choice lines: > > "Oh yeah, it burns. It burns so much." > > "Hopefully I didn't just get my jimmy on camera." > > "God damn, Maker, I'm gonna need you to lick my butthole later tonight." > > It might not be so bad if this were a one time occurence but it > > isn't. Jennings loves to be "caught on tape" when he poops, more evidence @ > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0LdpsDSxgk" > > > > ** More questionable, see above > > > > "Jennings tactics for attracting women have been described as "savagely > > guerilla" in nature. While only mildly effective, these tactics, combined > > with his recent debate success, have skyrocketed his poon level to > > astronomical heights." > > > > ** Do you find this to be empowering and affirming to women in the > > community? > > > > "Another time, Jennings also dated a retarded girl? (not Sara Stephens ? > > this was a different one)" > > > > ** I repeat the question > > > > > > > > "One time Jennings was so fucked up that he thought it would be a good > > idea to fight Bricker, needless to say, Bricker "Debbie Lai'ed" his ass, and > > Jennings was down for the count. You get it? Like when Debbie punched > > Julie Hoehn? Only Bricker actually connected the punch." > > > > > > ** more nice work > > > > "Last year at the ADI, at the Dream Palace (a live nude dancing > > establishment), Monique and Jasmine rode Jennings around for 25 minutes: > > Jennings shelled out 852 dollars. Sorry Papa Jennings, that "emergency > > money" he asked for didn't pay his tuition. By "rode" I mean, they stripped > > him down to his boxers, tied him up with a leather leash, made him get down > > on all fours, and whipped him until he barked like a dog. At least he got a > > free T-Shirt. This story isn't even all that funny. We just love to tell > > it?it makes Jennings blush." > > > > ** yet more > > > > "One not so anonymous D3 (Natalie Pennington) young woman also had some > > contributions: > > Bricker312: Hey natpen, we're trying to come up with some nicknames for > > Jennings, did you have any? > > Promisingpenny: Well, one time we were about to have sex and he was too > > drunk to get it up. So we laid there awhile and it was pretty > > awkward. Then, he stood up on the bed with the covers wrapped around his > > shoulders like a cape, and screamed "I'M BATMAN". I almost shit myself. > > Bricker312: Holy shit, are you fucking serious? Please tell me you're > > making that up. > > Promisingpenny: No, I'm not. The weird thing is, after he got into the > > role, he finally got it up, and it was the best sex of my life. So I > > usually call him batman." > > > > ** Even if this is with permission - probably not exactly positive > > community information or appropriate for a public forum > > > > Let me mention the obligatory - oh and he is a hard working and good > > debater was less then a paragraph, > > > > I came out in support of a member of your own squad last year for > > defending herself against not just what was said about her but the ATTITUDE > > toward women and women in debate that the post took......perhaps her message > > did not even manage its way through Castellaw? > > > > Josh > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Joseph Carver -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070504/3f3643d0/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 Fri May 4 16:08:00 2007 From: jbhdb8 (Josh) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 17:08:00 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #10 - Some other thinking Message-ID: Hello, First, some people will argue that I am supporting censorship of the DCA or of Bricker (Jennings). Nothing could be farther from the truth. My arguments are about what "should" be said...not what "can" be said. I am saying a) its sad that you wrote it that way and b) please dont do it again. Can you say it - yes....Ought you say it...No. Second, some will say that I need to grow a sense of humor. Probably true. However, this is a public forum read by parents, adminitsrators, high school students, and other people in our community. The specific, contextual meanings that are "funny" between friends dont play very well here. In addition, they both reinforce general stereotypes about who and what women (and people of different sexual orientation) are in this community AND allows those writing to celebrate being an insider who is cool enough to use these jokes "despite" not really being sexist/homophobic. Those "insider" jokes and insider jokes dont make it ok. I still would bet a dollar to a donut Jennings' sisters had no idea that was coming (for instance). Third, homophobia isnt addressed by me or anyone else enough in these discussions. The specific noting of "checking oil" and such as well as a bunch of other latent homophobic guy jokes really probably shouldnt be how we represent ourselves either. There are people I know in this community who feel very uncomfortable being themselves as people of different sexual orientation without this bar being set for what people should do to be "cool and accepted as a top ten debater." Fourth, someone will say these people arent sexist or homophobic. I know all of them, I grant that is probably true. I like everyone involved....Just dont get what they were thinking...especially when someone on their squad was seriously hurt by similar comments last year...so hurt she got to Octas of the NDT running an affirmative about the objectification of women in debate. I am certainly not holier than thou - I say and do things I should not do....This is MUCH more about what we should do...not looking for any regulations.....And I really do like Bricker et al, Josh On 5/4/07, Bricker, Brett Jacob wrote: > > "DCA Debater #10 - ANDREW JENNINGS. Andrew received 24 total points > > THE STORY OF ANDREW (PETER PAN) JENNINGS AS RETOLD BY THE LOST BOYS, AND > TINKERBELL > This is the (more or less) true story of Andrew J. Jennings. Really it is > more than a story--it is a tale, a legend if you will. Jennings' tale is a > cautionary one and is not for the thin skinned or weak hearted. This > biography is based on a true story of a boy who became?well a boy. In > many ways this is the story of Peter Pan (if you can imagine Peter Pan in a > wife beater, drunk, pooping, and saying some of the most offensive things > known to man) or should I say the Bizarro Peter Pan. In this story Peter > doesn't fly or vanquish Captain Hook (read: Oklahoma CJ) instead Peter > spends all his time in Neverland drinking and searching for the next object > of Jon's to deposit his ass butter on or in. So enjoy the tale as told by > the Lost Boys and Girls of the KU squad.* From here on out whenever you read > the name Jennings you should replace it with Peter Pan?it will make > everything all the more ridiculous. Trust me. Lastly, no animals were > harmed in the making of this bio. ** > Chapter 1: The beginning: a recount of the early years by Nibs > Jennings grew up in Western Kansas, where, he had to walk 8 miles to the > nearest store. Many people don't know about the major differences between > eastern Kansas and western Kansas (because the whole state is so backward) > but western Kansas barely qualifies as livable. It's too underdeveloped for > even the Quakers to inhabit. The people are so savage that they make Conor > and Blake's people look almost civilized. > The savages of western Kansas did teach Jennings one thing, and that was > that nothing is more important than family. I guess that's why for almost a > year he tried to fuck his sister. Sure, she's technically his step-sister, > and she's really hot, but we still had to explain to him that intercourse > with a family member is not socially acceptable, unless your sister's name > is Andy Casey. Nonetheless she is H-O-T (ask Bryce D., he definitely got > shot down by her for a full semester). In fact, Jennings has three sisters > who are all really fucking hot; I wish you could see them. In the words of > Ben Warner, "I would cut off my left nut and four of my toes for one chance > to pop it in her pooper." It's like his sisters didn't come from the same > parents as that savage. > Jennings never lets anyone see what's on his computer. We think it's > because he has a ton of granny-porn. He also has 4 gigs of videos of his > sisters. Bricker stole these, and jerks off to them all the time. Speaking > of weird porn collections, everyone should ask Jon Wright about his file of > pictures titled "nudy pb debate pics". > Jennings still has a few things he takes from his time in western Kansas: > the way he holds a fork, a horrible fear of Chucky dolls and his complete > inability to act like a human in almost every situation. The fork thing is > easy to understand. He holds it in a balled up fist like it's a sword. This > is probably because of how he was raised. People in western Kansas don't > have easy access to food and need to be constantly ready to stab their > dinner. I suspect that Jennings once tried to eat before his food was all > the way dead and it ran away, forcing him to go to bed hungry. He'll only > make that mistake once. > The Chucky doll thing is a bit more difficult to explain. He is > terrified of them. In fact, I recommend Bard add Chucky dolls to their > argumentative*** arsenal---it is likely to secure them a few big wins next > year. We suspect his fear comes from the time a hobo dressed as a clown > stumbled through his village and made friendly with little Jennings (by > "made friendly"--we mean molested?that's right, Jennings was molested by a > clown. Explains a lot doesn't it?). > Chapter 2: Trapped in the Kensington Gardens or The high school years, > ibid (and for those of you who don't know what ibid means I refer you to: > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2003-February/046668.html) > Jennings sucked at debate. He was top in his high school class by virtue > of his ability to read and write, but he was still absolutely incontinent (I > was trying to write incompetent but Word mis-corrected my misspelling?I > decided to keep incontinent because it seemed accurate enough). He once told > Mick, "Most people don't know this, but I might be retarded." In reality, > everybody knows this. http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2651/1455/1600/11-18-05_1604.jpg> Every > member of the KU debate team and coaching staff even Joel Kasten (who is > absolutely terrible at debate and life now that I think about it) qualified > for NFL Nationals. Everyone that is, except for Andrew Jennings, who took a > severe beating at the hands of Samantha Foley (of Baylor Fame) in his > qualifying round. Joel actually qualified twice, infinitely more times than > Jennings. Again, Jennings never went to NFL and really sucked at debate. > Every single one of our debaters that is not Jennings qualified for > nationals; even Quigley, who is a total bitch. > Jennings also tried wrestling, which he sucked at. He was once getting his > ass whipped by some dude and decided to "check his oil" mid match. When I > say "check his oil" I mean Jennings got two knuckles deep in this dudes ass. > Two knuckles. > Chapter 3: Tinkerbell details Jennings' academic prowess > Once described as the "smartest dumb person we know," it should come as no > surprise that Jennings is sometimes lacking in terms of academic excellence. > While it is true that Jennings does attend class (sometimes), he does not > always attend class sober. In fact, during one drunken class session, > Jennings was responsible for presenting a project that he and members of his > group had completed. In order to successfully complete the presentation, > Jennings needed to connect his laptop to the projector to show some slides > to the class. After getting set up, Jennings began his presentation. Almost > immediately Jennings noticed some snickering, which soon turned into > laughing and pointing. The professor then screeched, "OH MY! INAPPROPRIATE > MATERIAL!" Alarmed by her response, Jennings turned around to see "I LOVE > PENIS!" displayed prominently in the center of the screen, as the title of > one of his word documents?and there it was for the whole class to see. > Even when he is sober, however, he does not necessarily strive for total > academic success. In fact, just the other day, Jennings was in a race with > the clock to finish an online econ exam before the 12PM deadline. With less > than 30 minutes to complete the test, he sat down on the couch with Sara > Stephens looking over his shoulder. The two endeavored to successfully > complete the exam together. After reading each question, Sara would ask, > "What does that mean?" Jennings would respond, "I don't fuckin' know" and > then promptly close his eyes to choose one of the multiple choice > answers. They were done with the exam in 4 minutes. No word yet on his > score? > Chapter 4: Slightly explains Jennings love of the scatological > Jennings loves pooping. He loves it so much that there's an entire > section of this DCA bio committed to stories about Jennings pooping. > Places Jennings has actually pooped: > -The floor of Nate's dining room > -The windshield of Jon's car > -The upper deck of Jon's toilet > -Jon's chest > -The chest of his girlfriends, then they reciprocated. > -In a bag, which was then surreptitiously given to Jon > Places Jennings has actually peed: > -In pop bottles in his car, while driving > -Shumaker's closet > -Jon's patio > -Ronnie's shower > -The parking lot at the Westin in Dallas > > The man has no soul. If you don't believe me here's a video of Jennings > pooping while obviously intoxicated: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctsCiuSy76s, **** > > If you're not willing to click the link, here are some of the more choice > lines: > "Oh yeah, it burns. It burns so much." > "Hopefully I didn't just get my jimmy on camera." > "God damn, Maker, I'm gonna need you to lick my butthole later tonight." > It might not be so bad if this were a one time occurence but it > isn't. Jennings loves to be "caught on tape" when he poops, more evidence @ > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0LdpsDSxgk > Please note that the embarrassment in this video stems from being caught > with his shirt off, not from being taped taking a dump. Needless to say, all > of this is not as embarrassing as when Phil got caught whacking off on all > fours to National Geographic. > Jennings' fascination with pooping runs so deep that he has invested in a > colon cleanser. You know, one of those pills you take for a few weeks > that's supposed to make you poop out all the hardened poop that's stored > inside your colon. When asked why anyone would want to use such a product, > Jennings replied, "Dude, I was watching the infomercial, and this lady said > that the hard poops feel as hard as rubber hoses, and you sometimes have to > pull them out of your butt with your hands. Isn't that fucked up? ...I > gotta buy some." I guess in the world of Andrew Jennings, it doesn't get > much better than a rubber hose up your ass. Take note, Sara. > Chapter 5: Curly and Tootles reminisce on Jennings love of the ladies > Jennings' parents: I'm sorry. I understand that you are reading this, but > you should seriously stop, seriously. If you still are reading, you should > know that not everything in this bio is true, a lot of the stories and > examples are blown out of proportion. Like: if I mention that "Jennings has > the hiv", it probably just means he has multiple other non-life threatening > STD's. And, he doesn't really have ED, he's usually just too drunk to get > it up. > Jennings tactics for attracting women have been described as "savagely > guerilla" in nature. While only mildly effective, these tactics, combined > with his recent debate success, have skyrocketed his poon level to > astronomical heights. But for Jennings, success didn't always come so > easy. There was once a time when he had to work for the poonani. Jennings > will readily admit that in order to get a girl to touch his penis for the > first time he used the pick up line, "I've got a secret if you come to my > room" Jennings didn't really have a secret, but she did have 12 fingers. > Speaking of the number 12, Jennings once hooked up with a 16-year-old > girl. Upon hearing this story, Quigley insisted that he had hooked up with > the very same girl, only he was in high school at the time. This was > obviously a lie, since Quigley doesn't have a penis, and his parents are > polyamorous. He's a little touchy about the subject because until the DNA > tests come we won't know the true identity of his father, but that's a story > for another time (that is, if they make a separate bio for 4-year NDT > scouts). Another time, Jennings also dated a retarded girl? (not Sara > Stephens ? this was a different one) > To make matters worse Jennings is an alcoholic (for proof see yet another > YouTube moment in the life of A.J.: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG6L2rzD7dY) Not a social drinker, I mean a > full blown alcoholic, he drinks heavily everyday. He was so drunk at the > NDT that he didn't remember meeting Sara Stephens. His new girlfriend, Sara, > seems to be working out pretty well, and we're all happy to welcome her to > the Kansas family (if Nate didn't do that already). But Jennings drinking > to the point of amnesia is not unusual; Jennings usually doesn't remember > anything after 8 o'clock. He even drinks on family holidays, like > Christmas. This year on Christmas he talked to Jessica Yeats at 3 in the > afternoon, after a long morning of drinking. This conversation ensued: > Jesukamarie: hey Jennings, how's your Christmas > Studaj13: I'm dronk, wil yu go out with me? > Jesukamarie: Jennings, I have a boyfriend, and if I didn't, I wouldn't > date you > Studaj13: will you come be a grad stdent at KU? You can love with me and > brinker. > Jesukamarie: No. Jennings you are making me feel uncomfortable. > Studaj13: But I love you. Like I serious love you. Not like I love my > mom, or brinker. I am in love with you. > Jesukamarie: Alright Jennings, have a good Christmas. > > Jennings always makes the best decisions when he's drunk. Sara > Stephens? Yea I know she's sucking out his soul. She always does this, why > do you think Casey is such a douchebag? We're just kidding Sara, Casey's > always been a douchebag. With Jennings' fast paced lifestyle, women come > and go. However, his one true love always remains the > same: titties. Manboobs, chicks, it doesn't matter. He just loves them. > Jennings loves gigantor tits so much, he once said, "I mean, if Repko had a > fat set of tits, I'd totally fuck'em. BALLIN!" Now, this isn't to say > Jennings won't grab an ass or two. He actually loves asses; he's just a > little more particular about which asses he will grab? > > One time Jennings was so fucked up that he thought it would be a > good idea to fight Bricker, needless to say, Bricker "Debbie Lai'ed" his > ass, and Jennings was down for the count. You get it? Like when Debbie > punched Julie Hoehn? Only Bricker actually connected the punch. > Last year at the ADI, at the Dream Palace (a live nude dancing > establishment), Monique and Jasmine rode Jennings around for 25 minutes: > Jennings shelled out 852 dollars. Sorry Papa Jennings, that "emergency > money" he asked for didn't pay his tuition. By "rode" I mean, they stripped > him down to his boxers, tied him up with a leather leash, made him get down > on all fours, and whipped him until he barked like a dog. At least he got a > free T-Shirt. This story isn't even all that funny. We just love to tell > it?it makes Jennings blush. > On top of all this shame, we actually went out and solicited > comments about Jennings from his past?uhh girlfriends? Here is what one > young woman (who wished to remain anonymous) had to say: > Bricker312: Did you have any nicknames for Jeninngs? > TigerLily: Yeah, I liked to call him the minnow. He called me the pond. > Bricker312: The minnow? > TigerLily: Yeah, like the slimy little green things that hang out in dirty > ponds. It's a play on his penis and my vagina. > Bricker312: Gotcha. > > One not so anonymous D3 (Natalie Pennington) young woman also had some > contributions: > Bricker312: Hey natpen, we're trying to come up with some nicknames for > Jennings, did you have any? > Promisingpenny: Well, one time we were about to have sex and he was too > drunk to get it up. So we laid there awhile and it was pretty > awkward. Then, he stood up on the bed with the covers wrapped around his > shoulders like a cape, and screamed "I'M BATMAN". I almost shit myself. > Bricker312: Holy shit, are you fucking serious? Please tell me you're > making that up. > Promisingpenny: No, I'm not. The weird thing is, after he got into the > role, he finally got it up, and it was the best sex of my life. So I > usually call him batman. > Chapter 6: Captain Hook, the Jolly Roger, and the ticking > crocodile > Every good story needs a villan(s) and our story is no > different. For every Peter Pan there is always a Captain Hook and for > Jennings that Captain Hook was OU CJ. In their last 11 debates, ranging > back to second semester last year, Jennings was 2-9 against them. While > that is truly a staggering record of defeat it was not like they were > breaking new arguments against him either he keep losing on Nietzsche and > the Environmental Management K. One would think that if you kept losing to > those two positions that you rectify this situation, but then again we are > talking about Jennings here. > Luckily for Jennings the Crocodile ate Captain Hook and the Jolly > Roger. But the ticking crocodile has another important function in the > story of Peter Pan it represents the inescapable?time. Time is chasing after > all of us. It got OU CJ and soon it will get Peter and Lost Boys. So live > it up Jennings we all hope next year will be your best. For those of you > who don't know Andrew he is possibly the nicest and most humble debater you > will ever meet. And like Peter he lives his life as the happy go lucky > wanderer who never seems like he is going to grow up. This is a good > thing. Andrew is one guy that no matter the situation he always has a smile > on his face, and the best thing about it is its infectious. But behind that > smile is kid who works his ass off. To give you an example I called him the > other day and had this conversation: > Me: Jennings what up? > Jennings: I'm drunk baby > Me: It 3 in the afternoon > Jennings: I know I'm also cutting cards > Me: cutting cards on what? > Jennings: the Middle East Ballin! > This was the week before they announced the topic area. To conclude > Jennings is truly a cool cat and we all love him. When the ticking > crocodile finally catches up with you?You will be missed. Congratulations on > a great year and being recognized as one of the best debaters in the country > because we already knew you were. > The Appendix > *At the outset would like to sincerely apologize for offending anyone. > Many members of the KU debate team and coaching staff contributed to this > but all final edits were made by Brett Bricker so please direct all > complaints and criticism to him at charrigan at gmail.com. We are sure that > some people will read this bio and believe that the Lost Boys must be > vanquished. Just keep in mind it is all in jest. We really love Jennings > and everyone mentioned in the bio?well we really do love everyone mentioned > in the bio?Jennings is another story. > > ** Or people for that matter. Everyone that we mention we explicitly got > their permission, this includes, Nat Pen, Tiara, Sara Stephens, and the > entire KU debate squad. We promise. My bad we forgot to ask Bryce but I'm > sure he's cool. One other thing when I said animals?I was using something I > saw on a movie once?I was not referring to women or men as animals. Just > keep that in mind > > ***we don't actually consider what Bard does "making arguments" but I > suppose lots of you debate hippies think Chucky dolls would be very > interesting and postmodern. > > **** That video is kinda gross. Click at your own risk! > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070504/3067aa1e/attachment.htm From stevendamico Fri May 4 18:18:36 2007 From: stevendamico (Steven D'Amico) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 19:18:36 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: DCA Debater #10 - ANDREW JENNINGS In-Reply-To: References: <77F5C25BB3DA234BA41147650860C48001D2B426@MAILBOXONE.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: I'm about to get my ass in trouble again. But it looks like Kansas has proved my earlier defense of DCAs unwarranted. I just really find this DCA profile ironic in terms of certain affirmative's Kansas was running this year which discussed last years DCAs. On 5/4/07, Josh wrote: > > Forwarded from Florida, > > Josh > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: joseph carver > Date: May 4, 2007 4:49 PM > Subject: Re: [eDebate] DCA Debater #10 - ANDREW JENNINGS > To: Josh > > Josh, > > As I no longer subscribe, I can't post. Would you forward this: > > My annual reminder to the community that people OTHER than those who find > your uneducated, irresponsible discourse reprehensible, read these. Until > recently, my own high school students read it. Perhaps the chairs of your > departments will enjoy this reading? Your deans? > Wise up. This forum is not the appropriate place to embarrass yourselfs, > or your schools. Eventually someone will have had enough and someone in an > administration will read these. And then your program and others will be > jeapordized. > > Joe Carver > Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart > > > On 5/4/07, Josh < jbhdb8 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Whoops, catelaw might not be KU (Baylor?) apologies, > > > > Josh > > > > > > On 5/4/07, Josh wrote: > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > My understanding is that the authors are suprised by this > > > response....in fact, saying, "how is this like last year." > > > > > > Several issues: > > > > > > "The savages of western Kansas did teach Jennings one thing, and that > > > was that nothing is more important than family. I guess that's why for > > > almost a year he tried to fuck his sister. Sure, she's technically his > > > step-sister, and she's really hot, but we still had to explain to him that > > > intercourse with a family member is not socially acceptable, unless your > > > sister's name is Andy Casey. Nonetheless she is H-O-T (ask Bryce D., he > > > definitely got shot down by her for a full semester). In fact, Jennings has > > > three sisters who are all really fucking hot; I wish you could see them. In > > > the words of Ben Warner, "I would cut off my left nut and four of my toes > > > for one chance to pop it in her pooper." It's like his sisters didn't come > > > from the same parents as that savage." > > > > > > * I feel fairly certain that Andrew's sisters did not sign on for > > > this...nor is the language used anything but objectifying....Are you > > > honestly telling me that Andrew and his sisters would like this being > > > googled in later years by employers...That Andrews sisters want people to > > > read about them in this way? Really? This is different then last year > > > how? > > > > > > "He was once getting his ass whipped by some dude and decided to > > > "check his oil" mid match. When I say "check his oil" I mean Jennings got > > > two knuckles deep in this dudes ass. Two knuckles." > > > > > > **Explain this as appropriate in a public forum if you would? > > > > > > "While it is true that Jennings does attend class (sometimes), he does > > > not always attend class sober. In fact, during one drunken class session, > > > Jennings was responsible for presenting a project that he and members of his > > > group had completed. In order to successfully complete the presentation, > > > Jennings needed to connect his laptop to the projector to show some slides > > > to the class. After getting set up, Jennings began his presentation. Almost > > > immediately Jennings noticed some snickering, which soon turned into > > > laughing and pointing. The professor then screeched, "OH MY! INAPPROPRIATE > > > MATERIAL!" Alarmed by her response, Jennings turned around to see "I LOVE > > > PENIS!" displayed prominently in the center of the screen, as the title of > > > one of his word documents?and there it was for the whole class to see." > > > > > > ** See above, appropriate how? > > > > > > "Jennings loves pooping. He loves it so much that there's an entire > > > section of this DCA bio committed to stories about Jennings pooping. > > > Places Jennings has actually pooped: > > > -The floor of Nate's dining room > > > -The windshield of Jon's car > > > -The upper deck of Jon's toilet > > > -Jon's chest > > > -The chest of his girlfriends, then they reciprocated. > > > -In a bag, which was then surreptitiously given to Jon > > > Places Jennings has actually peed: > > > -In pop bottles in his car, while driving > > > -Shumaker's closet > > > -Jon's patio > > > -Ronnie's shower > > > -The parking lot at the Westin in Dallas > > > > > > The man has no soul. If you don't believe me here's a video of > > > Jennings pooping while obviously intoxicated: > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctsCiuSy76s, **** > > > > > > If you're not willing to click the link, here are some of the more > > > choice lines: > > > "Oh yeah, it burns. It burns so much." > > > "Hopefully I didn't just get my jimmy on camera." > > > "God damn, Maker, I'm gonna need you to lick my butthole later > > > tonight." > > > It might not be so bad if this were a one time occurence but it > > > isn't. Jennings loves to be "caught on tape" when he poops, more evidence @ > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0LdpsDSxgk" > > > > > > ** More questionable, see above > > > > > > "Jennings tactics for attracting women have been described as > > > "savagely guerilla" in nature. While only mildly effective, these tactics, > > > combined with his recent debate success, have skyrocketed his poon level to > > > astronomical heights." > > > > > > ** Do you find this to be empowering and affirming to women in the > > > community? > > > > > > "Another time, Jennings also dated a retarded girl? (not Sara Stephens > > > ? this was a different one)" > > > > > > ** I repeat the question > > > > > > > > > > > > "One time Jennings was so fucked up that he thought it would be a good > > > idea to fight Bricker, needless to say, Bricker "Debbie Lai'ed" his ass, and > > > Jennings was down for the count. You get it? Like when Debbie punched > > > Julie Hoehn? Only Bricker actually connected the punch." > > > > > > > > > ** more nice work > > > > > > "Last year at the ADI, at the Dream Palace (a live nude dancing > > > establishment), Monique and Jasmine rode Jennings around for 25 minutes: > > > Jennings shelled out 852 dollars. Sorry Papa Jennings, that "emergency > > > money" he asked for didn't pay his tuition. By "rode" I mean, they stripped > > > him down to his boxers, tied him up with a leather leash, made him get down > > > on all fours, and whipped him until he barked like a dog. At least he got a > > > free T-Shirt. This story isn't even all that funny. We just love to tell > > > it?it makes Jennings blush." > > > > > > ** yet more > > > > > > "One not so anonymous D3 (Natalie Pennington) young woman also had > > > some contributions: > > > Bricker312: Hey natpen, we're trying to come up with some nicknames > > > for Jennings, did you have any? > > > Promisingpenny: Well, one time we were about to have sex and he was > > > too drunk to get it up. So we laid there awhile and it was pretty > > > awkward. Then, he stood up on the bed with the covers wrapped around his > > > shoulders like a cape, and screamed "I'M BATMAN". I almost shit myself. > > > Bricker312: Holy shit, are you fucking serious? Please tell me > > > you're making that up. > > > Promisingpenny: No, I'm not. The weird thing is, after he got into > > > the role, he finally got it up, and it was the best sex of my life. So I > > > usually call him batman." > > > > > > ** Even if this is with permission - probably not exactly positive > > > community information or appropriate for a public forum > > > > > > Let me mention the obligatory - oh and he is a hard working and good > > > debater was less then a paragraph, > > > > > > I came out in support of a member of your own squad last year for > > > defending herself against not just what was said about her but the ATTITUDE > > > toward women and women in debate that the post took......perhaps her message > > > did not even manage its way through Castellaw? > > > > > > Josh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > > -- > Joseph Carver > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070504/ad5bcb7e/attachment.htm From jasonlrussell1 Fri May 4 18:46:14 2007 From: jasonlrussell1 (Jason Russell) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 18:46:14 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Bios Message-ID: Josh, stop. Get a hobby. J -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070504/a1aef60c/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 Fri May 4 20:25:50 2007 From: jbhdb8 (Josh) Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 21:25:50 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Apologies....or whatever Message-ID: Few people I respect have written me angry I posted so: 1) I am anti-censoring anything anyone writes. I said this explicitly but want to repeat it. I disagree with what was said, but think they should have the write to say it. In no way am I for censorship of the DCA. 2) I dont hate Bricker or Jennings or anyone at KU. I like them all. I dont think they are homophobes or women haters..I also said this explicitly but wanted to repeat it. I think we should be very careful about what we write in a public forum. 3) It seems people think I am trying to make the "hypocricy" argument about KU. That is the opposite of my intent. I in NO way want to make the argument that this devalues the affirmative run at the NDT...My point was that it WAS valuable. Please do not misunderstand me on this. Hope all goes well, sorry to offend anyone, Josh On 5/4/07, Josh wrote: > > Hello, > > First, some people will argue that I am supporting censorship of the DCA > or of Bricker (Jennings). Nothing could be farther from the truth. My > arguments are about what "should" be said...not what "can" be said. I am > saying a) its sad that you wrote it that way and b) please dont do it again. > Can you say it - yes....Ought you say it...No. > > Second, some will say that I need to grow a sense of humor. Probably > true. However, this is a public forum read by parents, adminitsrators, high > school students, and other people in our community. The specific, > contextual meanings that are "funny" between friends dont play very well > here. In addition, they both reinforce general stereotypes about who and > what women (and people of different sexual orientation) are in this > community AND allows those writing to celebrate being an insider who is cool > enough to use these jokes "despite" not really being sexist/homophobic. > Those "insider" jokes and insider jokes dont make it ok. I still would bet > a dollar to a donut Jennings' sisters had no idea that was coming (for > instance). > > Third, homophobia isnt addressed by me or anyone else enough in these > discussions. The specific noting of "checking oil" and such as well as a > bunch of other latent homophobic guy jokes really probably shouldnt be how > we represent ourselves either. There are people I know in this community > who feel very uncomfortable being themselves as people of different sexual > orientation without this bar being set for what people should do to be "cool > and accepted as a top ten debater." > > Fourth, someone will say these people arent sexist or homophobic. I know > all of them, I grant that is probably true. I like everyone > involved....Just dont get what they were thinking...especially when someone > on their squad was seriously hurt by similar comments last year...so hurt > she got to Octas of the NDT running an affirmative about the objectification > of women in debate. > > I am certainly not holier than thou - I say and do things I should not > do....This is MUCH more about what we should do...not looking for any > regulations.....And I really do like Bricker et al, > > Josh > > > > > On 5/4/07, Bricker, Brett Jacob wrote: > > > > "DCA Debater #10 - ANDREW JENNINGS. Andrew received 24 total points > > > > THE STORY OF ANDREW (PETER PAN) JENNINGS AS RETOLD BY THE LOST BOYS, AND > > TINKERBELL > > This is the (more or less) true story of Andrew J. Jennings. Really it > > is more than a story--it is a tale, a legend if you will. Jennings' tale is > > a cautionary one and is not for the thin skinned or weak hearted. This > > biography is based on a true story of a boy who became?well a boy. In > > many ways this is the story of Peter Pan (if you can imagine Peter Pan in a > > wife beater, drunk, pooping, and saying some of the most offensive things > > known to man) or should I say the Bizarro Peter Pan. In this story Peter > > doesn't fly or vanquish Captain Hook (read: Oklahoma CJ) instead Peter > > spends all his time in Neverland drinking and searching for the next object > > of Jon's to deposit his ass butter on or in. So enjoy the tale as told by > > the Lost Boys and Girls of the KU squad.* From here on out whenever you read > > the name Jennings you should replace it with Peter Pan?it will make > > everything all the more ridiculous. Trust me. Lastly, no animals were > > harmed in the making of this bio. ** > > Chapter 1: The beginning: a recount of the early years by Nibs > > Jennings grew up in Western Kansas, where, he had to walk 8 miles to the > > nearest store. Many people don't know about the major differences between > > eastern Kansas and western Kansas (because the whole state is so backward) > > but western Kansas barely qualifies as livable. It's too underdeveloped for > > even the Quakers to inhabit. The people are so savage that they make Conor > > and Blake's people look almost civilized. > > The savages of western Kansas did teach Jennings one thing, and that was > > that nothing is more important than family. I guess that's why for almost a > > year he tried to fuck his sister. Sure, she's technically his step-sister, > > and she's really hot, but we still had to explain to him that intercourse > > with a family member is not socially acceptable, unless your sister's name > > is Andy Casey. Nonetheless she is H-O-T (ask Bryce D., he definitely got > > shot down by her for a full semester). In fact, Jennings has three sisters > > who are all really fucking hot; I wish you could see them. In the words of > > Ben Warner, "I would cut off my left nut and four of my toes for one chance > > to pop it in her pooper." It's like his sisters didn't come from the same > > parents as that savage. > > Jennings never lets anyone see what's on his computer. We think it's > > because he has a ton of granny-porn. He also has 4 gigs of videos of his > > sisters. Bricker stole these, and jerks off to them all the time. Speaking > > of weird porn collections, everyone should ask Jon Wright about his file of > > pictures titled "nudy pb debate pics". > > Jennings still has a few things he takes from his time in western > > Kansas: the way he holds a fork, a horrible fear of Chucky dolls and his > > complete inability to act like a human in almost every situation. The fork > > thing is easy to understand. He holds it in a balled up fist like it's a > > sword. This is probably because of how he was raised. People in western > > Kansas don't have easy access to food and need to be constantly ready to > > stab their dinner. I suspect that Jennings once tried to eat before his > > food was all the way dead and it ran away, forcing him to go to bed hungry. > > He'll only make that mistake once. > > The Chucky doll thing is a bit more difficult to explain. He is > > terrified of them. In fact, I recommend Bard add Chucky dolls to their > > argumentative*** arsenal---it is likely to secure them a few big wins next > > year. We suspect his fear comes from the time a hobo dressed as a clown > > stumbled through his village and made friendly with little Jennings (by > > "made friendly"--we mean molested?that's right, Jennings was molested by a > > clown. Explains a lot doesn't it?). > > Chapter 2: Trapped in the Kensington Gardens or The high school years, > > ibid (and for those of you who don't know what ibid means I refer you to: > > http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2003-February/046668.html) > > Jennings sucked at debate. He was top in his high school class by virtue > > of his ability to read and write, but he was still absolutely incontinent (I > > was trying to write incompetent but Word mis-corrected my misspelling?I > > decided to keep incontinent because it seemed accurate enough). He once told > > Mick, "Most people don't know this, but I might be retarded." In reality, > > everybody knows this. > http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2651/1455/1600/11-18-05_1604.jpg> > > Every member of the KU debate team and coaching staff even Joel Kasten (who > > is absolutely terrible at debate and life now that I think about it) > > qualified for NFL Nationals. Everyone that is, except for Andrew Jennings, > > who took a severe beating at the hands of Samantha Foley (of Baylor Fame) in > > his qualifying round. Joel actually qualified twice, infinitely more times > > than Jennings. Again, Jennings never went to NFL and really sucked at > > debate. Every single one of our debaters that is not Jennings qualified for > > nationals; even Quigley, who is a total bitch. > > Jennings also tried wrestling, which he sucked at. He was once getting > > his ass whipped by some dude and decided to "check his oil" mid match. When > > I say "check his oil" I mean Jennings got two knuckles deep in this dudes > > ass. Two knuckles. > > Chapter 3: Tinkerbell details Jennings' academic prowess > > Once described as the "smartest dumb person we know," it should come as > > no surprise that Jennings is sometimes lacking in terms of academic > > excellence. While it is true that Jennings does attend class (sometimes), he > > does not always attend class sober. In fact, during one drunken class > > session, Jennings was responsible for presenting a project that he and > > members of his group had completed. In order to successfully complete the > > presentation, Jennings needed to connect his laptop to the projector to show > > some slides to the class. After getting set up, Jennings began his > > presentation. Almost immediately Jennings noticed some snickering, which > > soon turned into laughing and pointing. The professor then screeched, "OH > > MY! INAPPROPRIATE MATERIAL!" Alarmed by her response, Jennings turned > > around to see "I LOVE PENIS!" displayed prominently in the center of the > > screen, as the title of one of his word documents?and there it was for the > > whole class to see. > > Even when he is sober, however, he does not necessarily strive for total > > academic success. In fact, just the other day, Jennings was in a race with > > the clock to finish an online econ exam before the 12PM deadline. With less > > than 30 minutes to complete the test, he sat down on the couch with Sara > > Stephens looking over his shoulder. The two endeavored to successfully > > complete the exam together. After reading each question, Sara would ask, > > "What does that mean?" Jennings would respond, "I don't fuckin' know" and > > then promptly close his eyes to choose one of the multiple choice > > answers. They were done with the exam in 4 minutes. No word yet on his > > score? > > Chapter 4: Slightly explains Jennings love of the scatological > > Jennings loves pooping. He loves it so much that there's an entire > > section of this DCA bio committed to stories about Jennings pooping. > > Places Jennings has actually pooped: > > -The floor of Nate's dining room > > -The windshield of Jon's car > > -The upper deck of Jon's toilet > > -Jon's chest > > -The chest of his girlfriends, then they reciprocated. > > -In a bag, which was then surreptitiously given to Jon > > Places Jennings has actually peed: > > -In pop bottles in his car, while driving > > -Shumaker's closet > > -Jon's patio > > -Ronnie's shower > > -The parking lot at the Westin in Dallas > > > > The man has no soul. If you don't believe me here's a video of Jennings > > pooping while obviously intoxicated: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctsCiuSy76s, **** > > > > If you're not willing to click the link, here are some of the more > > choice lines: > > "Oh yeah, it burns. It burns so much." > > "Hopefully I didn't just get my jimmy on camera." > > "God damn, Maker, I'm gonna need you to lick my butthole later tonight." > > It might not be so bad if this were a one time occurence but it > > isn't. Jennings loves to be "caught on tape" when he poops, more evidence @ > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0LdpsDSxgk > > Please note that the embarrassment in this video stems from being caught > > with his shirt off, not from being taped taking a dump. Needless to say, all > > of this is not as embarrassing as when Phil got caught whacking off on all > > fours to National Geographic. > > Jennings' fascination with pooping runs so deep that he has invested in > > a colon cleanser. You know, one of those pills you take for a few weeks > > that's supposed to make you poop out all the hardened poop that's stored > > inside your colon. When asked why anyone would want to use such a product, > > Jennings replied, "Dude, I was watching the infomercial, and this lady said > > that the hard poops feel as hard as rubber hoses, and you sometimes have to > > pull them out of your butt with your hands. Isn't that fucked up? ...I > > gotta buy some." I guess in the world of Andrew Jennings, it doesn't get > > much better than a rubber hose up your ass. Take note, Sara. > > Chapter 5: Curly and Tootles reminisce on Jennings love of the ladies > > Jennings' parents: I'm sorry. I understand that you are reading this, > > but you should seriously stop, seriously. If you still are reading, you > > should know that not everything in this bio is true, a lot of the stories > > and examples are blown out of proportion. Like: if I mention that "Jennings > > has the hiv", it probably just means he has multiple other non-life > > threatening STD's. And, he doesn't really have ED, he's usually just too > > drunk to get it up. > > Jennings tactics for attracting women have been described as "savagely > > guerilla" in nature. While only mildly effective, these tactics, combined > > with his recent debate success, have skyrocketed his poon level to > > astronomical heights. But for Jennings, success didn't always come so > > easy. There was once a time when he had to work for the poonani. Jennings > > will readily admit that in order to get a girl to touch his penis for the > > first time he used the pick up line, "I've got a secret if you come to my > > room" Jennings didn't really have a secret, but she did have 12 fingers. > > Speaking of the number 12, Jennings once hooked up with a 16-year-old > > girl. Upon hearing this story, Quigley insisted that he had hooked up with > > the very same girl, only he was in high school at the time. This was > > obviously a lie, since Quigley doesn't have a penis, and his parents are > > polyamorous. He's a little touchy about the subject because until the DNA > > tests come we won't know the true identity of his father, but that's a story > > for another time (that is, if they make a separate bio for 4-year NDT > > scouts). Another time, Jennings also dated a retarded girl? (not Sara > > Stephens ? this was a different one) > > To make matters worse Jennings is an alcoholic (for proof see yet > > another YouTube moment in the life of A.J.: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG6L2rzD7dY) Not a social drinker, I mean > > a full blown alcoholic, he drinks heavily everyday. He was so drunk at the > > NDT that he didn't remember meeting Sara Stephens. His new girlfriend, Sara, > > seems to be working out pretty well, and we're all happy to welcome her to > > the Kansas family (if Nate didn't do that already). But Jennings drinking > > to the point of amnesia is not unusual; Jennings usually doesn't remember > > anything after 8 o'clock. He even drinks on family holidays, like > > Christmas. This year on Christmas he talked to Jessica Yeats at 3 in the > > afternoon, after a long morning of drinking. This conversation ensued: > > Jesukamarie: hey Jennings, how's your Christmas > > Studaj13: I'm dronk, wil yu go out with me? > > Jesukamarie: Jennings, I have a boyfriend, and if I didn't, I wouldn't > > date you > > Studaj13: will you come be a grad stdent at KU? You can love with me > > and brinker. > > Jesukamarie: No. Jennings you are making me feel uncomfortable. > > Studaj13: But I love you. Like I serious love you. Not like I love my > > mom, or brinker. I am in love with you. > > Jesukamarie: Alright Jennings, have a good Christmas. > > > > Jennings always makes the best decisions when he's drunk. Sara > > Stephens? Yea I know she's sucking out his soul. She always does this, why > > do you think Casey is such a douchebag? We're just kidding Sara, Casey's > > always been a douchebag. With Jennings' fast paced lifestyle, women come > > and go. However, his one true love always remains the > > same: titties. Manboobs, chicks, it doesn't matter. He just loves them. > > Jennings loves gigantor tits so much, he once said, "I mean, if Repko had a > > fat set of tits, I'd totally fuck'em. BALLIN!" Now, this isn't to say > > Jennings won't grab an ass or two. He actually loves asses; he's just a > > little more particular about which asses he will grab? > > > > > > One time Jennings was so fucked up that he thought it would be a > > good idea to fight Bricker, needless to say, Bricker "Debbie Lai'ed" his > > ass, and Jennings was down for the count. You get it? Like when Debbie > > punched Julie Hoehn? Only Bricker actually connected the punch. > > Last year at the ADI, at the Dream Palace (a live nude dancing > > establishment), Monique and Jasmine rode Jennings around for 25 minutes: > > Jennings shelled out 852 dollars. Sorry Papa Jennings, that "emergency > > money" he asked for didn't pay his tuition. By "rode" I mean, they stripped > > him down to his boxers, tied him up with a leather leash, made him get down > > on all fours, and whipped him until he barked like a dog. At least he got a > > free T-Shirt. This story isn't even all that funny. We just love to tell > > it?it makes Jennings blush. > > On top of all this shame, we actually went out and solicited > > comments about Jennings from his past?uhh girlfriends? Here is what one > > young woman (who wished to remain anonymous) had to say: > > Bricker312: Did you have any nicknames for Jeninngs? > > TigerLily: Yeah, I liked to call him the minnow. He called me the pond. > > Bricker312: The minnow? > > TigerLily: Yeah, like the slimy little green things that hang out in > > dirty ponds. It's a play on his penis and my vagina. > > Bricker312: Gotcha. > > > > One not so anonymous D3 (Natalie Pennington) young woman also had some > > contributions: > > Bricker312: Hey natpen, we're trying to come up with some nicknames for > > Jennings, did you have any? > > Promisingpenny: Well, one time we were about to have sex and he was too > > drunk to get it up. So we laid there awhile and it was pretty > > awkward. Then, he stood up on the bed with the covers wrapped around his > > shoulders like a cape, and screamed "I'M BATMAN". I almost shit myself. > > Bricker312: Holy shit, are you fucking serious? Please tell me you're > > making that up. > > Promisingpenny: No, I'm not. The weird thing is, after he got into the > > role, he finally got it up, and it was the best sex of my life. So I > > usually call him batman. > > Chapter 6: Captain Hook, the Jolly Roger, and the ticking > > crocodile > > Every good story needs a villan(s) and our story is no > > different. For every Peter Pan there is always a Captain Hook and for > > Jennings that Captain Hook was OU CJ. In their last 11 debates, ranging > > back to second semester last year, Jennings was 2-9 against them. While > > that is truly a staggering record of defeat it was not like they were > > breaking new arguments against him either he keep losing on Nietzsche and > > the Environmental Management K. One would think that if you kept losing to > > those two positions that you rectify this situation, but then again we are > > talking about Jennings here. > > Luckily for Jennings the Crocodile ate Captain Hook and the Jolly > > Roger. But the ticking crocodile has another important function in the > > story of Peter Pan it represents the inescapable?time. Time is chasing after > > all of us. It got OU CJ and soon it will get Peter and Lost Boys. So live > > it up Jennings we all hope next year will be your best. For those of you > > who don't know Andrew he is possibly the nicest and most humble debater you > > will ever meet. And like Peter he lives his life as the happy go lucky > > wanderer who never seems like he is going to grow up. This is a good > > thing. Andrew is one guy that no matter the situation he always has a smile > > on his face, and the best thing about it is its infectious. But behind that > > smile is kid who works his ass off. To give you an example I called him the > > other day and had this conversation: > > Me: Jennings what up? > > Jennings: I'm drunk baby > > Me: It 3 in the afternoon > > Jennings: I know I'm also cutting cards > > Me: cutting cards on what? > > Jennings: the Middle East Ballin! > > This was the week before they announced the topic area. To conclude > > Jennings is truly a cool cat and we all love him. When the ticking > > crocodile finally catches up with you?You will be missed. Congratulations on > > a great year and being recognized as one of the best debaters in the country > > because we already knew you were. > > The Appendix > > *At the outset would like to sincerely apologize for offending anyone. > > Many members of the KU debate team and coaching staff contributed to this > > but all final edits were made by Brett Bricker so please direct all > > complaints and criticism to him at charrigan at gmail.com. We are sure > > that some people will read this bio and believe that the Lost Boys must be > > vanquished. Just keep in mind it is all in jest. We really love Jennings > > and everyone mentioned in the bio?well we really do love everyone mentioned > > in the bio?Jennings is another story. > > > > ** Or people for that matter. Everyone that we mention we explicitly > > got their permission, this includes, Nat Pen, Tiara, Sara Stephens, and the > > entire KU debate squad. We promise. My bad we forgot to ask Bryce but I'm > > sure he's cool. One other thing when I said animals?I was using something I > > saw on a movie once?I was not referring to women or men as animals. Just > > keep that in mind > > > > ***we don't actually consider what Bard does "making arguments" but I > > suppose lots of you debate hippies think Chucky dolls would be very > > interesting and postmodern. > > > > **** That video is kinda gross. Click at your own risk! > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070504/c9a2b706/attachment.htm From blakejohnson Sat May 5 04:30:12 2007 From: blakejohnson (Johnson, Joseph B.) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 04:30:12 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #10 - ANDREW JENNINGS References: <77F5C25BB3DA234BA41147650860C48001D2B426@MAILBOXONE.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: <0C10B7CD7775E2498869EDDE876D63501E994B@XMAIL1.sooner.net.ou.edu> "...For every Peter Pan there is always a Captain Hook and for Jennings that Captain Hook was OU CJ. In their last 11 debates, ranging back to second semester last year, Jennings was 2-9 against them..." In Andrew's defense: at least 1 of those times was totally bricker's fault. In Bricker's defense: Lets all get some perspective. Kids will be kids. The DCAs have been around as long as I have and theyve never been not offensive. Lets not shit ourselves annually when someone has the nerve to suggest, on edebate no less, that college kids have sex. Whats all this talk about appropriate decorum in a public forum? This is the fucking internet! Im just impressed that the listserv isnt bombarded with offers to make my dick bigger. Of course this stuff isnt politically correct. Heres the think about that: neither is debate, neither is life. Also, politically correctness is not funny...its boring. Seriously, though, who are we kidding acting all Tipper Gore like? Certainly, lines can be crossed with whats written here but let those harmed by Bricker's use of the word poonani speak for themselves. In the meantime lets not act like the debate community is collectively victimized everytime college kids act like college kids. Finally, I think it highly unlikely that any prospective employer will be on the verge of hiring andrew jennings but decide against it after a google search of his name reveals that a college friend once accused him of sticking his fingers up a dudes ass. Maybe its just because I think it highly unlikely that Jennings will ever find work.... just my two cents. blake -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070505/ac78c2fa/attachment.htm From omegapoint Sat May 5 15:02:43 2007 From: omegapoint (Nick Krebs) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 16:02:43 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #10 - ANDREW JENNINGS Message-ID: "Kids will be kids. The DCAs have been around as long as I have and theyve never been not offensive. Lets not shit ourselves annually when someone has the nerve to suggest, on edebate no less, that college kids have sex. Whats all this talk about appropriate decorum in a public forum? This is the fucking internet! Im just impressed that the listserv isnt bombarded with offers to make my dick bigger. Of course this stuff isnt politically correct. Heres the think about that: neither is debate, neither is life. Also, politically correctness is not funny...its boring. Seriously, though, who are we kidding acting all Tipper Gore like? Certainly, lines can be crossed with whats written here but let those harmed by Bricker's use of the word poonani speak for themselves. In the meantime lets not act like the debate community is collectively victimized everytime college kids act like college kids." Josh's objection has nothing to do with a discussion of sexuality in general. An analogy between what the mainstream media and your average politician deems politically incorrect is not at all analogous to the biographies on this list which year after year contain overtly sexist and homophobic material. That these are insider jokes are irrelevant. The standard that has been set for DCA bios is that they must be demeaning and the debaters are valorized more for their epic shits and incest attempts than actual debate accomplishments. This is not to say that biographies can't focus on stories outside of debate rounds, but it seems that those protesting to the inclusion of all this jock humor insist that without it such bios would be formulaic and uninteresting. In many ways the same standards for sexual harassment in the workplace are appropriate to consider here. It doesn't matter whether a group of people all have each others permission to demean one another when it creates an environment where others outside that group who rely on a space for their professional development/career feel uncomfortable using it. I suppose there is the argument that people could unsubscribe or ignore the bios, but given that the point of these bios is to be for people to purportedly learn something about those being recognized and understand the value of their accomplishments, it would undercut the reason to even have them in the first place. If bios are just for entertainment of the people who immediately know the person, then why post them here at all? Unless this is truly a space for boys to be boys. Nick -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070505/d68a65f8/attachment.htm From acasey3 Sat May 5 18:16:10 2007 From: acasey3 (Andrew Michael-Don Casey) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 18:16:10 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #10 - ANDREW JENNINGS Message-ID: <7393563.1178406970723.JavaMail.acasey3@ucok.edu> "The standard that has been set for DCA bios is that they must be demeaning and the debaters are valorized more for their epic shits and incest attempts than actual debate accomplishments. .... In many ways the same standards for sexual harassment in the workplace are appropriate to consider here. It doesn't matter whether a group of people all have each others permission to demean one another when it creates an environment where others outside that group who rely on a space for their professional development/career feel uncomfortable using it. " to use the parlance of our times, are you fucking serious? Yea, I'm absolutely convinced that everyone who has written/is writing a DCA bio has now got the standard in their head that they must create a shit story to top jennings'. Let's be honest with ourselves here, All of us who know jennings will remember him for his great success to some degree...but no one will forget the time he shit on nate's dining room floor at the heart party of 2006. Jennings is a unique case in comparison to other DCA bios i hope to still be able to see soon (because this current business is becoming boring as hell) The sexual harassment workplace comparison is absurd (and slightly trivializing). Bricker didnt offer a quid pro quo that you must watch the video of jennings pooping or you wont get a first round next year. I think you just reaffirmed Blake's collective victimization arg. Seriously, its Cinco de Mayo go have a margarita or something. Stop trying to place blame and go enjoy yourself. Nothing is more life-denying than people trying to highlight more problems with jennings lifestyle. -Andy Casey (who is apparently an acceptable form of incest) ----------------------------------------- **CONFIDENTIALITY** -This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential, proprietary and privileged information, any unauthorized disclosure or use is prohibited. If you received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this email from your system. Thank you. From ptodd1 Sat May 5 20:52:03 2007 From: ptodd1 (Pat Todd) Date: Sat, 5 May 2007 21:52:03 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: DCA Debater #10 - ANDREW JENNINGS References: <77F5C25BB3DA234BA41147650860C48001D2B426@MAILBOXONE.home.ku.edu> Message-ID: <007501c78f81$24f3f770$b3e14b47@office> I am an attorney in Charlotte, NC with a 7th grader who joined the debate team this year. At some point I accidentally got on this list (thinking it would help us get up to speed on debate), and although I have repeatedly requested to be removed after determining that it is not helpful to us at all, I am still getting your e-mails. I don't know what it will take to get someone to get me off this list, but if I get anymore e-mails containing this type of language or trash talk I am going to contact the deans of each of your Universities, as well as your web master who must have rules against this type of talk. It is highly offensive and unwelcomed. Patricia B. Todd ptodd1 at carolina.rr.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Steven D'Amico To: EDEBATE Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 7:18 PM Subject: Re: [eDebate] Fwd: DCA Debater #10 - ANDREW JENNINGS I'm about to get my ass in trouble again. But it looks like Kansas has proved my earlier defense of DCAs unwarranted. I just really find this DCA profile ironic in terms of certain affirmative's Kansas was running this year which discussed last years DCAs. On 5/4/07, Josh wrote: Forwarded from Florida, Josh ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: joseph carver < hardfeelings at gmail.com> Date: May 4, 2007 4:49 PM Subject: Re: [eDebate] DCA Debater #10 - ANDREW JENNINGS To: Josh < jbhdb8 at gmail.com> Josh, As I no longer subscribe, I can't post. Would you forward this: My annual reminder to the community that people OTHER than those who find your uneducated, irresponsible discourse reprehensible, read these. Until recently, my own high school students read it. Perhaps the chairs of your departments will enjoy this reading? Your deans? Wise up. This forum is not the appropriate place to embarrass yourselfs, or your schools. Eventually someone will have had enough and someone in an administration will read these. And then your program and others will be jeapordized. Joe Carver Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart On 5/4/07, Josh < jbhdb8 at gmail.com> wrote: Whoops, catelaw might not be KU (Baylor?) apologies, Josh On 5/4/07, Josh wrote: Hello, My understanding is that the authors are suprised by this response....in fact, saying, "how is this like last year." Several issues: "The savages of western Kansas did teach Jennings one thing, and that was that nothing is more important than family. I guess that's why for almost a year he tried to fuck his sister. Sure, she's technically his step-sister, and she's really hot, but we still had to explain to him that intercourse with a family member is not socially acceptable, unless your sister's name is Andy Casey. Nonetheless she is H-O-T (ask Bryce D., he definitely got shot down by her for a full semester). In fact, Jennings has three sisters who are all really fucking hot; I wish you could see them. In the words of Ben Warner, "I would cut off my left nut and four of my toes for one chance to pop it in her pooper." It's like his sisters didn't come from the same parents as that savage." * I feel fairly certain that Andrew's sisters did not sign on for this...nor is the language used anything but objectifying....Are you honestly telling me that Andrew and his sisters would like this being googled in later years by employers...That Andrews sisters want people to read about them in this way? Really? This is different then last year how? "He was once getting his ass whipped by some dude and decided to "check his oil" mid match. When I say "check his oil" I mean Jennings got two knuckles deep in this dudes ass. Two knuckles." **Explain this as appropriate in a public forum if you would? "While it is true that Jennings does attend class (sometimes), he does not always attend class sober. In fact, during one drunken class session, Jennings was responsible for presenting a project that he and members of his group had completed. In order to successfully complete the presentation, Jennings needed to connect his laptop to the projector to show some slides to the class. After getting set up, Jennings began his presentation. Almost immediately Jennings noticed some snickering, which soon turned into laughing and pointing. The professor then screeched, "OH MY! INAPPROPRIATE MATERIAL!" Alarmed by her response, Jennings turned around to see "I LOVE PENIS!" displayed prominently in the center of the screen, as the title of one of his word documents?and there it was for the whole class to see." ** See above, appropriate how? "Jennings loves pooping. He loves it so much that there's an entire section of this DCA bio committed to stories about Jennings pooping. Places Jennings has actually pooped: -The floor of Nate's dining room -The windshield of Jon's car -The upper deck of Jon's toilet -Jon's chest -The chest of his girlfriends, then they reciprocated. -In a bag, which was then surreptitiously given to Jon Places Jennings has actually peed: -In pop bottles in his car, while driving -Shumaker's closet -Jon's patio -Ronnie's shower -The parking lot at the Westin in Dallas The man has no soul. If you don't believe me here's a video of Jennings pooping while obviously intoxicated: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctsCiuSy76s, **** If you're not willing to click the link, here are some of the more choice lines: "Oh yeah, it burns. It burns so much." "Hopefully I didn't just get my jimmy on camera." "God damn, Maker, I'm gonna need you to lick my butthole later tonight." It might not be so bad if this were a one time occurence but it isn't. Jennings loves to be "caught on tape" when he poops, more evidence @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0LdpsDSxgk" ** More questionable, see above "Jennings tactics for attracting women have been described as "savagely guerilla" in nature. While only mildly effective, these tactics, combined with his recent debate success, have skyrocketed his poon level to astronomical heights." ** Do you find this to be empowering and affirming to women in the community? "Another time, Jennings also dated a retarded girl? (not Sara Stephens ? this was a different one)" ** I repeat the question "One time Jennings was so fucked up that he thought it would be a good idea to fight Bricker, needless to say, Bricker "Debbie Lai'ed" his ass, and Jennings was down for the count. You get it? Like when Debbie punched Julie Hoehn? Only Bricker actually connected the punch." ** more nice work "Last year at the ADI, at the Dream Palace (a live nude dancing establishment), Monique and Jasmine rode Jennings around for 25 minutes: Jennings shelled out 852 dollars. Sorry Papa Jennings, that "emergency money" he asked for didn't pay his tuition. By "rode" I mean, they stripped him down to his boxers, tied him up with a leather leash, made him get down on all fours, and whipped him until he barked like a dog. At least he got a free T-Shirt. This story isn't even all that funny. We just love to tell it?it makes Jennings blush." ** yet more "One not so anonymous D3 (Natalie Pennington) young woman also had some contributions: Bricker312: Hey natpen, we're trying to come up with some nicknames for Jennings, did you have any? Promisingpenny: Well, one time we were about to have sex and he was too drunk to get it up. So we laid there awhile and it was pretty awkward. Then, he stood up on the bed with the covers wrapped around his shoulders like a cape, and screamed "I'M BATMAN". I almost shit myself. Bricker312: Holy shit, are you fucking serious? Please tell me you're making that up. Promisingpenny: No, I'm not. The weird thing is, after he got into the role, he finally got it up, and it was the best sex of my life. So I usually call him batman." ** Even if this is with permission - probably not exactly positive community information or appropriate for a public forum Let me mention the obligatory - oh and he is a hard working and good debater was less then a paragraph, I came out in support of a member of your own squad last year for defending herself against not just what was said about her but the ATTITUDE toward women and women in debate that the post took......perhaps her message did not even manage its way through Castellaw? Josh _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -- Joseph Carver _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070505/bd4ab229/attachment.htm From theonlykellen Sun May 6 01:46:22 2007 From: theonlykellen (kellen mcaffee) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 06:46:22 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Bio #9.7: Patricia B. (Mc)Todd(enson) Message-ID: First of all I would like to express/expel a smelly, disheveled "load" of regret (just as any DCA Bio-engineer would). I am sorry that it is I who has to make this posting, and you can be assured that I am wearing rubber gloves and a respirator as I lay this life bare, err... author this "Bio." Patricia B. Todd (Mc)Todd(enson) As an unwitting participant, Patricia learned more about herself than anything else as she interacted with our community. What was most striking was her unbelievable tolerance in relation to the norms of our activity. Despite obviously not agreeing with our perspectives, she embraced them wholeheartedly and commended us for our commitment to academic rigor and honesty. Rather than simply taking a dump on our community and bragging about its size, its shape, or its timing, Patricia took full advantage of our open forum and expressed herself vividly and with rhetorical finesse. In closing, I would like to thank Patricia for her contribution and place my solemn stamp of approval on the DCA process.* Kellen McAffee Dean of Students College of the Ironically Stupid 1.25% better than my neighbors, America *(Questions of vulgarity mask issues of disparity). _________________________________________________________________ Download Messenger. Join the i?m Initiative. Help make a difference today. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_APR07 From yeatjess Sun May 6 03:52:08 2007 From: yeatjess (yeatjess at isu.edu) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 03:52:08 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] MISSING CELL PHONE AT THE TOC Message-ID: its a grey motorola "razr."? if you have it or recall hearing queen's "under pressure" playing let me know. thanks jessica -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070506/7dbae20f/attachment.htm From mmk_savant Sun May 6 06:04:20 2007 From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 04:04:20 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] ans Todd Message-ID: Ms. Todd: While I believe that some of the young men who express themselves without so much as a care about how they might be perceived by others are acting rashly, your conduct is plainly despicable. You are threatening to cause harm to the reputations of these young men because you don't like their speech. You made sure to note that you are an attorney in North Carolina and I expect that the North Carolina Bar Association would be interested to know how you use that status. Maybe shutting people up by threatening to call their boss, dean, or pastor is acceptable behavior in your little mind, but it doesn't fly among adults. You stand outside strip bars and inside liquor stores jotting down your neighbors' names, too? I humbly suggest a few alternatives to making a jackass of yourself in the act of throwing away your family's funds: a) figure out how to unsubscribe: a savvy 8-year old should be capable of it. in Windows Live, for example, every single message has an "Unsubscribe" link along the top of every listserve message. if you visit www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate the bottom of the page has unsubscribing instructions as well. b) block the listserv in your mail program. c) do not read the posts that you find unhelpful: this should be trivially simple since you only "accidentally" subscribed and do not find the listserve useful. SO STOP READING IT. d) suck it up like a big person. surely you have learned by now that people say and write all sorts of things that ruffle your delicacies. tattling is what little people do: big people shrug it off. e) put out your ears and eyes with sharp hot pokers. as unpleasant as some of the recent text is, it is weak sauce compared to what is on the Internet. or in a quality art gallery. or at any junior high school party. if this leads you to harass these young men, then drop your clients now because you will be calling deans, bosses, spouses, parents, and pastors 24/7/52 ... Michael Korcok Bakersfield College _________________________________________________________________ Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy! http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx&mkt=en-us -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070506/04b51f19/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Sun May 6 10:21:14 2007 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 09:21:14 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Wyoming Debate Cooperative Optional Lecture Series Message-ID: About the Cooperative Lecture Series Topic lectures, research lectures, skills lectures, these "standards" take place between 10:00 and noon throughout most of the WDC. Optional Lectures at the WDC take place both at 9:00 AM and 10:00 PM every lecture day and may go on after the standard lectures have ended (depending on demand). Between classroom and lounge space and those time blocks we have room for a virtually unlimited number of lectures. Typically we have three or four going at once, a rate that can sustain about twenty optional lectures per cooperative. Students from all types and leagues of debate attend these lectures, offering a unique opportunity for parliamentary debaters to hear the encyclopedic wisdom and competitive enthusiasm of Ken DeLaughder, and policy debaters the esoteric, rhythmic and anarchical rantings of Brandan Whearty... Traditionally we've had coach-types do most of these, but spots are open to debaters as well. Anyone is welcome to throw their lecture into the optional lecture buffet and we'll _try_ to accomodate everyone. We ask the following if you want to give a lecture: 1. Make it a good one, thoroughly researched, with lots of citations for people to learn more about the subject, and well-structured, understandable, etc. 2. Have a transcript of it with complete sentences, as prose-like and readable as possible, with bibliography, so that we can make it universally available (by posting the text of the lecture, or the link to it, at debatecooperative.net). Here are some lectures we've had in the past, to give you an idea of the kinds of things covered in the optional series: Privacy Law Materiality and Class in Debate International Relations Primer Latin America Socio-Sexual Pathology, Sadomasochism and Debate Introduction to Performative Debate Causality, Complexity, and Chaos Theory Prolif This year I already know of a mass discussion taking place on the future of parliamentary debate, and we are trying to recruit lecturers on: "What, 'exactly,' is calculative thinking?", argumentation and sexuality, a panel discussion on "The Performative Turn Five (or so) Years Later" as well as a discussion on how to get more funding for your team. I am also trying to finally complete my long-promised observations on debate and Brechtian political theater. Those interested in writing and presenting lectures should contact me at stannard at uwyo.edu. matt _________________________________________________________________ News, entertainment and everything you care about at Live.com. Get it now! http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070506/c8becc45/attachment.htm From spowers Sun May 6 10:44:22 2007 From: spowers (Shawn Powers) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 11:44:22 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] DCA #9, Alex Iftimie Message-ID: <2B2631F7-F1F7-4397-A5D6-57FC8B9AB470@usc.edu> Bio coming shortly. sp From brettawallace Sun May 6 11:16:11 2007 From: brettawallace (Brett Wallace) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 12:16:11 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] If your team is out of the TOC already... Message-ID: ...and you want some good television to watch, may I suggest the Flavor of Love's Charm School. Fullerton teaches the Flavor of Love girls how to debate. It airs again tonight at 10pm eastern. http://media.www.dailytitan.com/media/storage/paper861/news/2006/12/06/News/Vh1-Films.charm.School.In.Library-2524891.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dailytitan.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com -- Brett Wallace The Elliot School 07' The George Washington University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070506/73512423/attachment.htm From Jeffrey.Jarman Sun May 6 11:37:33 2007 From: Jeffrey.Jarman (Jeffrey.Jarman) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 11:37:33 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Dr. Jon smokes Snoop Dog Quantities Message-ID: <461F7693@webmail.wichita.edu> It must be true. I just heard it on MTV. Direct quote. It apparently altered his judgment, because no one else seemed to agree with his decision. The only thing worse than being on MTV's Charm School is admitting you watch it. Jeff From ewarner Sun May 6 11:48:28 2007 From: ewarner (Ede Warner) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 12:48:28 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Dr. Jon smokes Snoop Dog Quantities In-Reply-To: <461F7693@webmail.wichita.edu> References: <461F7693@webmail.wichita.edu> Message-ID: <463DCE7C.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu> I agree with Mr. Dr. Snoop Jon...low point win for the negative!!!! >>> "Jeffrey.Jarman" 5/6/2007 12:37 PM >>> It must be true. I just heard it on MTV. Direct quote. It apparently altered his judgment, because no one else seemed to agree with his decision. The only thing worse than being on MTV's Charm School is admitting you watch it. Jeff _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070506/e5246913/attachment.htm From leaderdb8 Sun May 6 14:34:10 2007 From: leaderdb8 (Paul Leader) Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 13:34:10 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Clean up the DCA Message-ID: I think Ms. Todd's email is a warning sign. We should either clean up the bios for DCA, or just eliminate it. Do we want to risk the loss of some programs b/c this type of nonsense gets sent to someone's administration? Also, Mr. Jennings seems like a nice fellow, and someday a potential future employer might run across this stuff and not appreciate our "tongue-in-cheek" intentions, and throw his resume right in the trashcan. The current postings for DCA are offensive, rude, and vulgar. I am a pretty liberal-minded guy, but I stopped reading them b/c they are offensive and juvenile. It is entirely possible to be funny and "roast" someone without this stuff. For example, I wrote a year-end summary for the ENMU Debate team (as do many other coaches), that pokes fun at everybody on our team, but never crosses the line into vulgar, offensive, obscene material. It makes fun of all in a light-hearted matter and does not contain anything that I would worry about our administration reading. I say either clean up this stuff, or end the DCA awards. Paul Leader ENMU Debate Coach _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/ From jpiddyedebate Sun May 6 14:57:24 2007 From: jpiddyedebate (Josh Pang) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 12:57:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Dr. Jon smokes Snoop Dogg Quantities Message-ID: <359678.76810.qm@web63005.mail.re1.yahoo.com> Yeah, not like this means much to many, but the F-Town squad unanimously decided that it was a clear negative win in the commercial break before Jon apparently shocked the world. Sorry Mo'nique. And sorry Toni. :) -Josh Fullerton '07 I agree with Mr. Dr. Snoop Jon...low point win for the negative!!!! >>> "Jeffrey.Jarman" 5/6/2007 12:37 PM >>> It must be true. I just heard it on MTV. Direct quote. It apparently altered his judgment, because no one else seemed to agree with his decision. The only thing worse than being on MTV's Charm School is admitting you watch it. Jeff __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070506/17046d0a/attachment.htm From andreareed2007 Sun May 6 21:34:45 2007 From: andreareed2007 (A Reed) Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 22:34:45 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] charm school Message-ID: <4871d69f0705061934i6aa712a9l2f67385369940bb8@mail.gmail.com> Some MSU debaters and I have had a party to watching the debate episode of charm school.... hilarious... love the aff/neg win argument... anyone who thinks a vh1 show is too stupid to watch might normally be right, but everyone should try to catch the rerun of this one... Andrea From kenedebate Mon May 7 00:53:44 2007 From: kenedebate (Ken DeLaughder) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 00:53:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Dr. Jon smokes Snoop Dog Quantities In-Reply-To: <461F7693@webmail.wichita.edu> Message-ID: It's VH-1's charm school.. although I think MTV owns VH-1... I watched it... it was... lol... ohhhhhh awesome...maybe you could show it to an into to debate class....he does outline the rules of debate really well. Of course, one of the charm school girls thinks he is wrong... she think you first cut em down... we're still laughing at my house... debate truly is everywhere. I think this can be used in performance sometime.. pop culture... Good job Toni... helping them get it right. lol Ken D. >From: "Jeffrey.Jarman" >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: [eDebate] Dr. Jon smokes Snoop Dog Quantities >Date: Sun, 06 May 2007 11:37:33 -0500 > >It must be true. I just heard it on MTV. Direct quote. >It apparently altered his judgment, because no one else seemed to agree >with >his decision. > >The only thing worse than being on MTV's Charm School is admitting you >watch >it. > > >Jeff > > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ Need a break? Find your escape route with Live Search Maps. http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?ss=Restaurants~Hotels~Amusement%20Park&cp=33.832922~-117.915659&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=1118863&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01 From lchesq Mon May 7 09:15:04 2007 From: lchesq (Lindsay Harrison) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 10:15:04 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Job Opening - Asst to Tom Goldstein, Supreme Court Lawyer Message-ID: Hi everyone, I thought this job posting might appeal to members of the debate community. Not sure if anyone has mentioned it yet. http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2007/05/job_opening_spe.html "If you are contemplating law school but would like to first work in the legal world for two years, or if you are currently (or planning to be) a part-time law student in the DC area, Akin Gump is currently accepting applications for the position of special assistant to Tom Goldstein See this job announcement for details about how to apply as well as details about qualifications and responsibilities, which will include substantial involvement with both SCOTUSblog and with all aspects of Tom's law practice. Applications are due by the end of next week (May 11)." Lindsay _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/ From malgorthewarrior Mon May 7 14:59:39 2007 From: malgorthewarrior (Malcolm Gordon) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 14:59:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] NICK MILLER PLEASE Message-ID: Hey, I couldn't help but notice that the Rockets lost in the first round of the playoffs. I thought I'd give you a few days to get over it. I do believe that means we gots a bet to settle. Get ahold of me and work it out. PS-at least T-Mac had never made it to the second round before. Think of the Dallas fans....biggest egg ever laid in an NBA playoff. malgor kcmo _________________________________________________________________ Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon. http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemailtaglineapril07 From hansonjb Mon May 7 15:37:11 2007 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 13:37:11 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] wnpt 2007 and nw ceda champs 2008 Message-ID: <875B4AF780D24EFCA221248EE71C1BAF@whitman.edu> I invite all schools to attend the wnpt 2007 (november 17 and 18) and nw ceda champs (march 1-3). for schools outside of washington state, the tournaments are free--no registration costs, free food (breakfast, lunch, dinner), and free transportation to and from the pasco or walla walla airport/hotel/tournament. --no round starts before 9:30am --all rounds are in one building --coach and student parties --food throughout (eg taco buffet, chinese or teriyaki, desserts, etc.) join us for either or both of these great tournaments and enjoy some northwest hospitality! fly in to: --portland (about a 4 hour, beautiful drive through the columbia gorge) --spokane (about a 3 hour drive) --pasco, about 1 hour away (free transportation from us) --walla walla, 10 minutes from campus (free transportation from us) full invitations are at: wnpt http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/collegetourn/54wnpt2007.htm nw ceda champs http://www.whitman.edu/rhetoric/collegetourn/54nwceda2008.htm jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070507/56b48173/attachment.htm From blakejohnson Mon May 7 17:48:31 2007 From: blakejohnson (Johnson, Joseph B.) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 17:48:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Dr. Jon smokes Snoop Dog Quantities References: <461F7693@webmail.wichita.edu> Message-ID: <0C10B7CD7775E2498869EDDE876D63501E9952@XMAIL1.sooner.net.ou.edu> Jarman, et al.- I think its highly reckless and sophomoric of you all to compromise Dr. Jon's (not to mention Snoop Dogg's) reputation by posting such frat humor in a public forum. Indignant, blake johnson -----Original Message----- From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of Jeffrey.Jarman Sent: Sun 5/6/2007 11:37 AM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Dr. Jon smokes Snoop Dog Quantities It must be true. I just heard it on MTV. Direct quote. It apparently altered his judgment, because no one else seemed to agree with his decision. The only thing worse than being on MTV's Charm School is admitting you watch it. Jeff _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070507/4cefe041/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 Mon May 7 18:42:11 2007 From: jbhdb8 (Josh) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 19:42:11 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Dr. Jon smokes Snoop Dog Quantities In-Reply-To: <0C10B7CD7775E2498869EDDE876D63501E9952@XMAIL1.sooner.net.ou.edu> References: <461F7693@webmail.wichita.edu> <0C10B7CD7775E2498869EDDE876D63501E9952@XMAIL1.sooner.net.ou.edu> Message-ID: Since you wouldnt answer backchannel...and since I am authentically interested...Do you consider that there are differences between forums that allow for different standards of what composes ethical posting behavior? Would you go on Sesame Street and start cursing up a storm for the little kids for instance? Would you do jokes about holocaust revisionism on the survivor radio show? Again, there is a difference between the claim that one OUGHT not say certain things and saying one CAN not say certain things. Finally, what did you think about the school that was trying to prevent a legitimate graduate from getting a degree because of pics she posted on her myspace page....I guess my concerns are absurd enough to deserve your derision? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0705060333may07,1,7360683.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed Josh On 5/7/07, Johnson, Joseph B. wrote: > > Jarman, et al.- > > I think its highly reckless and sophomoric of you all to compromise Dr. > Jon's (not to mention Snoop Dogg's) reputation by posting such frat humor in > a public forum. > > > Indignant, > blake johnson > > > -----Original Message----- > From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of Jeffrey.Jarman > Sent: Sun 5/6/2007 11:37 AM > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > Subject: [eDebate] Dr. Jon smokes Snoop Dog Quantities > > It must be true. I just heard it on MTV. Direct quote. > It apparently altered his judgment, because no one else seemed to agree > with > his decision. > > The only thing worse than being on MTV's Charm School is admitting you > watch > it. > > > Jeff > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070507/5a8db58c/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Mon May 7 19:33:16 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 20:33:16 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Dr. Jon smokes Snoop Dog Quantities In-Reply-To: References: <461F7693@webmail.wichita.edu> <0C10B7CD7775E2498869EDDE876D63501E9952@XMAIL1.sooner.net.ou.edu> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705071733j34f7bc3br68eba0bbc12f2039@mail.gmail.com> Josh, To me it seems the forum for such things is EXACTLY the DCA's...whether it should be or not, it seems to be that the ethcial posting behavior for dca's has become exactly what you say people ought not do...are you suggesting that in a world where that is what dca's are they shouldnt be on edebate?perhaps on a website? but then that would be worse...or maybe you think not...how bout a website where any person mentioned could delete or change their name,....perhaps a wiki where people could edit the entry... On 5/7/07, Josh wrote: > > Since you wouldnt answer backchannel...and since I am authentically > interested...Do you consider that there are differences between forums that > allow for different standards of what composes ethical posting behavior? > > Would you go on Sesame Street and start cursing up a storm for the little > kids for instance? Would you do jokes about holocaust revisionism on the > survivor radio show? > > Again, there is a difference between the claim that one OUGHT not say > certain things and saying one CAN not say certain things. > > Finally, what did you think about the school that was trying to prevent a > legitimate graduate from getting a degree because of pics she posted on her > myspace page....I guess my concerns are absurd enough to deserve your > derision? > > http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0705060333may07,1,7360683.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed > > > Josh > > > > On 5/7/07, Johnson, Joseph B. wrote: > > > > Jarman, et al.- > > > > I think its highly reckless and sophomoric of you all to compromise Dr. > > Jon's (not to mention Snoop Dogg's) reputation by posting such frat humor in > > a public forum. > > > > > > Indignant, > > blake johnson > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of Jeffrey.Jarman > > Sent: Sun 5/6/2007 11:37 AM > > To: edebate at ndtceda.com > > Subject: [eDebate] Dr. Jon smokes Snoop Dog Quantities > > > > It must be true. I just heard it on MTV. Direct quote. > > It apparently altered his judgment, because no one else seemed to agree > > with > > his decision. > > > > The only thing worse than being on MTV's Charm School is admitting you > > watch > > it. > > > > > > Jeff > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070507/34a19207/attachment.htm From andreareed2007 Mon May 7 20:12:06 2007 From: andreareed2007 (A Reed) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 21:12:06 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] TOC results? Message-ID: <4871d69f0705071812j7e9f6d7co8114e633fb0d347@mail.gmail.com> Anyone wanna put up some TOC results for those of us who couldn't make it this weekend? From stables Mon May 7 20:12:00 2007 From: stables (Gordon Stables) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 18:12:00 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Open Position - USC Assistant Director of Forensics and Public Debate Message-ID: <463FCE60.6070101@usc.edu> Open Position: USC Annenberg School for Communication ? Assistant Director of Forensics and Public Debate The USC Annenberg School for Communication seeks a full-time non tenure-track lecturer to serve as the Assistant Director of Forensics of the Trojan Debate Squad. The position primarily involves the development and direction of on-campus, community, and intra-mural debate activities. Development of these programs will include identifying and obtaining grant funding. The Assistant Director will also assist with the intercollegiate debate program, including some tournament travel, and the hosting of tournaments on our campus. The Assistant Director will teach one class per semester, typically Argumentation, Introduction to Debate or Public Speaking. The position will report to the Director of Debate and Forensics. The USC Annenberg Trojan Debate Squad enjoys a rich and distinguished history. The debate society was chartered in 1880 as the first student organization recognized on campus. Over the years USC has qualified for the National Debate Tournament (NDT) in more years than any other university and has qualified in ever year since 1963. Trojan debate alumni have gone on to positions of leadership in law, politics, academia, and industry. The squad enjoys the generous support of the Annenberg School and of its alumni. Qualified applications must possess an M.A. degree. Please send a CV, list of references, evidence of teaching excellence and a statement of interest. Salary will be competitive and commensurate with qualifications and experience. Applications and inquiries should be directed to: Gordon Stables Annenberg School for Communication University of Southern California 3502 Watt Way, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0281. Questions can be directed to Gordon Stables at stables at usc.edu or 213-740-2759. Review of applications will begin immediately and will continue until the position is filled. USC is an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer. -- 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 SBauschard Mon May 7 20:40:48 2007 From: SBauschard (Stefan Bauschard) Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 20:40:48 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] TOC finals Message-ID: <200705072040.AA56492268@pop3.planetdebate.com> GBN v. Westminster --Olney, Paul, Rabinowitz (I believe) From malgorthewarrior Mon May 7 21:24:31 2007 From: malgorthewarrior (Malcolm Gordon) Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 21:24:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Dr. Jon smokes Snoop Dog Quantities Message-ID: I've always thought that Sesame Street could use a little spice. malgor _________________________________________________________________ Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/ From acculp Tue May 8 02:44:34 2007 From: acculp (Andrew Culp) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 00:44:34 -0700 (GMT-07:00) Subject: [eDebate] eDebate Digest, Vol 20, Issue 7 Message-ID: <24976113.1178610274834.JavaMail.root@elwamui-cypress.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Apparently you haven't seen the new episodes, Josh - http://thetravisty.com/Chappelles_Show/wmv/Knee_High_Park.htm ac From kenrjohnson Tue May 8 07:53:46 2007 From: kenrjohnson (Ken Johnson) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 06:53:46 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] University of Rochester Seeking Assistant Coaches Message-ID: Dear Debate Community, This is an unofficial announcement. Please look for a more official notice later. I'm looking to see who is interested in a position coaching debate at the University of Rochester. The position should come with medical benefits. The salary is enough to live in VERY low priced Rochester. Please consider joining us in the Flower City! Email me interest at: kenrjohnson at msn.com Thanks, Ken Director of Forensics University of Rochester -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070508/99915410/attachment.htm From mardigras23 Tue May 8 11:05:51 2007 From: mardigras23 (Aaron Kall) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:05:51 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] TOC Finals Message-ID: Dr. Patterson will be posting complete results soon, but in the Finals, Glenbrook North FS (Aff.) d. Westminster SW 2-1, Paul, Cleary, *RabinowitzAaronMichigan Debate _________________________________________________________________ Download Messenger. Start an i?m conversation. Support a cause. Join now. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGWL_MAY07 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070508/a649009c/attachment.htm From malgorthewarrior Tue May 8 12:34:26 2007 From: malgorthewarrior (Malcolm Gordon) Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 12:34:26 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] who's number 8, who's number 7? where are the bios Message-ID: Don't let these complainers get in your way. I need something funny to read let's get the show on the road. malgor _________________________________________________________________ More photos, more messages, more storage?get 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507 From crb012000 Tue May 8 12:54:45 2007 From: crb012000 (Burk, Christopher R) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 12:54:45 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] who's number 8, who's number 7? where are the bios Message-ID: Malcolm and anyone else interested, The posting of the DCA bio's are a bit delayed but will continue soon. Shawn Powers bio of Alex Iftimie should be next be it is 'under review' and not because it might be published. So he suggested that we just go ahead to the next author for the bio for the #8 debate. Well, the author of that one needs to answer his email and post the bio ASAP. So the posting of the bio's has bogged down but it will proceed later today or tomorrow (hopefully). Again, I take no responsibility for the content of the biographies. Those who contacted me indicating their willingness to write a bio are only told when to post and the results of the vote. Everything else is their decision. But, generally, please consider trying approaching these bio's with a sense of humor. Life's too short to seek constantly to be offended. cb Christopher Burk Director of Debate University of Texas at Dallas www.utdallas.edu/orgs/debate/new/ From andy.edebate Tue May 8 13:11:34 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 14:11:34 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] who's number 8, who's number 7? where are the bios In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705081111h53170410n9041eb06c124c2a0@mail.gmail.com> Craig Rosebraugh, is also not responsible, I mean im cool with that standard as long as you are... On 5/8/07, Burk, Christopher R wrote: > > Malcolm and anyone else interested, > > The posting of the DCA bio's are a bit delayed but will continue soon. > Shawn Powers bio of Alex Iftimie should be next be it is 'under review' and > not because it might be published. So he suggested that we just go ahead to > the next author for the bio for the #8 debate. Well, the author of that one > needs to answer his email and post the bio ASAP. So the posting of the bio's > has bogged down but it will proceed later today or tomorrow (hopefully). > > Again, I take no responsibility for the content of the biographies. Those > who contacted me indicating their willingness to write a bio are only told > when to post and the results of the vote. Everything else is their > decision. But, generally, please consider trying approaching these bio's > with a sense of humor. Life's too short to seek constantly to be offended. > > cb > > > Christopher Burk > Director of Debate > University of Texas at Dallas > www.utdallas.edu/orgs/debate/new/ > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070508/534131f2/attachment.htm From crb012000 Tue May 8 15:42:06 2007 From: crb012000 (Burk, Christopher R) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 15:42:06 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] who's number 8, who's number 7? where are the bios References: <9368bc9b0705081111h53170410n9041eb06c124c2a0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: There you go again, Ellis. Defending terrorists... Just kidding. But seriously, you got no link. There are some big differences between my role of the DCA process and the activity of Craig Rosenbraugh. I realize that your flow is ain?t the best so I?ll go through the link arguments very slowly for you. First, there's no direct action or physical violence with the posting of DCA info or DCA biographies to eDebate. I?m not advocating violence or relaying messages for those who do. Give me a break. Second, the writers of the DCA bio's are not anonymous. It?s clear to everyone who the writers are when they post. Credit or blame is easily assigned to the source. I?m not hiding anyone?s identity. It?s actually quite the opposite ? I tell the bio?s writers to post directly to eDebate since I will not post for them. You might even label that a ?link turn.? Third, the better parallel might be the operator of eDebate since almost anyone can post here and can post under a fake name if desired. C?mon, a freaking gerbil posted last year! And, finally, this clearly ain?t about social justice. The DCA bio?s might recognize debaters. They might poke fun at debaters. They might applaud achievements. They might be offensive and disgraceful. But are the goals of posters of DCA bio?s even vaguely similar to Rosebraugh?s goal of promoting social justice? No, that?s not what the DCA?s are all about. I hope that I have cleared that up for ya. Overall, eDebate is clearly a very open forum (we all can thank Kerpen for maintaining it). Open forums can be both a blessing and a curse. There?s nothing really preventing any one from posting a bio to eDebate. Or anyone from posting anything to eDebate. The archives are filled with a huge variety of both posters and content. But, hey, that?s what we get when we are livin' la vida loca in a free speech forum. People are free to post something or not. Or to read the posts or not. Or to post a response or not. Or ignore all of eDebate completely. I am honestly a bit mystified when some people in the debate community ? people who might have a large appreciation for the merits of a free speech communication forum ? call for less freedom of speech. Debate writ large would seem to indicate that the one of best response to speech that one find?s annoying, distasteful, or erroneous would be some form of counter-speech rather than limits on speech. Christopher Burk Director of Debate University of Texas at Dallas www.utdallas.edu/orgs/debate/new/ -----Original Message----- From: Andy Ellis [mailto:andy.edebate at gmail.com] Sent: Tue 5/8/2007 1:11 PM To: Burk, Christopher R Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] who's number 8, who's number 7? where are the bios Craig Rosebraugh, is also not responsible, I mean im cool with that standard as long as you are... On 5/8/07, Burk, Christopher R wrote: > > Malcolm and anyone else interested, > > The posting of the DCA bio's are a bit delayed but will continue soon. > Shawn Powers bio of Alex Iftimie should be next be it is 'under review' and > not because it might be published. So he suggested that we just go ahead to > the next author for the bio for the #8 debate. Well, the author of that one > needs to answer his email and post the bio ASAP. So the posting of the bio's > has bogged down but it will proceed later today or tomorrow (hopefully). > > Again, I take no responsibility for the content of the biographies. Those > who contacted me indicating their willingness to write a bio are only told > when to post and the results of the vote. Everything else is their > decision. But, generally, please consider trying approaching these bio's > with a sense of humor. Life's too short to seek constantly to be offended. > > cb > > > Christopher Burk > Director of Debate > University of Texas at Dallas > www.utdallas.edu/orgs/debate/new/ > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From stannardmatt Tue May 8 17:25:54 2007 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 16:25:54 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] back by popular demand...DCA debater #72.5 Fred "Tubby" Grimes Message-ID: This just gets funnier every time I post it...well okay it doesn't, but it's pretty much what y'all nailheads deserve... Fred is so thrilled to be on this list. He realizes that, as a member of a program (Cutco College of West Moose, Wyoming) with a very limited budget and able to travel to only a limited number of regional tournaments, he doesn't really deserve it...but his inclusion is a signal that these popularity contests REALLY mean something. Fred got into debate at the urging of his father, who had vigorously debated the loyalty oath in the 1950s. The elder Mr. Grimes had caught an opponent making stuff up, and everyone on the high school circuit called that person "False-quotes Louie" for the rest of his career. Fred was 19th speaker at his sub-regional ten-team state championship last year and once gave an entire speech sitting down! And once, in answer to an obscure strategy (no doubt appropriated from some other region) called "the narrative," Fred got out his tuba and played "stars and stripes forever." The judges wept, gave Fred the ballot, and then contributed ten dollars each to the American Legion. Fred won the "best knees" contest in his dorm one time, but gave the award back because he objected to the idea that one can be defined by their knees. His coach, Owen Gueterrez, was heard to say "I don't think I've had a student in the past...oh...two semesters who works as hard and with as much integrity as Ted...I mean, Fred." He then said "Hey--now that Fred made the cut for this extremely important list, can anyone give us some money so we don't have to sleep on people's floors when we go to tournaments?" (compiled by Fred's partner, Isabelle "purple lipstick" Hollingsworth) _________________________________________________________________ Change is good. See what?s different about Windows Live Hotmail. www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/default.html?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_changegood_0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070508/bf2b7133/attachment.htm From brentonculpepper Tue May 8 19:53:01 2007 From: brentonculpepper (Brent Culpepper) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 20:53:01 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #8 - KEVIN RABINOWITZ Message-ID: <9831d3d30705081753o5690a8d1v845694bd9eb0ca8c@mail.gmail.com> Version 1 of the Bio was scratched due to NC-17 content about the early years of Ed Panetta which is where Kevin gained his inspiration. I will not stop writing until the bio is complete or my body breaks from sleep deprivation. My apologies for the delay. Brent -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070508/024c0ec7/attachment.htm From drmosbornesq Tue May 8 21:56:05 2007 From: drmosbornesq (bandana martin) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 19:56:05 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #11: AARON LYTTLE Message-ID: <39c09a80705081956r9fa970dwd96b3c9b5037af4f@mail.gmail.com> Fuck Corporate Beef: The Aaron Lyttle Story Increasingly, all of this DCA shazz-bah seems to degenerate into a mess of harsh admonitions over the state of our union. Many lose sight about what the whole process is supposed to be about: remembering the people who have made an impression on you in debate. While some bio's lack an appreciation for subtlety, the process nevertheless has merit. But what if no one knows the person you'd like to remember? If that's the case, fuck the popularity contest. Some people have had an incredible impact on debate, even if they've never really belonged to the club-house or have garnered enough attention to appear on a ballot. In this spirit, Martin 'I'm not fucking British, you bastards' Osborn(e) and Travis 'John' Cram (with cameo appearances by Will 'Jensen' Mosley), would like to offer our contribution to the process: the unauthorized debate biography of Aaron Lyttle. While the writing is rich with nuance and wit that most of you heathens won't appreciate, those of you who remember Aaron and his accomplishments might find it enjoyable. Don't ever forget your roots. Fast Times at CBN: The Early Days by Martin Osborn To truly understand the impact such a skinny, skinny man can have on a community like Wyoming debate, one must first understand the community, itself. I would assume it's hard for most of you to take this first step because one or more of the following seems strange: *(1) *getting 20 speaker points and the 1, (your 'delivery' was apparently excellent, but for some reason the judge disapproved of your 'evidence' despite not taking the time to read it), *(2) *losing a debate that you thought you won, and then reading a ballot days later that seems to indicate that you did win but the judge circled the wrong team (were you sitting on the "wrong" side of the room? rookie), *(3) *three pre-sets (break to finals, speaker points irrelevant), *(4) *being in policy but doing as much work as the LOLDers (*i*. you spent more time writing a fancy 1AC underview than you did re-blocking this year's pre-season Harvex starter pack on personalized stationary, *ii*. haha K debate), *(5) *being judged by: (*a*) guy who drives the bus you ride to school (karma can be cruel for those caught childishly exiting through the emergency door in Wyoming), (*b*) the local police chief (ditto), (*c*) coach of another team who is actively trying to fuck you to improve their meager chances of winning a tournament for once (you mean there are DISADS to never having to justify your decisions??? ? p.s. almost worth the risk because at least this jimmy doesn't flow on the ballot and time you with a wristwatch), (*d*) your friend's mom (we haven't filled out the necessary permission slips to make this one funny ? not that Delo's mom was ever nevermind), (*e*) your friend's grandma (do we hafta get permission if said grandma is now deceased???). This is the debate world that Aaron John Lyttle stepped into and changed forever (three to six years is technically forever if the population is small enough). Our research indicates that as late as 1995, policy debaters in Wyoming were still hand-copying (partial) paragraphs out of library books onto note cards. It only makes sense that AJL's devastating idea to invent and then use the internet to find evidence took many by surprise. After cockily dominating an entire state (two states if you count Colorado ? if anybody contests this caveat we either envy their pride or pity their intelligence) with a 1AC that was SO awesome that (*a*) he was willing to let the other team read it if they asked to during prep-time and (*b*) to not put it in a binder, with plastic page protection, would have likely been his first felony. Research prowess was not Aaron's only natural advantage ? the man was born with a (Jebidiah Springfield-esque) silver tongue. If it was difficult before for the power-hungry teachers and principles judging him to respect the privacy rights of potential-drug-using students, Aaron made it downright impossible (state champion privacy topic HOLLA). He was a high-powered mutant not meant for reproduction but luckily for Cheyenne East High School, he was a generous god. He taught us how to persuade the judge of ridiculous things by using wit (2AR overview: the 2NR is a jack of all stocks but a master of none*), revolutionized the intangibles ? the kid was born in a suit with a confidence-red tie ? and solidified the foundation of what would become a preeminent debate empire, the likes of which the mountain region had never seen before and will likely never see again. (NOTE: This is not to say we didn't have a debate coach: her name was Sandy.) Aside from establishing total control over one of the remaining nexuses of persuasive debate (CEHS debaters would later shine on the national stage that he had sadly failed on, eliminating Glenbrook North's top team at NFL nationals two years in a row on their way to the top 10), Aaron wanted more. He told the young Cheyenne East debaters about an entirely different debate landscape where people read really fast, mostly shunned persuasion over logic and were not commonly expected to wear their best suits. The tournaments they competed at took place so far away teams often needed to fly ? remember airplanes had only recently been introduced into Wyoming at this point (late 1990s) so this idea was very strange to us. These "circuit kids" also read "critiques" ? a siren whose song Martin Osborn admittedly gave into at one dark stage ? which Aaron apparently knew a lot about, seeing as he was the only one among us who knew how to pronounce "Michel Foucault." Training began. We cut more cards, (some of us) learned speed drills, started thinking about WHY people won debates and made new goals. "Speed" debate was a totally useless tool in our area but we were determined to show lazy circuit kids (who we were informed had all of their cards cut by coaches and who were all wealthy ? not complete lies in our experience) that we could keep up. Interviewee Will Jensen remembers every moment of his life that involves the word "debate" reflecting that, throughout his "debate career, Aaron has inspired and taught me more than any other person," (and here Will is speaking of that 6-month period where he actually did debate work) "before going to Berkeley's tournament, AJL was willing to debate me [maverick] every day after school for almost a month, even though he probably had a million better things to do." We can say with firm confidence that AJL in fact had nothing better to do but simply loved the feeling of relentlessly crushing a first-year over and over for all to see. Sometimes he even had the goodwill to explain to Jensen the ins and outs of the arguments ? and thus we learned about counterplan theory, critiques, and offense/defense. After Aaron and his also-very-good-but-not-hot-like-Aaron-partner Dusty Hixenbaugh went 6-2 at the Berkeley tournament and lost in doubles (on a disgusting 2-1 decision to El Cerrito), we had evidence that kids from our school could achieve national success, overcoming whatever disadvantages we thought worked against us with a mix of hard work and impact back files (NOTE: some of us are still stuck in this stage ? there's no need to name names [COUNTER-NOTE: Martin Osborn's affinity for Lacan in high school automatically disqualifies him from editorializing about the argumentative preferences of certain others-tjc]). This process culminated in two teams' legitimate (that's right Manchester Essex) qualification to the TOC, where they would compile about half the wins it takes to clear (a total of 3 more than Ross Richendrfer could manage that year). Alcohol, Depravity & Madness: The Later Days by Travis Cram Ole AJL did make quite an impression on me, showing me the virtues of a strong work ethic, stoic leadership and all that good sounding crap. Despite this, the larger portion of the blame for my formative years of debate lies with Brian Delong and my 2 ? years of back-packing him around in high school. Anything positive that Aaron imparted to me was offset by this peculiarly angry bearded devil. It was very strange, however, to find myself debating with Aaron after my transfer to Wyoming. It was like coming full circle. Due to the vagaries of criminal law and the attitudes of the state of Pennsylvania towards convicted felons (a lexis source search of the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle with the terms 'Aaron J. Lyttle', 'Martin Osborn' and 'police cars' proves revealing), he had also found his way onto the debate team at Wyoming and on the same graduation track as myself: mentor and student gloriously reunited. Having been the only contributor lucky enough to actually debate with Aaron, I thought I'd share a few experiences from the heady, wild days of 'Wyoming CL.' We quickly emerged as a team of cagy old veterans on the China topic. What we lacked in skill and trickery we made up with our collective disillusionment with debate and life (which we had in spades, I tell ya). Wyo CL rapidly ascended to the plateau of mediocrity, breaking even at every tournament. How did we achieve this stunning feat? We could always bank on 1 aff win off some poor schmucks who were even slower than us. Than we'd scrap together a few neg wins using treachery, deceit and our penchant for the impact turn (god bless Emory's prolif case that year). It was a recipe for adequacy; everything in moderation, even wins, was our mission statement. Finally, at CEDA, we discovered the key to success: nuclear war good. (much to the chagrin of Josh Gonzalez, who would come to judge our shenanigans more than anyone deserved). After honing our craft against Whitman BM's Agamben K (suck it, Buntin), we discovered the key to being out of the tournament in doubles: Harvard KM. Nevertheless, we took these lessons and ran with them the next year, clobbering together a string of 5-3-miss-on-points in the first semester of the courts topic. Many of you are probably asking: who the fuck is Wyoming CL? Our anonymity demonstrates Aaron and I's main obstacle to success: too much charisma. We were so amazing as to even be unmemorable. Our magnanimous personalities would blind people, leading them to believe that we dropped a ton of shit every debate. Above and beyond his triumphant success in debates, Aaron was far more remarkable off the field. Squad meetings illustrate this: 'Alright, so assignments are as follows?Will, you take politics updates. T-Cram, you take these case-hits. Crowe you take these disads. Delo, try to make your aff topical for once. Aaron, you have to write a new aff, do four casehits and do you think you could cut some answers to this list of fifty K's that we don't understand? Thanks?' Alright, so it's kind of an exaggeration (we all know Crowe didn't cut cards), but not far from the truth. Despite the inordinate work-load, he'd meet every deadline, handing over piles and piles of evidence. Sometimes he'd go above and beyond that ('Hey, I was bored so here's a big omega-point file'). And there was never a complaint. That's not to say that Aaron isn't fond of fun (alcohol). Later, Will Jensen pointed out that "he actually combined debate work and alcohol quite successfully. Aaron could outwork any of the rest of us on the UW squad, and usually did so with a martini in hand. There are not many things that are funnier than a drunken Aaron intent on fighting someone twice his size because he disagrees with them about whether or not PICs are legitimate." Those of us lucky enough to run case-specific strategies and keep aerosol tracks in a backfile folder can only imagine. Aaron and I also had a strong tradition of getting falling-down-shitfaced before trips. When every flight begins with a two-hour drive to Denver at 3 in the morning, the sauce is needed to keep one's sanity Another case in point of Aaron's dedication: the art-bag. Aaron packed his clothes for trips in this giant canvas sack that was designed to be an art portfolio that he had found in our squad room (don't ask ? parli). In order to make sure our tubs met the airlines weight requirement, we would have to shift files into our bags. Being of amorphous size and shape, a good twenty or thirty pounds of files would make its way into the art-bag. It got to the point that it probably weighed more than a tub. Now picture Aaron, usually drunk or half-conscious, hauling this monstrosity through the airport (something that weighed almost 2/3rds as much as him). Forslund had the bad luck of asking 'what was in the bag' and was assaulted by a surly Aaron who slung the bag at him, nearly decapitating the 'Shooter McGavin' visage that sits atop Forslund's body. With the exception of this small outburst, Aaron still never complained. He was an absolute work-horse, carrying an entire squad at times. That's what I find truly admirable about him and will always remember. But even beyond the lessons of hard work and leadership, Aaron taught me how to have fun. Yeah, we were never at any risk of breaking into debate stardom, but it didn't matter. It was enough to be able to debate and hang out with one of your best friends, weekend after weekend. Through all the levels of debate's absurdity, frustrations and utter bullshit, we never lost sight of that. Outside of Cheyenne East alum and some old Pittsburgh people, few will remember Aaron, but he should know that he had a tremendous impact on more than he probably realizes. Debate is harder in college (take that circuit kids) so our success took a dive and a lot of us no longer debate. It is undeniable, though, that AJL played a large part in the collegiate successes of Chris Loghry, Chris Crowe, Brian Delong, Travis Cram, Will Jensen, Martin Osborn, Josh Schmerge and other Schmerge-level debaters who even we have forgotten. Nonetheless, a legacy of mediocre performances with a strong appreciation of self-deprecating humor may not have been created by AJL but it would have surely died without him. Aaron had the rare fortune of winning his last debate round ever (not many can say that). Fittingly, we beat a biopolitics aff on 'murder and disposability good,' bringing our misanthropic thrill-ride to a halt. After Wake, he silently stepped down to pursue a new life in law school and marriage. We're definitely going to miss having you around, but we couldn't be happier for you. Good luck in the future, AJL ? stay in touch, you shifty sonofabitch. *Stock issues: a paradigm whereby the affirmative must show that the resolution is correct by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that as a result of attitudinal, structural AND existential reasons, a significant harm exists that a topical plan can completely cure. See also: 5 minute 1ARs against 8 minutes of new in the 2NC are hard when nobody understands turns and you can't go fast. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070508/45863928/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Tue May 8 22:02:03 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 23:02:03 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] who's number 8, who's number 7? where are the bios In-Reply-To: References: <9368bc9b0705081111h53170410n9041eb06c124c2a0@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705082002u3d94cd1ch9262de93fd9e00e0@mail.gmail.com> Yeah, you are probably right though, my example was not as applicable as it might have been on a knee jerk. However i will make this argument aside from the analogy, you do bear some responsibility, you provided the forum, you may say without you others would have taken it on, but the truth is you took it on. Now, im not engaging you in an ought debate that debate is played out and you made your decision, but the wink and a nod i dont have responsibility claims are at best a bit concocted. I will for the sake of argument engage some of the specific claims here.... On 5/8/07, Burk, Christopher R wrote: > > There you go again, Ellis. Defending terrorists... > > Just kidding. > > > But seriously, you got no link. There are some big differences between my > role of the DCA process and the activity of Craig Rosenbraugh. I realize > that your flow is ain't the best so I'll go through the link arguments very > slowly for you. > > First, there's no direct action or physical violence with the posting of > DCA info or DCA biographies to eDebate. I'm not advocating violence or > relaying messages for those who do. Give me a break. Yes, this is actually a finer distinction than you seem to be wanting to make, there is indeed no "Physical violence" but others have certainly articulated that there are forms of violence, that you have provided a forum for. Second, the writers of the DCA bio's are not anonymous. It's clear to > everyone who the writers are when they post. Credit or blame is easily > assigned to the source. I'm not hiding anyone's identity. It's actually > quite the opposite ? I tell the bio's writers to post directly to eDebate > since I will not post for them. You might even label that a "link turn." Correct on this one. Third, the better parallel might be the operator of eDebate since almost > anyone can post here and can post under a fake name if desired. C'mon, a > freaking gerbil posted last year! Yes, but these days edebate is not the same forum the dcas are, phils free speech stance is perhaps more like a town repealing obscenity ordinances and you are like uncle luc hosting the pay per view party in that town. And, finally, this clearly ain't about social justice. The DCA bio's might > recognize debaters. They might poke fun at debaters. They might applaud > achievements. They might be offensive and disgraceful. But are the goals of > posters of DCA bio's even vaguely similar to Rosebraugh's goal of promoting > social justice? No, that's not what the DCA's are all about. I hope that I > have cleared that up for ya. yup got this part...again, ill be clear, im kicking out of the craig analogy, but still refuting your responsibility claim...now i like unlce luke as much as the next guy...again this is not about that, its about whether you will take credit AND responsibility for providing the forum. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070508/1b375772/attachment.htm From velcrowe Tue May 8 23:02:38 2007 From: velcrowe (Chris Crowe) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 22:02:38 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #11: AARON LYTTLE Message-ID: <623f2fe20705082102o178bb69bx21eebb26a28ed30c@mail.gmail.com> Aaron Lyttle, my little pumpkin pie, apple schnook'ems; my little linament child. Thanks for everything. And that's how you write a bio, folks. -- Christopher Crowe University of Wyoming -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070508/347abed0/attachment.htm From sethellsworth Wed May 9 00:02:50 2007 From: sethellsworth (Seth T. Ellsworth) Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 23:02:50 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #11 Aaron Lyttle Message-ID: <412d08cb0705082202r3333b92j4809a229a1ca31f5@mail.gmail.com> To the only person I would ever drive to cincinatti to buy beer with as well as the only person I would make ginger beer in a bucket strained through an old shirt with, heres to you aaron. SHOWTIME. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070508/bd6c1365/attachment.htm From dave Wed May 9 09:02:22 2007 From: dave (Steinberg, David L) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 10:02:22 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] FW: Podcast & PSA Contest Message-ID: ________________________________ From: Jen Vasquez [mailto:info at zilo.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:02 AM To: Steinberg, David L Subject: Podcast & PSA Contest Greetings! The ACLU Stand Up For Freedom Contest! Submit your Podcast or PSA! Stand Up! It's time to get creative about your freedom! submit a 3-5 minute podcast or a 30-second PSA on government surveillance, free speech or due process rights. If Standing Up for freedom and defending our rights isn't enough....we've got prize money too! Prizes include $2,000 for Best PSA and $1,000 for Best Podcast with additional awards for originality, production and humor. For official rules and more information, Click here . Deadline: July 4, 2007! Questions...Comments? Contact Us: phone: 212.997.0505 ext 218 email: info at zilo.com Forward email This email was sent to dave at miami.edu, by info at zilo.com Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe (tm) | Privacy Policy . Email Marketing by Zilo Networks | 36 West 44th Street | Suite 1205 | New York | NY | 10036 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070509/bfa3c801/attachment.htm From odekirk.scott Wed May 9 11:49:17 2007 From: odekirk.scott (scott odekirk) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 10:49:17 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] calling Calum Matheson... Message-ID: <724663690705090949v69e1c707sff67c63e3029b6d1@mail.gmail.com> please backchannel. urgent. Scott Odekirk -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070509/7368bcdf/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 Wed May 9 13:56:53 2007 From: jbhdb8 (Josh) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 14:56:53 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #11: AARON LYTTLE In-Reply-To: <39c09a80705081956r9fa970dwd96b3c9b5037af4f@mail.gmail.com> References: <39c09a80705081956r9fa970dwd96b3c9b5037af4f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello, Ahhhh Parody....sweet Parody. I am gathering the recent slew of posts all make the following point: The DCA would be boring absent the kafka-esque morphing of Adam Sandler and Joe Francis necessary for the writing of a funny bio. Apologies....I was unaware that comedy was on such fragile footing. Two points: 1. If indeed Sarah and Nat were on board for what was said about them in KU bio - that would be an example of a woman being subject not just object....I still supect the incest part was un-solicited by its objects. 2. Still doesnt mean we ought act this way in a public forum - a) current, former, and soon to be women debaters and coaches have complained for years about how they are treated in debate....some sensitivity to this is warranted by those who reap the benefits of the SQ b) You are role models for how to act when one becomes successful in debate - maybe, acting like it wouldnt be an awful thing. c) Insider games are dangerous - see other posts. d) Other people google the list and it could hurt people - see other posts. I know the three stooges are beloved....but really? The best defenses so far are "Boys will be Boys" "Its necessary for humor" and "If you dont like it get a sense of Humor" Come on folks, Josh On 5/8/07, bandana martin wrote: > > > Fuck Corporate Beef: The Aaron Lyttle Story > > > > Increasingly, all of this DCA shazz-bah seems to degenerate into a mess of > harsh admonitions over the state of our union. Many lose sight about > what the whole process is supposed to be about: remembering the people who > have made an impression on you in debate. While some bio's lack an > appreciation for subtlety, the process nevertheless has merit. But what > if no one knows the person you'd like to remember? If that's the case, > fuck the popularity contest. Some people have had an incredible impact > on debate, even if they've never really belonged to the club-house or have > garnered enough attention to appear on a ballot. In this spirit, Martin > 'I'm not fucking British, you bastards' Osborn(e) and Travis 'John' Cram > (with cameo appearances by Will 'Jensen' Mosley), would like to offer our > contribution to the process: the unauthorized debate biography of Aaron > Lyttle. While the writing is rich with nuance and wit that most of you > heathens won't appreciate, those of you who remember Aaron and his > accomplishments might find it enjoyable. Don't ever forget your roots. > > > Fast Times at CBN: The Early Days > > by Martin Osborn > > > > To truly understand the impact such a skinny, skinny man can have on a > community like Wyoming debate, one must first understand the community, > itself. I would assume it's hard for most of you to take this first step > because one or more of the following seems strange: > > *(1) *getting 20 speaker points and the 1, (your 'delivery' was apparently > excellent, but for some reason the judge disapproved of your 'evidence' > despite not taking the time to read it), > > *(2) *losing a debate that you thought you won, and then reading a ballot > days later that seems to indicate that you did win but the judge circled the > wrong team (were you sitting on the "wrong" side of the room? rookie), > > *(3) *three pre-sets (break to finals, speaker points irrelevant), > > *(4) *being in policy but doing as much work as the LOLDers ( *i*. you > spent more time writing a fancy 1AC underview than you did re-blocking this > year's pre-season Harvex starter pack on personalized stationary, *ii*. > haha K debate), > > *(5) *being judged by: > > ( *a*) guy who drives the bus you ride to school (karma can be cruel for > those caught childishly exiting through the emergency door in Wyoming), > > ( *b*) the local police chief (ditto), > > ( *c*) coach of another team who is actively trying to fuck you to improve > their meager chances of winning a tournament for once (you mean there are > DISADS to never having to justify your decisions??? ? p.s. almost worth > the risk because at least this jimmy doesn't flow on the ballot and time you > with a wristwatch), > > ( *d*) your friend's mom (we haven't filled out the necessary permission > slips to make this one funny ? not that Delo's mom was ever nevermind), > > ( *e*) your friend's grandma (do we hafta get permission if said grandma > is now deceased???). > > > > This is the debate world that Aaron John Lyttle stepped into and changed > forever (three to six years is technically forever if the population is > small enough). Our research indicates that as late as 1995, policy debaters > in Wyoming were still hand-copying (partial) paragraphs out of library books > onto note cards. It only makes sense that AJL's devastating idea to invent > and then use the internet to find evidence took many by surprise. After > cockily dominating an entire state (two states if you count Colorado ? if > anybody contests this caveat we either envy their pride or pity their > intelligence) with a 1AC that was SO awesome that ( *a*) he was willing to > let the other team read it if they asked to during prep-time and ( *b*) to > not put it in a binder, with plastic page protection, would have likely been > his first felony. > > > > Research prowess was not Aaron's only natural advantage ? the man was born > with a (Jebidiah Springfield-esque) silver tongue. If it was difficult > before for the power-hungry teachers and principles judging him to respect > the privacy rights of potential-drug-using students, Aaron made it downright > impossible (state champion privacy topic HOLLA). He was a high-powered > mutant not meant for reproduction but luckily for Cheyenne East High School, > he was a generous god. He taught us how to persuade the judge of ridiculous > things by using wit (2AR overview: the 2NR is a jack of all stocks but a > master of none*), revolutionized the intangibles ? the kid was born in a > suit with a confidence-red tie ? and solidified the foundation of what would > become a preeminent debate empire, the likes of which the mountain region > had never seen before and will likely never see again. (NOTE: This is not to > say we didn't have a debate coach: her name was Sandy.) > > > > Aside from establishing total control over one of the remaining nexuses of > persuasive debate (CEHS debaters would later shine on the national stage > that he had sadly failed on, eliminating Glenbrook North's top team at NFL > nationals two years in a row on their way to the top 10), Aaron wanted more. > He told the young Cheyenne East debaters about an entirely different debate > landscape where people read really fast, mostly shunned persuasion over > logic and were not commonly expected to wear their best suits. The > tournaments they competed at took place so far away teams often needed to > fly ? remember airplanes had only recently been introduced into Wyoming at > this point (late 1990s) so this idea was very strange to us. These "circuit > kids" also read "critiques" ? a siren whose song Martin Osborn admittedly > gave into at one dark stage ? which Aaron apparently knew a lot about, > seeing as he was the only one among us who knew how to pronounce "Michel > Foucault." > > > > Training began. We cut more cards, (some of us) learned speed drills, > started thinking about WHY people won debates and made new goals. "Speed" > debate was a totally useless tool in our area but we were determined to show > lazy circuit kids (who we were informed had all of their cards cut by > coaches and who were all wealthy ? not complete lies in our experience) that > we could keep up. Interviewee Will Jensen remembers every moment of his life > that involves the word "debate" reflecting that, throughout his "debate > career, Aaron has inspired and taught me more than any other person," (and > here Will is speaking of that 6-month period where he actually did debate > work) "before going to Berkeley's tournament, AJL was willing to debate me > [maverick] every day after school for almost a month, even though he > probably had a million better things to do." We can say with firm confidence > that AJL in fact had nothing better to do but simply loved the feeling of > relentlessly crushing a first-year over and over for all to see. Sometimes > he even had the goodwill to explain to Jensen the ins and outs of the > arguments ? and thus we learned about counterplan theory, critiques, and > offense/defense. > > > > After Aaron and his also-very-good-but-not-hot-like-Aaron-partner Dusty > Hixenbaugh went 6-2 at the Berkeley tournament and lost in doubles (on a > disgusting 2-1 decision to El Cerrito), we had evidence that kids from our > school could achieve national success, overcoming whatever disadvantages we > thought worked against us with a mix of hard work and impact back files > (NOTE: some of us are still stuck in this stage ? there's no need to name > names [COUNTER-NOTE: Martin Osborn's affinity for Lacan in high school > automatically disqualifies him from editorializing about the argumentative > preferences of certain others-tjc]). This process culminated in two teams' > legitimate (that's right Manchester Essex) qualification to the TOC, where > they would compile about half the wins it takes to clear (a total of 3 more > than Ross Richendrfer could manage that year). > > > Alcohol, Depravity & Madness: The Later Days > > by Travis Cram > > > > Ole AJL did make quite an impression on me, showing me the virtues of a > strong work ethic, stoic leadership and all that good sounding crap. Despite > this, the larger portion of the blame for my formative years of debate lies > with Brian Delong and my 2 ? years of back-packing him around in high > school. Anything positive that Aaron imparted to me was offset by this > peculiarly angry bearded devil. It was very strange, however, to find > myself debating with Aaron after my transfer to Wyoming. It was like > coming full circle. Due to the vagaries of criminal law and the attitudes > of the state of Pennsylvania towards convicted felons (a lexis source search > of the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle with the terms 'Aaron J. Lyttle', 'Martin > Osborn' and 'police cars' proves revealing), he had also found his way onto > the debate team at Wyoming and on the same graduation track as myself: > mentor and student gloriously reunited. Having been the only contributor > lucky enough to actually debate with Aaron, I thought I'd share a few > experiences from the heady, wild days of 'Wyoming CL.' > > > > We quickly emerged as a team of cagy old veterans on the China topic. What > we lacked in skill and trickery we made up with our collective > disillusionment with debate and life (which we had in spades, I tell ya). > Wyo CL rapidly ascended to the plateau of mediocrity, breaking even at > every tournament. How did we achieve this stunning feat? We could > always bank on 1 aff win off some poor schmucks who were even slower than > us. Than we'd scrap together a few neg wins using treachery, deceit and > our penchant for the impact turn (god bless Emory's prolif case that year). > It was a recipe for adequacy; everything in moderation, even wins, was our > mission statement. > > > > Finally, at CEDA, we discovered the key to success: nuclear war good. > (much to the chagrin of Josh Gonzalez, who would come to judge our > shenanigans more than anyone deserved). After honing our craft against > Whitman BM's Agamben K (suck it, Buntin), we discovered the key to being out > of the tournament in doubles: Harvard KM. Nevertheless, we took these > lessons and ran with them the next year, clobbering together a string of > 5-3-miss-on-points in the first semester of the courts topic. Many of you > are probably asking: who the fuck is Wyoming CL? Our anonymity > demonstrates Aaron and I's main obstacle to success: too much charisma. We > were so amazing as to even be unmemorable. Our magnanimous personalities > would blind people, leading them to believe that we dropped a ton of shit > every debate. > > > > Above and beyond his triumphant success in debates, Aaron was far more > remarkable off the field. Squad meetings illustrate this: 'Alright, so > assignments are as follows?Will, you take politics updates. T-Cram, you > take these case-hits. Crowe you take these disads. Delo, try to make > your aff topical for once. Aaron, you have to write a new aff, do four > casehits and do you think you could cut some answers to this list of fifty > K's that we don't understand? Thanks?' Alright, so it's kind of an > exaggeration (we all know Crowe didn't cut cards), but not far from the > truth. Despite the inordinate work-load, he'd meet every deadline, > handing over piles and piles of evidence. Sometimes he'd go above and > beyond that ('Hey, I was bored so here's a big omega-point file'). And > there was never a complaint. > > > > That's not to say that Aaron isn't fond of fun (alcohol). Later, Will > Jensen pointed out that "he actually combined debate work and alcohol quite > successfully. Aaron could outwork any of the rest of us on the UW squad, and > usually did so with a martini in hand. There are not many things that are > funnier than a drunken Aaron intent on fighting someone twice his size > because he disagrees with them about whether or not PICs are legitimate." > Those of us lucky enough to run case-specific strategies and keep aerosol > tracks in a backfile folder can only imagine. Aaron and I also had a > strong tradition of getting falling-down-shitfaced before trips. When > every flight begins with a two-hour drive to Denver at 3 in the morning, the > sauce is needed to keep one's sanity > > > > Another case in point of Aaron's dedication: the art-bag. Aaron packed > his clothes for trips in this giant canvas sack that was designed to be an > art portfolio that he had found in our squad room (don't ask ? parli). In > order to make sure our tubs met the airlines weight requirement, we would > have to shift files into our bags. Being of amorphous size and shape, a > good twenty or thirty pounds of files would make its way into the art-bag. > It got to the point that it probably weighed more than a tub. Now picture > Aaron, usually drunk or half-conscious, hauling this monstrosity through the > airport (something that weighed almost 2/3rds as much as him). Forslund > had the bad luck of asking 'what was in the bag' and was assaulted by a > surly Aaron who slung the bag at him, nearly decapitating the 'Shooter > McGavin' visage that sits atop Forslund's body. With the exception of > this small outburst, Aaron still never complained. He was an absolute > work-horse, carrying an entire squad at times. > > > > That's what I find truly admirable about him and will always remember. But > even beyond the lessons of hard work and leadership, Aaron taught me how to > have fun. Yeah, we were never at any risk of breaking into debate > stardom, but it didn't matter. It was enough to be able to debate and > hang out with one of your best friends, weekend after weekend. Through > all the levels of debate's absurdity, frustrations and utter bullshit, we > never lost sight of that. Outside of Cheyenne East alum and some old > Pittsburgh people, few will remember Aaron, but he should know that he had a > tremendous impact on more than he probably realizes. Debate is harder in > college (take that circuit kids) so our success took a dive and a lot of us > no longer debate. It is undeniable, though, that AJL played a large part in > the collegiate successes of Chris Loghry, Chris Crowe, Brian Delong, Travis > Cram, Will Jensen, Martin Osborn, Josh Schmerge and other Schmerge-level > debaters who even we have forgotten. Nonetheless, a legacy of mediocre > performances with a strong appreciation of self-deprecating humor may not > have been created by AJL but it would have surely died without him. > > > > Aaron had the rare fortune of winning his last debate round ever (not many > can say that). Fittingly, we beat a biopolitics aff on 'murder and > disposability good,' bringing our misanthropic thrill-ride to a halt. After > Wake, he silently stepped down to pursue a new life in law school and > marriage. We're definitely going to miss having you around, but we > couldn't be happier for you. Good luck in the future, AJL ? stay in > touch, you shifty sonofabitch. > > > > *Stock issues: a paradigm whereby the affirmative must show that the > resolution is correct by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that as a result > of attitudinal, structural AND existential reasons, a significant harm > exists that a topical plan can completely cure. See also: 5 minute 1ARs > against 8 minutes of new in the 2NC are hard when nobody understands turns > and you can't go fast. > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070509/2843f06e/attachment.htm From carrolltondebate Wed May 9 14:32:39 2007 From: carrolltondebate (Joseph Carver) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:32:39 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #11: AARON LYTTLE In-Reply-To: <39c09a80705081956r9fa970dwd96b3c9b5037af4f@mail.gmail.com> References: <39c09a80705081956r9fa970dwd96b3c9b5037af4f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Aaron Lyttle.......what ARE you? And finally, an answer. I met Aaron when he was a Junior in high school and in no way did that prevent me from repeatedly attempting to assault him physically. In all seriousness, Aaron is a great kid and I am sure that he will be missed by those, who unlike myself, were not afraid of his clearly non-earthly origins. JC On 5/8/07, bandana martin wrote: > > > Fuck Corporate Beef: The Aaron Lyttle Story > > > > Increasingly, all of this DCA shazz-bah seems to degenerate into a mess of > harsh admonitions over the state of our union. Many lose sight about > what the whole process is supposed to be about: remembering the people who > have made an impression on you in debate. While some bio's lack an > appreciation for subtlety, the process nevertheless has merit. But what > if no one knows the person you'd like to remember? If that's the case, > fuck the popularity contest. Some people have had an incredible impact > on debate, even if they've never really belonged to the club-house or have > garnered enough attention to appear on a ballot. In this spirit, Martin > 'I'm not fucking British, you bastards' Osborn(e) and Travis 'John' Cram > (with cameo appearances by Will 'Jensen' Mosley), would like to offer our > contribution to the process: the unauthorized debate biography of Aaron > Lyttle. While the writing is rich with nuance and wit that most of you > heathens won't appreciate, those of you who remember Aaron and his > accomplishments might find it enjoyable. Don't ever forget your roots. > > > Fast Times at CBN: The Early Days > > by Martin Osborn > > > > To truly understand the impact such a skinny, skinny man can have on a > community like Wyoming debate, one must first understand the community, > itself. I would assume it's hard for most of you to take this first step > because one or more of the following seems strange: > > *(1) * getting 20 speaker points and the 1, (your 'delivery' was > apparently excellent, but for some reason the judge disapproved of your > 'evidence' despite not taking the time to read it), > > *(2) * losing a debate that you thought you won, and then reading a ballot > days later that seems to indicate that you did win but the judge circled the > wrong team (were you sitting on the "wrong" side of the room? rookie), > > *(3) * three pre-sets (break to finals, speaker points irrelevant), > > *(4) * being in policy but doing as much work as the LOLDers ( *i*. you > spent more time writing a fancy 1AC underview than you did re-blocking this > year's pre-season Harvex starter pack on personalized stationary, *ii*. > haha K debate), > > *(5) * being judged by: > > ( *a*) guy who drives the bus you ride to school (karma can be cruel for > those caught childishly exiting through the emergency door in Wyoming), > > ( *b*) the local police chief (ditto), > > ( *c*) coach of another team who is actively trying to fuck you to improve > their meager chances of winning a tournament for once (you mean there are > DISADS to never having to justify your decisions??? ? p.s. almost worth > the risk because at least this jimmy doesn't flow on the ballot and time you > with a wristwatch), > > ( *d*) your friend's mom (we haven't filled out the necessary permission > slips to make this one funny ? not that Delo's mom was ever nevermind), > > ( *e*) your friend's grandma (do we hafta get permission if said grandma > is now deceased???). > > > > This is the debate world that Aaron John Lyttle stepped into and changed > forever (three to six years is technically forever if the population is > small enough). Our research indicates that as late as 1995, policy debaters > in Wyoming were still hand-copying (partial) paragraphs out of library books > onto note cards. It only makes sense that AJL's devastating idea to invent > and then use the internet to find evidence took many by surprise. After > cockily dominating an entire state (two states if you count Colorado ? if > anybody contests this caveat we either envy their pride or pity their > intelligence) with a 1AC that was SO awesome that ( *a*) he was willing to > let the other team read it if they asked to during prep-time and ( *b*) to > not put it in a binder, with plastic page protection, would have likely been > his first felony. > > > > Research prowess was not Aaron's only natural advantage ? the man was born > with a (Jebidiah Springfield-esque) silver tongue. If it was difficult > before for the power-hungry teachers and principles judging him to respect > the privacy rights of potential-drug-using students, Aaron made it downright > impossible (state champion privacy topic HOLLA). He was a high-powered > mutant not meant for reproduction but luckily for Cheyenne East High School, > he was a generous god. He taught us how to persuade the judge of ridiculous > things by using wit (2AR overview: the 2NR is a jack of all stocks but a > master of none*), revolutionized the intangibles ? the kid was born in a > suit with a confidence-red tie ? and solidified the foundation of what would > become a preeminent debate empire, the likes of which the mountain region > had never seen before and will likely never see again. (NOTE: This is not to > say we didn't have a debate coach: her name was Sandy.) > > > > Aside from establishing total control over one of the remaining nexuses of > persuasive debate (CEHS debaters would later shine on the national stage > that he had sadly failed on, eliminating Glenbrook North's top team at NFL > nationals two years in a row on their way to the top 10), Aaron wanted more. > He told the young Cheyenne East debaters about an entirely different debate > landscape where people read really fast, mostly shunned persuasion over > logic and were not commonly expected to wear their best suits. The > tournaments they competed at took place so far away teams often needed to > fly ? remember airplanes had only recently been introduced into Wyoming at > this point (late 1990s) so this idea was very strange to us. These "circuit > kids" also read "critiques" ? a siren whose song Martin Osborn admittedly > gave into at one dark stage ? which Aaron apparently knew a lot about, > seeing as he was the only one among us who knew how to pronounce "Michel > Foucault." > > > > Training began. We cut more cards, (some of us) learned speed drills, > started thinking about WHY people won debates and made new goals. "Speed" > debate was a totally useless tool in our area but we were determined to show > lazy circuit kids (who we were informed had all of their cards cut by > coaches and who were all wealthy ? not complete lies in our experience) that > we could keep up. Interviewee Will Jensen remembers every moment of his life > that involves the word "debate" reflecting that, throughout his "debate > career, Aaron has inspired and taught me more than any other person," (and > here Will is speaking of that 6-month period where he actually did debate > work) "before going to Berkeley's tournament, AJL was willing to debate me > [maverick] every day after school for almost a month, even though he > probably had a million better things to do." We can say with firm confidence > that AJL in fact had nothing better to do but simply loved the feeling of > relentlessly crushing a first-year over and over for all to see. Sometimes > he even had the goodwill to explain to Jensen the ins and outs of the > arguments ? and thus we learned about counterplan theory, critiques, and > offense/defense. > > > > After Aaron and his also-very-good-but-not-hot-like-Aaron-partner Dusty > Hixenbaugh went 6-2 at the Berkeley tournament and lost in doubles (on a > disgusting 2-1 decision to El Cerrito), we had evidence that kids from our > school could achieve national success, overcoming whatever disadvantages we > thought worked against us with a mix of hard work and impact back files > (NOTE: some of us are still stuck in this stage ? there's no need to name > names [COUNTER-NOTE: Martin Osborn's affinity for Lacan in high school > automatically disqualifies him from editorializing about the argumentative > preferences of certain others-tjc]). This process culminated in two teams' > legitimate (that's right Manchester Essex) qualification to the TOC, where > they would compile about half the wins it takes to clear (a total of 3 more > than Ross Richendrfer could manage that year). > > > Alcohol, Depravity & Madness: The Later Days > > by Travis Cram > > > > Ole AJL did make quite an impression on me, showing me the virtues of a > strong work ethic, stoic leadership and all that good sounding crap. Despite > this, the larger portion of the blame for my formative years of debate lies > with Brian Delong and my 2 ? years of back-packing him around in high > school. Anything positive that Aaron imparted to me was offset by this > peculiarly angry bearded devil. It was very strange, however, to find > myself debating with Aaron after my transfer to Wyoming. It was like > coming full circle. Due to the vagaries of criminal law and the attitudes > of the state of Pennsylvania towards convicted felons (a lexis source search > of the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle with the terms 'Aaron J. Lyttle', 'Martin > Osborn' and 'police cars' proves revealing), he had also found his way onto > the debate team at Wyoming and on the same graduation track as myself: > mentor and student gloriously reunited. Having been the only contributor > lucky enough to actually debate with Aaron, I thought I'd share a few > experiences from the heady, wild days of 'Wyoming CL.' > > > > We quickly emerged as a team of cagy old veterans on the China topic. What > we lacked in skill and trickery we made up with our collective > disillusionment with debate and life (which we had in spades, I tell ya). > Wyo CL rapidly ascended to the plateau of mediocrity, breaking even at > every tournament. How did we achieve this stunning feat? We could > always bank on 1 aff win off some poor schmucks who were even slower than > us. Than we'd scrap together a few neg wins using treachery, deceit and > our penchant for the impact turn (god bless Emory's prolif case that year). > It was a recipe for adequacy; everything in moderation, even wins, was our > mission statement. > > > > Finally, at CEDA, we discovered the key to success: nuclear war good. > (much to the chagrin of Josh Gonzalez, who would come to judge our > shenanigans more than anyone deserved). After honing our craft against > Whitman BM's Agamben K (suck it, Buntin), we discovered the key to being out > of the tournament in doubles: Harvard KM. Nevertheless, we took these > lessons and ran with them the next year, clobbering together a string of > 5-3-miss-on-points in the first semester of the courts topic. Many of you > are probably asking: who the fuck is Wyoming CL? Our anonymity > demonstrates Aaron and I's main obstacle to success: too much charisma. We > were so amazing as to even be unmemorable. Our magnanimous personalities > would blind people, leading them to believe that we dropped a ton of shit > every debate. > > > > Above and beyond his triumphant success in debates, Aaron was far more > remarkable off the field. Squad meetings illustrate this: 'Alright, so > assignments are as follows?Will, you take politics updates. T-Cram, you > take these case-hits. Crowe you take these disads. Delo, try to make > your aff topical for once. Aaron, you have to write a new aff, do four > casehits and do you think you could cut some answers to this list of fifty > K's that we don't understand? Thanks?' Alright, so it's kind of an > exaggeration (we all know Crowe didn't cut cards), but not far from the > truth. Despite the inordinate work-load, he'd meet every deadline, > handing over piles and piles of evidence. Sometimes he'd go above and > beyond that ('Hey, I was bored so here's a big omega-point file'). And > there was never a complaint. > > > > That's not to say that Aaron isn't fond of fun (alcohol). Later, Will > Jensen pointed out that "he actually combined debate work and alcohol quite > successfully. Aaron could outwork any of the rest of us on the UW squad, and > usually did so with a martini in hand. There are not many things that are > funnier than a drunken Aaron intent on fighting someone twice his size > because he disagrees with them about whether or not PICs are legitimate." > Those of us lucky enough to run case-specific strategies and keep aerosol > tracks in a backfile folder can only imagine. Aaron and I also had a > strong tradition of getting falling-down-shitfaced before trips. When > every flight begins with a two-hour drive to Denver at 3 in the morning, the > sauce is needed to keep one's sanity > > > > Another case in point of Aaron's dedication: the art-bag. Aaron packed > his clothes for trips in this giant canvas sack that was designed to be an > art portfolio that he had found in our squad room (don't ask ? parli). In > order to make sure our tubs met the airlines weight requirement, we would > have to shift files into our bags. Being of amorphous size and shape, a > good twenty or thirty pounds of files would make its way into the art-bag. > It got to the point that it probably weighed more than a tub. Now picture > Aaron, usually drunk or half-conscious, hauling this monstrosity through the > airport (something that weighed almost 2/3rds as much as him). Forslund > had the bad luck of asking 'what was in the bag' and was assaulted by a > surly Aaron who slung the bag at him, nearly decapitating the 'Shooter > McGavin' visage that sits atop Forslund's body. With the exception of > this small outburst, Aaron still never complained. He was an absolute > work-horse, carrying an entire squad at times. > > > > That's what I find truly admirable about him and will always remember. But > even beyond the lessons of hard work and leadership, Aaron taught me how to > have fun. Yeah, we were never at any risk of breaking into debate > stardom, but it didn't matter. It was enough to be able to debate and > hang out with one of your best friends, weekend after weekend. Through > all the levels of debate's absurdity, frustrations and utter bullshit, we > never lost sight of that. Outside of Cheyenne East alum and some old > Pittsburgh people, few will remember Aaron, but he should know that he had a > tremendous impact on more than he probably realizes. Debate is harder in > college (take that circuit kids) so our success took a dive and a lot of us > no longer debate. It is undeniable, though, that AJL played a large part in > the collegiate successes of Chris Loghry, Chris Crowe, Brian Delong, Travis > Cram, Will Jensen, Martin Osborn, Josh Schmerge and other Schmerge-level > debaters who even we have forgotten. Nonetheless, a legacy of mediocre > performances with a strong appreciation of self-deprecating humor may not > have been created by AJL but it would have surely died without him. > > > > Aaron had the rare fortune of winning his last debate round ever (not many > can say that). Fittingly, we beat a biopolitics aff on 'murder and > disposability good,' bringing our misanthropic thrill-ride to a halt. After > Wake, he silently stepped down to pursue a new life in law school and > marriage. We're definitely going to miss having you around, but we > couldn't be happier for you. Good luck in the future, AJL ? stay in > touch, you shifty sonofabitch. > > > > *Stock issues: a paradigm whereby the affirmative must show that the > resolution is correct by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that as a result > of attitudinal, structural AND existential reasons, a significant harm > exists that a topical plan can completely cure. See also: 5 minute 1ARs > against 8 minutes of new in the 2NC are hard when nobody understands turns > and you can't go fast. > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070509/0e7c1c25/attachment.htm From velcrowe Wed May 9 14:49:08 2007 From: velcrowe (Chris Crowe) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 13:49:08 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Ans Josh, DCA business... Message-ID: <623f2fe20705091249x25453382q958c70da00eb5e6d@mail.gmail.com> Actually, Josh, it's an actual bio my friends put some time into for someone that was instrumental in the debate careers of a lot of people. Brian DeLong, Martin Osborn, Will Jensen, Travis Cram and myself, among many others owe a substantial portion of our involvement in the activity to him and wouldn't be here without him, no question. It's not a slight on the bio process, nor a poke at you. I thought the bio was really funny (because I get all the jokes, probably) and a great way to send him off. If you didn't get the humor, well, you didn't get it, but we love him and miss him. You do post a lot, but it's not ALL about you. This is something we talked about doing before the controversies about the DCA even re-ignited. Best, Crowe -- Christopher Crowe University of Wyoming -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070509/ec7ee5aa/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 Wed May 9 15:00:31 2007 From: jbhdb8 (Josh) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:00:31 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Ans Josh, DCA business... In-Reply-To: <623f2fe20705091249x25453382q958c70da00eb5e6d@mail.gmail.com> References: <623f2fe20705091249x25453382q958c70da00eb5e6d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Hello Chris, I misread the post as being a parody of the "controversy." Certainly didnt think you were talking about me in particular even within that parody. Turns out it wasnt a parody at all - for which I apologize greatly. I am sorry for misunderstanding. If it makes you feel any better, I was giving you credit for being really clever :) In addition, sorry about posting so much. Honestly, never thought any of this was "about me" just saying what I think. Someone else made this argument in backchannel to me...I guess I understand, in a sense. I like talking about debate....and political issues....and issues that are controversial within the community. If my goal was being popular, I sure wouldnt take the stances I generally take....I just like having good arguments with people I respectfully disagree with. I like edebate because it is a place we can all let our hair down a bit and discuss the issues that effect us all. I post often because I am authentically interested in a TON of things that everyone talks about. When I was a debater (billion years ago) I was fascinated (and still am) by the debate discussions that happened between coaches in JAFA and see edebate as a place we can foster that kind of discussion. Anyway, when I respond to something said - doesnt mean I think you were targeting what you said at me....Just meant, in this case incorrectly, I thought you were making an interesting point (parody) in relation to a discussion I had been in with others. Anyway, I do apologize, I would in no way ever want to marginalize that bio if it was someone important to you. Josh Josh On 5/9/07, Chris Crowe wrote: > > Actually, Josh, it's an actual bio my friends put some time into for > someone that was instrumental in the debate careers of a lot of people. > Brian DeLong, Martin Osborn, Will Jensen, Travis Cram and myself, among many > others owe a substantial portion of our involvement in the activity to him > and wouldn't be here without him, no question. It's not a slight on the bio > process, nor a poke at you. I thought the bio was really funny (because I > get all the jokes, probably) and a great way to send him off. If you didn't > get the humor, well, you didn't get it, but we love him and miss him. > > You do post a lot, but it's not ALL about you. This is something we > talked about doing before the controversies about the DCA even re-ignited. > > Best, > > Crowe > > -- > Christopher Crowe > University of Wyoming > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070509/405edc74/attachment.htm From mmk_savant Wed May 9 15:53:10 2007 From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 13:53:10 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Josh... Message-ID: You DO understand the real problem here... a great DCA-like bio for Lyttle gets written and posted... classy, funny, warm, excellent all around... probably THE role model bio as far as meeting your criteria for a good bio...and YOU think it's a PARODY... I love you man, but... on a related topic, is there a way for me to post a photo of Jason Russell from 15 years ago the next time he does a grumpy/terse post here? it isn't a close-up shot of his hairy ass or anything... it still rankles that no one can send in-line pictures in e-debate posts any more because jerks were putting porn into their posts. I understand why, of course, but still...Michael Korcok _________________________________________________________________ Change is good. See what?s different about Windows Live Hotmail. www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/default.html?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_changegood_0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070509/9191f517/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 Wed May 9 15:57:04 2007 From: jbhdb8 (Josh) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 16:57:04 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Josh... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hey, I realized entirely I missed the boat on that one.....just was getting so much blowback from the "boys will be boys crowd" that it was unbelievable considering I was actually trying to be moderate. The reason I misunderstood is because I assumed it was a fictional character....I didnt know the guy they did the fake bio on. As for the picture issue, he he Love you too, I am certainly wrong often, Josh On 5/9/07, Michael Korcok wrote: > > You DO understand the real problem here... > > a great DCA-like bio for Lyttle gets written and posted... > classy, funny, warm, excellent all around... > probably THE role model bio as far as meeting your criteria for a good > bio... > > and YOU think it's a PARODY... > > I love you man, but... > > on a related topic, is there a way for me to post a photo of Jason Russell > from 15 years ago the next time he does a grumpy/terse post here? it isn't > a close-up shot of his hairy ass or anything... it still rankles that no > one can send in-line pictures in e-debate posts any more because jerks were > putting porn into their posts. I understand why, of course, but still... > > Michael Korcok > > > ------------------------------ > Create the ultimate e-mail address book. Import your contacts to Windows > Live Hotmail. Try it! > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070509/96cbf538/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 Wed May 9 16:19:35 2007 From: jbhdb8 (Josh) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 17:19:35 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Josh... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: One more apology, it has come to my attention that I have at least met the person in the bio before (judged him once). I truly am an ass...I feel awful for in anyway marginalizing someone people obviously think a great deal of.....I am really really sorry, Mike is totally right, this bio was exactly what I was hoping for and I overreacted thinking it was something it was not. Serious apologies, Josh On 5/9/07, Josh wrote: > > Hey, > > I realized entirely I missed the boat on that one.....just was getting so > much blowback from the "boys will be boys crowd" that it was unbelievable > considering I was actually trying to be moderate. The reason I > misunderstood is because I assumed it was a fictional character....I didnt > know the guy they did the fake bio on. > > As for the picture issue, he he > > Love you too, I am certainly wrong often, > > Josh > > > On 5/9/07, Michael Korcok wrote: > > > You DO understand the real problem here... > > > > a great DCA-like bio for Lyttle gets written and posted... > > classy, funny, warm, excellent all around... > > probably THE role model bio as far as meeting your criteria for a good > > bio... > > > > and YOU think it's a PARODY... > > > > I love you man, but... > > > > on a related topic, is there a way for me to post a photo of Jason > > Russell from 15 years ago the next time he does a grumpy/terse post here? > > it isn't a close-up shot of his hairy ass or anything... it still rankles > > that no one can send in-line pictures in e-debate posts any more because > > jerks were putting porn into their posts. I understand why, of course, but > > still... > > > > Michael Korcok > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Create the ultimate e-mail address book. Import your contacts to Windows > > Live Hotmail. Try it! > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070509/b834efda/attachment.htm From hansonjb Wed May 9 17:02:03 2007 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 15:02:03 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] camp job, female ceda-ndt debater Message-ID: <8FE0402F6D2A4E7ABD7799251A74C529@whitman.edu> if you are a female and you are a ceda-ndt debater or coach, and you are interested in working at the whitman national debate institute this summer--email me. I'm interested in hiring at least one female person to head up labs at our camp (july 21-august 2). jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070509/b042e448/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Wed May 9 17:12:45 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 18:12:45 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Do you like Comic Books? Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705091512o42757fa9ob1157d5a76c5b921@mail.gmail.com> Debate people in Baltimore are launching the premier issue of what may be the First Debate Comic Book, tomorrow May 10th. Tonight at 12:30 I will be talking to Sean Rueter, BUDL college access coordinator and one of the leaders of the debate comix project, on my blogtalkradio show (thanks ross). We will discuss the premier issue, comix in general, and how this untapped medium can be used to teach debate. We encourage you to listen and call in, we will be on for 30 minutes, so calls would be great. This is the link for my host page http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?host_id=4678 , you can listen from there live, get the archive, and see how to call in. Thanks and please listen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070509/2d1b065b/attachment.htm From brentonculpepper Wed May 9 18:41:48 2007 From: brentonculpepper (Brent Culpepper) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 19:41:48 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #8 - KEVIN RABINOWITZ - BIO INCLUDED Message-ID: <9831d3d30705091641n120a4cf9rb1a4bb7c486ec593@mail.gmail.com> MESSAGE REMOVED -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070509/8b0ea8b5/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Wed May 9 23:41:41 2007 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 22:41:41 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Josh... Message-ID: It's all good. Aaron was the smartest debater ever to compete for the latter day Wyoming policy squad. His assignments probably won us 50+ debates in the past two years. He is also an amazing teacher of debate, although sadly/happily he'll be busy fighting for legal justice instead of coaching... Our senior rhetoric professor called him the best writer she'd ever taught at Wyoming. When I saw him in high school he was the best Wyoming HS debater I had seen up to that point and remains in the top three. He's also incredibly nice. It's kind of sad we said goodbye to three of the nicest debaters I've ever known this year--but at least Schmerge will be hanging about and Crowe will be coaching for us and maybe even graduating. But Aaron, among the nicest of the nice...he's out like the shadowy wispy waif he is. And I could never even tell if he was at squad meetings because he would cover his whole body with a hoody, like some gangsterish harry potter... mjs Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 17:19:35 -0400From: jbhdb8 at gmail.comTo: mmk_savant at hotmail.comCC: edebate at ndtceda.comSubject: Re: [eDebate] Josh... One more apology, it has come to my attention that I have at least met the person in the bio before (judged him once). I truly am an ass...I feel awful for in anyway marginalizing someone people obviously think a great deal of.....I am really really sorry, Mike is totally right, this bio was exactly what I was hoping for and I overreacted thinking it was something it was not. Serious apologies, Josh On 5/9/07, Josh wrote: Hey, I realized entirely I missed the boat on that one.....just was getting so much blowback from the "boys will be boys crowd" that it was unbelievable considering I was actually trying to be moderate. The reason I misunderstood is because I assumed it was a fictional character....I didnt know the guy they did the fake bio on. As for the picture issue, he he Love you too, I am certainly wrong often, Josh On 5/9/07, Michael Korcok < mmk_savant at hotmail.com> wrote: You DO understand the real problem here... a great DCA-like bio for Lyttle gets written and posted... classy, funny, warm, excellent all around... probably THE role model bio as far as meeting your criteria for a good bio... and YOU think it's a PARODY... I love you man, but... on a related topic, is there a way for me to post a photo of Jason Russell from 15 years ago the next time he does a grumpy/terse post here? it isn't a close-up shot of his hairy ass or anything... it still rankles that no one can send in-line pictures in e-debate posts any more because jerks were putting porn into their posts. I understand why, of course, but still... Michael Korcok Create the ultimate e-mail address book. Import your contacts to Windows Live Hotmail. Try it!_______________________________________________eDebate mailing listeDebate at www.ndtceda.comhttp://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ Download Messenger. Start an i?m conversation. Support a cause. Join now. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGWL_MAY07 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070509/7c257840/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Thu May 10 10:02:32 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 11:02:32 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Comic Books Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705100802s6e3eb8bpb10f426e6f6256f0@mail.gmail.com> Hello, we did our show on DB8 Comiks Last Night, its available to listen in archive or podcast fashion from blogtalkradio.com/bmoredb8. The first issue "What's So Funny About Nuclear War?" comes out today and features a cast of debate superhero's including: >From Evil Academy Dr.Drop Speed Freak Apocolypto and from Super High School Evidence Man The Constructive Kid and Kritik Woman Soon there will be a myspace page up and running at www.myspace.com/db8komiks Issues can be ordered through Indyplanet.com and will soon be set up for online purchasing More updates will come out on www.budl.org for more information or a sample email sean at budl.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070510/c71750d9/attachment.htm From jwpatt00 Thu May 10 10:45:06 2007 From: jwpatt00 (JW Patterson) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 11:45:06 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] FW: Complete TOC OFFICIAL RESULTS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > KENTUCKY TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS 2007 HIGHLIGHTS > > GLENBROOK NORTH WINS POLICY FOR THE FIFTH TIME! GLENBROOK NORTH?S MATT > FISCHER AND STEPHANIE SPIES WINS POLICY'S TOP HONORS > > 1980 - JEFF WAGNER & BRAD MALLIS, COACH: PAM S. TACCONA > 1996 ? LARRY HEFTMAN & ADAM HURDER, COACH: TED BELCH > 2001 ? MICHAEL KLINGER & STACEY NATHAN, COACH: TED BELCH > 2004 ? JAKE ZIRING & MICHAEL ROSECRANS, COACH: TED BELCH > 2007 ? MATT FISCHER & STEPHANIE SPIES, COACH: CHRISTINA > TALLUNGAN > > LYNBROOK?S PATRICK DIEHL WINS BOTH LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE & TOP SPEAKER AWARD > > WESTMINSTER?S STEPHEN WEIL WINS TOP SPEAKER IN POLICY > > CENTERVILLE?S ELI JACOBS WINS THE JULIA BURKE AWARD, MARKING THE SECOND TIME A > CENTERVILLE DEBATER HAS WON. CENTERVILLE?S HENRY LIU WON THE FIRST AWARD > PRESENTED IN 2000 > > LEXINGTON?S CHRISSY KUGEL & GARTH GOLDWATER WINS PUBLIC FORUM; > > LAKE FOREST?S MIKE EDUCATE TAKES CONGRESS FIRST PLACE > > > > THE THIRTY-SIXTH ANNUAL KENTUCKY TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS ENDED IN LEXINGTON > ABOUT MIDNIGHT ON TUESDAY EVENING WHEN TOC DIRECTOR JW PATTERSON PRESENTED > GLENRBOOK NORTH?S MATT FISCHER & STEPHANIE SPIES WITH THE 1ST PLACE TROPHY. > THE RUNNER-UP TROPHY WAS AWARDED TO WESTMINSTER?S STEPHEN WEIL & ANSHU > SATHIAN. THE DECISION WAS A 2-1 FOR GLENBROOK NORTH. > > MUCH EARLIER IN THE EVENING, LYNBROOK?S PATRICK DIEHL WAS DECLARED WINNER OVER > GREENHILL?S DAVID MCCGOUGH ON A 7-2 DECISION TO CLAIM THE LD CHAMPIONSHIP. > > IN THE LATE AFTERNOON LEXINGTON?S CHRISSY KUGEL & GARTH GOLDWATER WAS AWARDED > THE WIN TROPHY IN PUBLIC FORUM. > > IN THE MID AFTERNOON LAKE FOREST?S MIKE EDUCATE WAS DECLARED WINNER OF THE > STUDENT CONGRESS TOP PRIZE. > > AT THE AWARDS BREAKFAST ON MONDAY MORNING, ELI JACOBS OF CENTERVILLE WAS > DECLARED WINNER OF THE JULIA BURKE AWARD FOR THE PERSON IN POLICY DEBATE WHO > MOSTLY CLOSELY UPHOLDS THE COMBINATION OF CHARACTERISTICS THAT JULIE DISPLAYED > IN HER LOVE FOR THE ACTIVITY. THESE QUALITIES INCLUDE EXCELLENCE IN AND > PASSION FOR DEBATE, A COMMITMENT TO HELPING OTHERS, LOVE AND RESPECT FOR THE > POLICY DEBATE COMMUNITY, AND DEDICATION TO MAINTAINING FRIENDSHIPS DESPITE THE > PRESSURES OF COMPETITION. IN ADDITION TO A PERPETUAL TROPHY AND A REPLICA, KIM > RECEIVED A $1,000 COLLEGE SCHOLARSHIP AND A $1,000 DONATION TO THE CHARITY OF > HER CHOICE. > > > POLICY OCTA FINALS: > > Glenbrook North, Matt Fischer & Sephanie Spies, advanced over Glenbrook > North?s Max Voldman & Lucy Zhu > > Westminster, Anshu Sathian & Stephen Weil defeated Lexington, Tom Burnett & > Naomi Logan on a 2-1. Jonathan Paul, Martin Osborne, *Brian DeLong > > The Woodlands, Eric Lanning & Leah Moczulski defeated Glenbrook South, Winston > Luo & Grant Peretz on a 2-1. Aimi Hamraie, *Jane Munksgaard, Brent Culpepper > > Pace Academy, Simi Chaudhry & Michael Fields defeated Groves, Sara Kirsch & > Jonathan Warsh on a 2-1. *Magg Berthiaume, Greg Achten, Alex Iftimie > > Greenhill, Matthew Andrews & Bryant Huang defeated St. Mark?s, Jordan > Blumenthal & Swayze Smartt on a 2-1. *Kathryn Clark, Tim Alderete, Roy > Levkovitz > > Pine Crest, Seth Bour & Dave Mainiero defeated Chattahoochee, Ovais Inamullah > & Gary Seidman on a 2-1. Brad Hall, Tara Tate, *Aaron Timmons > > Gulliver Prep, Kathy Bowen & Jordan Moliver defeated Rowland Hall St. Mark?s, > Cyrus Akrami & Chase Burton a 2-1. Jenny Heidt, *Will Repko, Greta Stahl > > Centerville, Parker Cronin & Eli Jacobs defeated Woodward Academy, Evan > Matthews & Bobby Rosenbleeth on a 2-1. *Tracy McFarland, Ed Lee, Charles > Olney > > QUARTERFINALS: > > Glenbrook North FS defeated Centerville CJ on a 2-1. *David Heidt, Ed Lee, > Jonathan Paul > > Westminster SW defeated Gulliver Prep BM on a 3-0. Michael Klinger, Will > Repko, Jessica Yeats > > The Woodlands LM defeated Pine Crest BM on a 3-0. Kevi Rabinowitz, Aimi > Hamraie, Martin Osborne > > Greenhill AH defeated Pace Academy CF on a 3-0. Roy Levkovitz, James Herndon, > Alex Iftimie > > SEMIFINALS: > > Glenbrook North FS defeated Greenhill AH on a 2-1. Reid Shannon, *Greta Stahl, > Paul Johnson > > Westminster SW defeated The Woodlands LM on a 2-1. Kevi Rabinowitz, *Tristan > Morales, Jessica Yeats > > FINALS: > > Glenbrook North FS defeated Westminster SW on a 2-1. Conor Cleary, *Kevi > Rabinowitz, Jonathan Paul > > > TOP SPEAKERS - 2007 TOC ? POLICY > > 1. Stephen Weil ? > Westminster > 2. Eric Lanning ? The > Woodlands > 3. Matt Fisher ? Glenbrook > North > 4. Kathy Bowen ? Gulliver > Prep > 5. Matthew Andrews ? > Greenhill > 6. Eli Jacobs ? Centerville > 7. Chase Burton ? Rowland > Hall St. Mark > 8. Daniel Sharp ? Kinkaid > School > 9. Seth Bour ? Pine Crest > 10. Leah Moczulski ? The > Woodlands > 11. Bobby Rosenbleeth ? > Woodward Academy > 12. Ryan Beiermeister ? > Kinkaid School > 13. Jonathan Warsh ? Groves > 14. Anshu Sathian ? > Westminster > 15. Kyle Davis ? > Montgomery Bell > 16. Dave Mainiero ? Pine > Crest > 17. Bon Koo ? College Prep > 18. Stephanie Spies ? > Glenbrook North > 19. Ovais Inamullah - > Chattachoochee > 20. R. J. Gigilio ? Caddo > Magnet > > > LINCOLN-DOUGLAS OCTA FINALS: > > St. Louis Park, Nick Tourville, defeated Lynbrook, Jon Kwan on a 3-0. Mike > Bietz, P. Schiano, B. Cory > > Lynbrook, Patrick Diehl, defeated Meadows, Mike Spirtos on a 3-0. > A. Parker, C. Hertzig, Petey Gil > > Scarsdale, Matt Aks, defeated Hockaday, Joan Gass on a 3-0. K. Wright, Pam > Wycoff, Jay Rye > > Greenhill, David McGough defeated Trinity Prep, Jake Nebel on a 2-1. *S. Babb > , > D. Myers, M. Massey > > Millburn , Greg Hertz, defeated Hockaday , Lindsay Dolan on a 3-0. N. Conrad, > C. Koshy, J. Bailey > > Marcus, Nathan Abell, defeated Sacred Heart, Shadman Zaman, on a 2-1. *Vaughn, > Anderson, S. Bell > > Hollis-Brookline, Allison Huberlie defeated Land Highland J. R. Thorsen on a > 2-1. S. Thomas, Castillo, *E. Palmer > Jersey Village, Daniel Cory defeated Hockaday, Taarini Vohra on a 3-0. > Choudhury, T. Brugato, K. Oyer > > > QUARTERFINALS: > > Jersey Village DC DW defeated St. Louis Park NT on a 2-1. S. Thomas, N. > Conrad, *R. Ohara > > Lynbrook PD defeated Hollis-Brookline AH on a 2-1. Anderson, P. Schiano, *S. > Babb > > Scarsdale MA defeated Marcus NA on a 3-0. Choudhury, C. Koshy, A. Timmons > > Greenhill DM defeated Millburn GH on a 3-0. K. Wright, Petey Gil, W. Craven > > SEMIFINALS: > > Greenhill DM defeated Jersey Village DC on a 3-2. Choudhury, *M. Massey, * > Pete Gil, Anderson, S. Babb > > Lynbrook PD defeated Scarsdale MA on a 3-2. N. Conrad, *K. Wright, B. Cory, > *A. Tmmons, W. Craven > > > FINALS: > Lynbrook PD defeated Greenhill DM on a 7-2. Anderson, Choudhury, Pam Wycoff, > V. Jih, Jon Cruz, *W. Craven, Jason Baldwin, Nick Coburn-Palo, *B. Koshy > > TOP SPEAKERS - 2007 TOC ? LD > > 1. Patrick Diehl ? > Lynbrook > 2. Nathan Abell - > Marcus > 3. Jon Kwan ? Lynbrook > 4. Byron Ruby ? > Menlo-Atherton > 5. Allison Huberlie ? > Hollis-Brookline > 6. Taarini Vohra ? > Hockaday > 7. Matt Aks - > Scarsdale > 8. Andrew Harris - > Scarsdale > 9. Daniel Cory ? > Jersey Village > 10. Susan Morrow ? > Albuquerque Academy > > > PUBLIC FORUM OCTA FINALS: > > Manchester Essex, Maryellen Kwasie & Jennifer Marsh, defeated Lincoln > Southwest, Nick Dalke & Jessica Danson on a 3-0. Carol Green, Jeff Welty, Russ > Rywell > > Needham, Mike Lintz & Hannah Freeman, defeated Foothill, Johnny Amiri & Conor > Fitzpaptrick on a 2-1. John Karlovic, Guy Risko, *Chris Sprouse > > Ransom Everglades, Emily Scherker & Elizabeth Joyce, defeated Brentwood, Matt > Stern & Chris Kaczmarek on a 3-0. Christian Ucles, Matt Heimes, Derek Smith > > Dowling, Megan Koester & Michael Nail, defeated Randolph Aaron Bickel & Chris > Gibson on a 3-0. Lynette Jones, Cody Johnson, P J. Wexler > Lake Highland, Jordan Rubin & Shaz Jafri, defeated Chaparral Ben Grossman & > Adam Bloch on a 2-1. *Robert Murphy, Tim Sheaff, Carrie Daily > > West Des Moines, Josh Johnson & Rohit Iragavarapu, defeated Lincoln Southwest, > Zach Mapes & Bryan Kelley on a 3-0. Aarr Schurevich, Peter Bond, Robert > Sheard > > Durham, Patrick Toomey & Katherine Buse, defeated Albuquerque Van Snow & Fiona > Sloan on a 3-0. Toni Heimes, Walt Kaczamarek, Fred Robertson > > Lexington, Chrissy Kugel & Garth Goldwater, defeated Lincoln Southwest, Arman > Negahban & Nick Dalke on a 2-1. *B. A. Gregg. Todd Fine, Karen Vaughan > > QUARTERFINALS: > > Lexington KG defeated Manchester Essex KM on a 2-1. Lindsey Dunmire, *Chris > Sprouse, A. Schurevich > > Durham TB defeated Needham LF on a 3-0. Tim Sheaff, Christian Ucles, Karen > Vaughan > > Ransom Everglades SJ defeated West Des Moines JI on a 2-1. P. J. Wexler, > *Todd Fine, Fred Robertson > > Lake Highland RJ defeated Dowling KN on a 22-1. Jeff Welty, *Derek Smith, > Robert Sheard > > SEMIFINALS: > > Lexington KG defeated Lake Highland RJ on a 4-1. Cody Johnson, S. Schappaugh, > P. J. Wexler, Dario Camara, *Russ Rywell > > Durham TB defeated Ransom Everglades SJ on a a 5-0. A. Schcurevich, Chris > Sprouse, Jonathan Peele, Fred Robertson, Tim Sheaff > > FINALS: > > Lexington KG defeated Durham TB. Scott Wunn, David Yastremski, A. Schurevich, > Fred Robertson, *P. J. Wexler > > > > STUDENT CONGRESS > > TOP LEGISLATORS > > FIRST ? Mike Educate ?Lake > Forest > > SECOND ? Herschel Patel, > Myers Park > > THIRD ? Sundeep Iyer, > Ridge > > FOURTH ? Matt Graham, East > Chapel Hill > > FIFTH ? Tommy York, Lowell > > SIXTH ? Evan Medina, Nova > > > > CONGRESS FINALISTS > > Samantha Shaw ? Southlake > Carroll > > Jordan Stone, Adlai > Stevenson > > Ben Berkman - Nova > > Dominic Pody ? Holy Ghost > > Kevin Eaton - Duncanville > > Nathan Belvins ? Gilmour > Academy > > THE END > > J. W. PATTERSON -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070510/a9e6adbb/attachment.htm From topspeaker70 Thu May 10 10:53:53 2007 From: topspeaker70 (topspeaker70 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 11:53:53 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] I wish to post Message-ID: <8C961328B67111D-4D4-43EA@MBLK-M07.sysops.aol.com> I would like to be able to post. Michael H. Miller ________________________________________________________________________ AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070510/29d1dcf7/attachment.htm From jlupo Thu May 10 15:57:57 2007 From: jlupo (Jon Paul Lupo) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 16:57:57 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] DC Internship opportunity Message-ID: Just wanted to let you guys know about an internship on the campaign I am working on. Unfortunately it is not a paid position. But the last time i posted a message like this Steve D'Amico came to work for JIm Webb and Steve is now managing a legislative race in Virginia. Those of you who know Steve know what a miracle that is ... just kidding .. sort of. Anyway shoot me an email if you're interested. Announcement: Senator Tim Johnson?s reelection campaign is seeking interns. Applicants should be self-starters and detail-orientated, with a passion for politics, for campaigns, and to reelect an incumbent Senator. Interns will have a wide range of responsibilities including helping facilitate an aggressive fundraising effort, performing political research, planning events, and managing other administrative duties. The office is informal and hard working. Interested applicants should email a cover letter and resume to Elanna at timjohnson.com. If you will not be available full-time, please specify your availabilities. Lupo -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070510/afc5ec5e/attachment.htm From stevendamico Thu May 10 16:14:37 2007 From: stevendamico (Steven D'Amico) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 17:14:37 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] DC Internship opportunity In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You'll also get a front row seat to JPs ringtones. Honestly, what grown man has "bringing sexy back" as his ringtone while working in a senate office. :) It was a serious step down from Kayne's goldigger cover. Seriously though, someone take this job if you want a start in campaign work... the presidential just isn't an easy way to start a career. D'Amico On 5/10/07, Jon Paul Lupo wrote: > > Just wanted to let you guys know about an internship on the campaign I am > working on. Unfortunately it is not a paid position. But the last time i > posted a message like this Steve D'Amico came to work for JIm Webb and Steve > is now managing a legislative race in Virginia. Those of you who know Steve > know what a miracle that is ... just kidding .. sort of. Anyway shoot me an > email if you're interested. > > > Announcement: > > > Senator Tim Johnson's reelection campaign is seeking interns. Applicants > should be self-starters and detail-orientated, with a passion for politics, > for campaigns, and to reelect an incumbent Senator. Interns will have a > wide range of responsibilities including helping facilitate an aggressive > fundraising effort, performing political research, planning events, and > managing other administrative duties. The office is informal and hard > working. Interested applicants should email a cover letter and resume to > Elanna at timjohnson.com. > If you will not be available full-time, please specify your availabilities. > > > Lupo > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070510/13ab1a91/attachment.htm From cleary Thu May 10 18:26:41 2007 From: cleary (cleary at ou.edu) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 18:26:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #7--BLAKE JOHNSON Message-ID: DCA Debater #7?BLAKE JOHNSON. Blake received 75 total points Dr. Blakelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bong The Early Years Joseph Blake Johnson was born in Eufaula (pronounced ?hick-ville?) Oklahoma, a small town of 5,000 people in eastern Oklahoma, of which his dad was the mayor. When he was young, Blake helped his dad campaign. While Blake was an invaluable campaign tool, he did almost cost his dad an election once when he ran across a stage naked that his dad was speaking on (this would be the beginning of a long pattern of streaking and just generally being naked all of the time). Little else is known about the years Blake spent in Eufaula. All I can gather is that being a politician?s son taught him how to tell dirty jokes and do a wicked rendition of ?Baby Got Back.? While he was still young, Blake moved to Edmond (pronounced ?white-as-fuck-ville?) Oklahoma, a town that has more churches than people and still segregates its schools. Blake didn?t really have any policy debate experience in high school. In fact, he was an LDer. He was an up and coming star on his (first) high school debate team, but an imitation of Johnny Depp in Blow put an end to that. He did win the LD state title and declined his trip to NFL nationals to ?fight the system,? but most of his high school days were spent as the lead singer of his (3) Christian ?punk? band(s), (aptly) named ?No Talent.? Back in those days, Blake passed the time rocking out against the lack of prayer in public schools (A disclaimer: while most of the jokes in this bio are completely true, some are hyperbolic. But, I?m being dead serious here. Blake was a BIG Christian. Go-on-mission-trips-to-convert-the-savage kind of Christian. He?s imitated to me how he prayed at the church he attended, and let me put it this way, I was terrified. With all the arm raising and weird chants, I wasn?t sure if we were praying to God or having a s?ance.) But he soon wandered from his Christian roots and by the time I met him his first year of college, he was a long-haired, vegetarian hippie with this lame peace sign tattoo on his leg. He even boasted an impressive rap sheet, having been arrested for disorderly conduct after picking a fight with a group of 80-year old veterans at a war protest (the veterans won). COLLEGE College life for Blake is awesome. His days usually consist of waking at the early hour of 3 PM, just to make it to Happy Hour at 4. Seriously, trying to wake this guy before noon is harder than not killing yourself when you listen to Brett Wallace go for T. He?s failed afternoon classes solely because he had too many absences from sleeping in. He?s not really anti-class, he just doesn?t believe in going to class on days that end in?..?day.? He gets by, although I think he is still the only OU student to fail ?Intro to College: A gnat could get an A in this class??.twice. Not doing policy debate in high school, Blake?s transition to the college debate world was rough. For one, he didn?t know any of the lingo or staple debate arguments. Until the NDT this year, he thought a double turn was good because why turn once, when you can turn twice? Blake also could not exactly ?go fast? in debates. It may have been because of the 2 packs of cigarettes he smoked per??hour, but seriously, the first time I heard him attempt to spread, I thought he was speaking in tongues. He also couldn?t finish a 2AR without his inhaler or CPR, which I?m still convinced was just an excuse to make out with me. But he soon caught on, and before long he was moving at the speed of a Special Olympics hurdler, rivaling the likes of speed-demons Tripp Rebrovick and Dan Luxemburg. That Blake didn?t win speediest debater is a travesty of epic proportions. Not doing policy debate in high school also meant that Blake never really learned how to debate the little, inconsequential things??you know, like T. Seriously, why people didn?t go for T against us every round boggles my mind. I think Bard could have beaten us on T. The following exchange pretty much sums up the OU CJ approach to Topicality: Blake: Shit duuuuuuude *cough cough* How am I going to answer this T argument? Conor: Make a we meet Blake: Did you say weed?!? Conor: Focus man! Look, all they said was we have to use the Supreme Court. For once, we actually do! Blake: Duuuuude, this is hard stuff. Can?t I just say T=genocide? A lot of people think we were a K team because we?re dirty hippies. This is partially true. Blake is a dirty hippie. But the real reason we?re a K team is because Blake can?t pronounce ?hegemony.? He still asks which city and state the political capital DA is referring to. It?s the damnedest thing, but to Blake, simple (read: policy) arguments might as well be jibberish, while the musings of a professor from the department of Lacantology are a light read. Some Other Things You Should Know About Blake He?s a MySpace whore. I would say 90% of the play Blake gets is from random MySpace girls who go by their MySpace name, rather than their real one. In fact, Blake?s rate of landing non-MySpace girls is about as good as his AFF win percentage against UMKC. His MySpace connections do produce a busy social life. Bored on a Friday night? Blake solves this problem instantly, scans his bulletins (or ?bullets? as he likes to call them) and finds a party to attend. These parties are?..interesting. Don?t get me wrong, they?re fun. But they?re the kind of parties where all the boys and girls look the same. No one looks a day over 13, everyone wears the same jeans and has that weird, short emo hair-cut where the bangs swoop in front of only one eye. He has an unhealthy obsession with Elliott Smith. Blake has every record he has ever done and every show he has ever played. Each slot in Blake?s car?s 6-disc CD player holds one of his albums. When Smith died, Blake didn?t speak for three days. He has an even unhealthier obsession with fried Okra. If you don?t believe me, check out his judging philosophy. He likes it so much he proposed renaming the state ?Okrahoma.? When I informed him that might be perceived as insensitive to Asians, Blake retorted, ?These carriers of the most humiliating and vengeance-seeking instincts, the descendants of all European and non-European slavery, especially of the pre-Aryan people?they represent mankind's regression.? Shows what reading a little Nietzsche will get you. In my underground poll for ?skinniest debater of the year,? Blake won in both the boys and girls category, narrowly edging out Kathryn Clark for the girl?s crown, of which he is particularly proud. He also won in some surprising categories (?would be hotter as a woman?) and some not so surprising ones (?most likely to give you an STD?). Blake?s so skinny he still shops in the juniors department at the mall and I think his waist is smaller than his age, although he does turn 22 in a few weeks. He has a BIG crush on Lee Edelman. From all accounts, Blake is heterosexual but if there is one man he would give it up for, it would be ?Lee-Pea,? as Blake affectionately calls him. At the NDT, Georgetown informed Blake that Edelman had thought the use of his work for our AFF was creative and had asked for Blake?s email address. Blake?s ego got so big that I seriously contemplated sending someone to follow closely behind him with a ?WIDE LOAD? banner, which definitely would have been the only time the word ?wide? could be applied to Blake. Edelman hasn?t emailed him yet, but the first thing Blake does when he gets up every morn?evening, is boot up his laptop repeatedly chanting ?I wonder if he emailed me! I wonder if he emailed me!? until his words are giddy screams. I console him everyday as he continually finds his email box empty. Hey, Lee, if you?re reading this, quit being a dick and send the little guy an email. Blakejohnson at ou.edu or 405-LEES-4-ME. Blake seriously misses this activity. The first few days after the NDT were rough. After Blake lay in the fetal position with Elliott Smith?s ?Miss Misery? on repeat for at least 24 hours straight, I started to get worried. He misses debate so much that he tries to make every conversation an argument. It?s a day-by-day process and although he is getting better, he has relapses. The other day he posted 28 combative messages in debate card format within 15 minutes of one another on someone?s Facebook wall who had suggested that there was no JFK assassination conspiracy. The Serious Part My love for blake is a little like JW Patterson?s reign at Kentucky---ugly, but permanent. >From Unabomber hoodies to pearl-snap shirts that hurt like hangovers, I?m used to it all. But one thing you can?t deny about blake is that he has style. Blake wasn?t the fastest or most technical debater, but he was one of, if not the, most persuasive and compelling debaters in the country this year. I think we won nearly 1/4 of our negative debates this year on his CX of the 2AC alone. Jonah Feldman told me that the 5 times in a row he voted for us in elims at Northwestern were due to Blake?s ?luscious? 2ARs. Other people agreeing with the ?luscious? description include Ken Strange, David and Jenny Heidt, and Dallas Perkins (actually he said they were ?hotter than a honeymoon hotel?). The most amazing thing about Blake?s career is that he did it all without debating policy in high school. I may be mistaken, but I know of no top 10 DCA debaters in the last few years that graduated high school without debate experience. His success with this in mind makes it all the more incredible. It?s been fantastic debating with Blake who in addition to being a great debater is also my best friend. He?s the funniest and smartest person I know. Congrats, buddy on receiving a top 10 DCA and on an incredible season. BY MALCOLM GORDON I feel compelled to start this whole thing off with a disclaimer. Any of you who know me understand that this is wholly necessary. I will offend someone. I am a very polarizing guy, it?s in my nature. If I don?t offend someone, then this bio probably isn?t funny. Please feel free to post whatever you like on edebate about how rude, insensitive, uncultured, or offensive I am. When you do so, be sure to point out a) the terrible thing I said b) the group or groups it would/should offend/objectify/marginalize and c) why it should/will offend said group. I encourage criticism and may even feel inclined to respond to your comments. Why would I prefer you talk about it? Because this is America, we live in a democracy. And only a strong democracy can avert extinction. As a dirty K debater I hate pretty much everything, but I love the shit out of the first amendment. Any future employers who are reading this post right now and not hiring me for a job because of it: why are you googling my name you creepy bastard? Seriously, if YOUR boss knew you were on google all day looking up random names you would be fired. I?d like to say this right now: I love Blake Johnson. He is one of my best, closest friends on the circuit. I would eat the corn out of this guy?s ass if I thought it was necessary for his well-being. I would not take a bullet for him, but I would be willing to throw Cleary in the path of the bullet, which is a pretty fair compromise. Anything sounding mean-spirited in this is done out of love. Now, there is a possibility this won?t be funny. This is because I?m reading it out loud to myself, and delivery is always an important component of comedy, which is hard to translate into words. If you think this bio sucks, you?re dead to me. Just ask me sometime and I?ll read it to you, and I promise that you will have the same reaction Joe Patrice once did: you will laugh so hard you will throw up in your mouth. The Name Blake Johnson. It?s not a totally badass name. Skimmyhorn, that?s a kickass name. Night Rider, that is a badass name. Shatner is the name of a god. Blake Johnson, now that?s an American name. Funny thing is Blake Johnson isn?t his colonial name, it?s his Indian name. His family is notoriously chauvinistic, and obsessed with the phallus. Blake swore me to secrecy over this in case he ever had to run a K that was ?sensitive with the ladies,? as he put it. Blake complains about his name a lot because it?s ?too mainstream.? The Style Blake is not a hipster. Perhaps I should say this one more time: BLAKE IS NOT A HIPSTER. His mother just dressed him up like that as a kid, and he stuck with it. Blake really does think that the pinnacle of all fashion is the button up shirt that looks like it came out of a 1960s Western. And you know what, he wears that shirt with the class and dignity it deserves. When this man walks into a bar, people take notice. It?s kind of like when Marty McFly walks into the bar in Back to the Future, only completely lame because it doesn?t involve time travel. Now, if ever there was a reason why the forced assimilation of Native americans into western culture is ethically wrong, it is NOT the genocide of millions (I mean, you call it genocide, some call it progress). No, the one reservation (pun intended) Native americans would have to assimilation in hind sight would be watching their descendents walking around looking like?..Blake. If Blake?s great great grandfather could see him now he?d be the first in line to take a blanket. Blake doesn?t care what you think of how he looks. Why? Because he is obviously more hip than you. You judge him based on his material possessions, but that is so capitalist and Blake is so not a capitalist. I should point out that I lied about something earlier-Blake is, in fact, a hipster. The Aff Blake had one helluva good aff win percentage this year. I never got to debate it myself, as Blake always had a new, untopical aff to break against us. But I have had talks and seen the data, and it was impressive. So now it?s time for the truth. In Oklahoma, death drive is just the term people used when they get really lit at the bar and then try to drive home. He also knows nothing about psychoanalysis. I know this because I?ve talked to him, and I don?t know a damn thing about it either. So I just made a bunch of shit up and he just kept talking to me like what I was saying was relevant. In all honesty, Blake has no idea what death drive means. Neither did anyone else debating him. But I?ll say this: the most frustrating thing about debating this guy is his 2AR. Anyone who debated him knows what I?m saying. Your first reaction is: what the fuck is this guy talking about? Watching Cleary?s 1ar and Blake?s 2ar is like watching Highlander 1 and 2 back-to-back. Yeah, it?s entertaining, but when you get to the sequel you have no idea what just happened. First McCloud?s immortal, now he?s an alien? After debating against the CJ 1ar/2ar combo, you know what it?s like for Ken Strange every round when he wakes up after the block. Not that judges should take notice of this discrepancy. You can only handle so many fancy words in one speech, which brings me to: The Postmodern Generator Blake is the postmodern generator. It?s one of his most cunning qualities. If you are going for a perm against OU, good luck, because we all know you have no idea what he said in the 1nr but every sentence was followed by: ?this is another disad to the perm,? which is literally the only sentence you could understand. Now this is assuming he answers the perm. Any of you ladies and gents who have ever made out with Blake, here is some insight: I actually found this out the first time I made out with Blake. I am not attracted to men, I just needed the practice and Russell was teaching a class. Blake doesn?t know how to kiss. When you are kissing him, and you think he?s doing such a fantastic job, he is actually still just talking. You are feeling his mouth and tongue as it continues to spout out random, multisyllabic words that may or may not have meaning. But don?t worry, Blake loves that shit, so it was probably better for him than it was for you. So after we?re done making out, he looks at me: BJ: What do you think? MG: it was OK, but you spit a lot. Plus you know I?m into the rough stuff. BJ: What are you talking about? MG: What are you talking about? BJ: I was asking what your response to what I just said was. MG: What did you say? I thought we were sharing a special moment. BJ: I said, ??Culture is part of the collapse of reality,? says Derrida; however, according to Buxton[1] , it is not so much culture that is part of the collapse of reality, but rather the futility of culture. If precultural libertarianism holds, we have to choose between postcultural libertarianism and patriarchial narrative. ?Class is fundamentally meaningless,? says Foucault. In a sense, in Amarcord, Fellini reiterates subcultural dialectic theory; in La Dolce Vita, however, he deconstructs precultural libertarianism. Lyotard promotes the use of surrealism to modify society. However, Brophy[2] states that we have to choose between postdialectic theory and the cultural paradigm of consensus. A number of materialisms concerning the role of the writer as poet exist. Therefore, Bataille suggests the use of precultural libertarianism to challenge archaic perceptions of sexuality. An abundance of narratives concerning surrealism may be discovered. Thus, precultural libertarianism implies that narrative is created by the masses. If precapitalist Marxism holds, we have to choose between precultural libertarianism and the cultural paradigm of consensus. MG: God I love it when you talk dirty, can I have one more practice round? Let?s be serious for a moment. That essay Blake spouted off while I was tonguing him sounds like one of his speeches. You can imagine why it?s so easy for them to pick up Harris?s ballot. Reading all of OU?s evidence after a round is like play-dough. It can say whatever you want, it?s completely subjective and the judge can make the card answer anything. It?s really a damn magic show that is allowed to go on because everyone has too much pride. You don?t know what they?re saying, the judge doesn?t know what they?re saying, but who?s going to admit it. You know that if you argue you are going to hear more shit you don?t understand, which will only make you feel more stupider. Give Back the Land How could we talk about anyone from OU without mentioning give back the land? That OU has popped so many great teams on give back the land is a testament to their skill. Everyone seems to think that OU has an emotional attachment to the argument, like it?s their ?project? to talk about Native Americans. I don?t mean to sell him out here, but Blake doesn?t give a shit. He has told me several times that he thought most of the US?s land acquisition was ?savvy real estate maneuvering? and that Indian nations were ?lucky to get anything at all.? That may be his personal stance, but you?ll be surprised to hear how he feels about the argument in terms of debate. Blake thinks it?s a terrible argument. He even knows that it isn?t competitive and always solved by the do both permutation. He doesn?t give a shit either way. It?s funny that he beat you on such a bad argument. Let me give you some advice right now: If you have ever lost to give back the land-kill yourself. Now , he defeated me on this argument in the Sems of UTD a few years back, and part of me is now dead. If you are a young debater, and you watched them run this argument, and now it interests you-please just let it go. Let?s have a huddle right now and lay a 3 year ban on give back the land. Blake on Conor Conor, it?s time you knew: Blake hates you. He is jealous of your ability to be such a handsome, popular young man while at the same time wearing just enough ridiculous looking suit jackets to be semi-hipster. He is afraid you will spawn a new race of well-rounded, universally accepted hipsters, which will clearly defeat the entire purpose of hipsterism. He does sick shit to you while you sleep. And Conor, this is Malgor talking, if I say something is sick?..it?s sick. Remember what happened to us at the Tokyo spa? Ten times worse than that. Friendly advice: brush your teeth?..constantly. Blake on Blake First, I?d like to point out how sweet the phrase ?blake on blake? sounds. Blake is incredibly insightful. He will really delve into the depths of his soul to find answers in life. Of course, he always concludes that he is the shit. Blake?s self-defined ?character flaws? consist of things like: I?m just too pretty sometimes, or I really spend too much time volunteering at the soup kitchen.? Here is a great story: Blake thought about giving the CEDA trophy back, or just renouncing it completely. He felt so guilty. His ultra-intellectual, well-rounded hipsterness told him something was wrong. Finally, during some pillow talk he and I had, he figured it out. Blake really hates capitalism. If you are a capitalist, you are so not his friend. And if you believe in capitalist ideals, you are basically like so Eurocentric that you are causing intersubjective ontological violence on all of humanity. Well Blake is a real horatio alger when it comes to debate. Him winning CEDA nationals is a phenomenal achievement, lending legitimacy to the idea that if you just try hard and pick yourself up by your bootstraps you?ll achieve all your dreams. To blake, that?s a load of capitalist crap meant to keep most of the population subservient to the ideals of the few rich fatcats that control global production. And he read this article in International Perspectives that told him that when indiv iduals reinforce that capitalist ideology they are basically supporting war, racism, sexism, genocide, and environmental destruction. Well Blake wanted to have nothing to do with two of those things. This guy is so not capitalist that he was gonna throw it all away just so no future debaters would buy into such ultra-individualistic, neoliberal propaganda. Instead of giving the trophy back, he decided to just donate some money to the Monthly Review and call it a day. The Nice Stuff It?s really hard for me to bash Blake. I love him to death. I?d like to use a lot of space here to say the honest stuff. If the stupid argument that edebate will affect future employment decisions is true, then this section might get him the job. You deserve all the success you had this season. Hell, you deserve more. What you have done for OU debate is amazing. I was very proud of you at every tournament, even when I was a little jealous of your success. You?ve set a standard that will be nearly impossible for future debaters to surpass. But honestly, Blake, I don?t need to talk about how great you are at debate. Only a great debater could take down 4 national tournaments. You are a great friend. In fact, I can?t remember a time since I?ve known you when I didn?t consider you a close friend. For 3 seasons you have provided consistent support and guidance any time I needed it. I have had and lost a lot of friends over the years, but I know that I will always be able to count on you. You are one of the most sensitive, honest people I have ever met. Every time we talk, you hit me with a level of sincerity that is always reassuring. That you never betray yourself or others, and are always honest, is a sign of great character. No matter how successful you were at a tournament it was always me that you were concerned with. Even during the lowest lows, you consistently supported me, assuring me that better things would come. That kind of unselfishness is hard to find in any setting, much less a competitive one. You have always carried yourself knowing that it is what you do now that is important; it is what we do with the relationships we have now that shape our impact on this world. I am honored to say you are one of my best friends. Okay, I have a lot more to say, but this is starting to sound like a love letter. May the four winds safely blow you home. Love malgor From jbhdb8 Thu May 10 19:23:16 2007 From: jbhdb8 (Josh) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 20:23:16 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #7--BLAKE JOHNSON In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Luckily for Blake - Kill Rock Star records just released a new Elliot Smith collection this week, Josh On 5/10/07, cleary at ou.edu wrote: > > DCA Debater #7?BLAKE JOHNSON. > Blake received 75 total points > > > Dr. Blakelove: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bong > > > The Early Years > > Joseph Blake Johnson was born in Eufaula (pronounced "hick-ville") > Oklahoma, a small town of 5,000 people in eastern Oklahoma, of which his dad > was the mayor. When he was young, Blake helped his dad campaign. While > Blake was an invaluable campaign tool, he did almost cost his dad an > election once when he ran across a stage naked that his dad was speaking on > (this would be the beginning of a long pattern of streaking and just > generally being naked all of the time). Little else is known about the > years Blake spent in Eufaula. All I can gather is that being a politician's > son taught him how to tell dirty jokes and do a wicked rendition of "Baby > Got Back." > > While he was still young, Blake moved to Edmond (pronounced > "white-as-fuck-ville") Oklahoma, a town that has more churches than people > and still segregates its schools. > > Blake didn't really have any policy debate experience in high school. In > fact, he was an LDer. He was an up and coming star on his (first) high > school debate team, but an imitation of Johnny Depp in Blow put an end to > that. He did win the LD state title and declined his trip to NFL nationals > to "fight the system," but most of his high school days were spent as the > lead singer of his (3) Christian "punk" band(s), (aptly) named "No > Talent." Back in those days, Blake passed the time rocking out against the > lack of prayer in public schools (A disclaimer: while most of the jokes in > this bio are completely true, some are hyperbolic. But, I'm being dead > serious here. Blake was a BIG Christian. > Go-on-mission-trips-to-convert-the-savage kind of Christian. He's imitated > to me how he prayed at the church he attended, and let me put it this way, I > was terrified. With all the arm raising and weird chants, I wasn't sure if > we were praying to God or having a s?ance.) > > But he soon wandered from his Christian roots and by the time I met him > his first year of college, he was a long-haired, vegetarian hippie with this > lame peace sign tattoo on his leg. He even boasted an impressive rap sheet, > having been arrested for disorderly conduct after picking a fight with a > group of 80-year old veterans at a war protest (the veterans won). > > COLLEGE > > College life for Blake is awesome. His days usually consist of waking at > the early hour of 3 PM, just to make it to Happy Hour at 4. Seriously, > trying to wake this guy before noon is harder than not killing yourself when > you listen to Brett Wallace go for T. He's failed afternoon classes solely > because he had too many absences from sleeping in. He's not really > anti-class, he just doesn't believe in going to class on days that end > in?.."day." He gets by, although I think he is still the only OU student to > fail "Intro to College: A gnat could get an A in this class"?.twice. > > Not doing policy debate in high school, Blake's transition to the college > debate world was rough. For one, he didn't know any of the lingo or staple > debate arguments. Until the NDT this year, he thought a double turn was > good because why turn once, when you can turn twice? > > Blake also could not exactly "go fast" in debates. It may have been > because of the 2 packs of cigarettes he smoked per??hour, but seriously, the > first time I heard him attempt to spread, I thought he was speaking in > tongues. He also couldn't finish a 2AR without his inhaler or CPR, which > I'm still convinced was just an excuse to make out with me. But he soon > caught on, and before long he was moving at the speed of a Special Olympics > hurdler, rivaling the likes of speed-demons Tripp Rebrovick and Dan > Luxemburg. That Blake didn't win speediest debater is a travesty of epic > proportions. > > Not doing policy debate in high school also meant that Blake never really > learned how to debate the little, inconsequential things??you know, like > T. Seriously, why people didn't go for T against us every round boggles my > mind. I think Bard could have beaten us on T. The following exchange pretty > much sums up the OU CJ approach to Topicality: > > Blake: Shit duuuuuuude *cough cough* How am I going to answer this T > argument? > Conor: Make a we meet > Blake: Did you say weed?!? > Conor: Focus man! Look, all they said was we have to use the Supreme > Court. For once, we actually do! > Blake: Duuuuude, this is hard stuff. Can't I just say T=genocide? > > A lot of people think we were a K team because we're dirty hippies. This > is partially true. Blake is a dirty hippie. But the real reason we're a K > team is because Blake can't pronounce "hegemony." He still asks which city > and state the political capital DA is referring to. It's the damnedest > thing, but to Blake, simple (read: policy) arguments might as well be > jibberish, while the musings of a professor from the department of > Lacantology are a light read. > > Some Other Things You Should Know About Blake > > He's a MySpace whore. I would say 90% of the play Blake gets is from > random MySpace girls who go by their MySpace name, rather than their real > one. In fact, Blake's rate of landing non-MySpace girls is about as good as > his AFF win percentage against UMKC. His MySpace connections do produce a > busy social life. Bored on a Friday night? Blake solves this problem > instantly, scans his bulletins (or "bullets" as he likes to call them) and > finds a party to attend. These parties are?..interesting. Don't get me > wrong, they're fun. But they're the kind of parties where all the boys and > girls look the same. No one looks a day over 13, everyone wears the same > jeans and has that weird, short emo hair-cut where the bangs swoop in front > of only one eye. > > He has an unhealthy obsession with Elliott Smith. Blake has every record > he has ever done and every show he has ever played. Each slot in Blake's > car's 6-disc CD player holds one of his albums. When Smith died, Blake > didn't speak for three days. > > He has an even unhealthier obsession with fried Okra. If you don't > believe me, check out his judging philosophy. He likes it so much he > proposed renaming the state "Okrahoma." When I informed him that might be > perceived as insensitive to Asians, Blake retorted, "These carriers of the > most humiliating and vengeance-seeking instincts, the descendants of all > European and non-European slavery, especially of the pre-Aryan people?they > represent mankind's regression." Shows what reading a little Nietzsche will > get you. > > In my underground poll for "skinniest debater of the year," Blake won in > both the boys and girls category, narrowly edging out Kathryn Clark for the > girl's crown, of which he is particularly proud. He also won in some > surprising categories ("would be hotter as a woman") and some not so > surprising ones ("most likely to give you an STD"). Blake's so skinny he > still shops in the juniors department at the mall and I think his waist is > smaller than his age, although he does turn 22 in a few weeks. > > He has a BIG crush on Lee Edelman. From all accounts, Blake is > heterosexual but if there is one man he would give it up for, it would be > "Lee-Pea," as Blake affectionately calls him. At the NDT, Georgetown > informed Blake that Edelman had thought the use of his work for our AFF was > creative and had asked for Blake's email address. Blake's ego got so big > that I seriously contemplated sending someone to follow closely behind him > with a "WIDE LOAD" banner, which definitely would have been the only time > the word "wide" could be applied to Blake. Edelman hasn't emailed him yet, > but the first thing Blake does when he gets up every morn?evening, is boot > up his laptop repeatedly chanting "I wonder if he emailed me! I wonder if he > emailed me!" until his words are giddy screams. I console him everyday as > he continually finds his email box empty. Hey, Lee, if you're reading this, > quit being a dick and send the little guy an email. Blakejohnson at ou.edu or > 405-LEES-4-ME. > > Blake seriously misses this activity. The first few days after the NDT > were rough. After Blake lay in the fetal position with Elliott Smith's > "Miss Misery" on repeat for at least 24 hours straight, I started to get > worried. He misses debate so much that he tries to make every conversation > an argument. It's a day-by-day process and although he is getting better, he > has relapses. The other day he posted 28 combative messages in debate card > format within 15 minutes of one another on someone's Facebook wall who had > suggested that there was no JFK assassination conspiracy. > > > The Serious Part > > My love for blake is a little like JW Patterson's reign at > Kentucky---ugly, but permanent. > > >From Unabomber hoodies to pearl-snap shirts that hurt like hangovers, I'm > used to it all. But one thing you can't deny about blake is that he has > style. Blake wasn't the fastest or most technical debater, but he was one > of, if not the, most persuasive and compelling debaters in the country this > year. I think we won nearly 1/4 of our negative debates this year on his CX > of the 2AC alone. Jonah Feldman told me that the 5 times in a row he voted > for us in elims at Northwestern were due to Blake's "luscious" 2ARs. Other > people agreeing with the "luscious" description include Ken Strange, David > and Jenny Heidt, and Dallas Perkins (actually he said they were "hotter than > a honeymoon hotel"). > > The most amazing thing about Blake's career is that he did it all without > debating policy in high school. I may be mistaken, but I know of no top 10 > DCA debaters in the last few years that graduated high school without debate > experience. His success with this in mind makes it all the more incredible. > > It's been fantastic debating with Blake who in addition to being a great > debater is also my best friend. He's the funniest and smartest person I > know. > > Congrats, buddy on receiving a top 10 DCA and on an incredible season. > > > > BY MALCOLM GORDON > > I feel compelled to start this whole thing off with a disclaimer. Any of > you who know me understand that this is wholly necessary. I will offend > someone. I am a very polarizing guy, it's in my nature. If I don't offend > someone, then this bio probably isn't funny. Please feel free to post > whatever you like on edebate about how rude, insensitive, uncultured, or > offensive I am. When you do so, be sure to point out a) the terrible thing > I said b) the group or groups it would/should offend/objectify/marginalize > and c) why it should/will offend said group. I encourage criticism and may > even feel inclined to respond to your comments. Why would I prefer you talk > about it? Because this is America, we live in a democracy. And only a > strong democracy can avert extinction. As a dirty K debater I hate pretty > much everything, but I love the shit out of the first amendment. > > Any future employers who are reading this post right now and not hiring me > for a job because of it: why are you googling my name you creepy > bastard? Seriously, if YOUR boss knew you were on google all day looking up > random names you would be fired. > > I'd like to say this right now: I love Blake Johnson. He is one of my > best, closest friends on the circuit. I would eat the corn out of this > guy's ass if I thought it was necessary for his well-being. I would not > take a bullet for him, but I would be willing to throw Cleary in the path of > the bullet, which is a pretty fair compromise. Anything sounding > mean-spirited in this is done out of love. Now, there is a possibility this > won't be funny. This is because I'm reading it out loud to myself, and > delivery is always an important component of comedy, which is hard to > translate into words. If you think this bio sucks, you're dead to me. Just > ask me sometime and I'll read it to you, and I promise that you will have > the same reaction Joe Patrice once did: you will laugh so hard you will > throw up in your mouth. > > The Name > Blake Johnson. It's not a totally badass name. Skimmyhorn, that's a > kickass name. Night Rider, that is a badass name. Shatner is the name of a > god. Blake Johnson, now that's an American name. Funny thing is Blake > Johnson isn't his colonial name, it's his Indian name. His family is > notoriously chauvinistic, and obsessed with the phallus. Blake swore me to > secrecy over this in case he ever had to run a K that was "sensitive with > the ladies," as he put it. Blake complains about his name a lot because > it's "too mainstream." > > The Style > Blake is not a hipster. Perhaps I should say this one more time: BLAKE IS > NOT A HIPSTER. His mother just dressed him up like that as a kid, and he > stuck with it. Blake really does think that the pinnacle of all fashion is > the button up shirt that looks like it came out of a 1960s Western. And you > know what, he wears that shirt with the class and dignity it deserves. When > this man walks into a bar, people take notice. It's kind of like when Marty > McFly walks into the bar in Back to the Future, only completely lame because > it doesn't involve time travel. Now, if ever there was a reason why the > forced assimilation of Native americans into western culture is ethically > wrong, it is NOT the genocide of millions (I mean, you call it genocide, > some call it progress). No, the one reservation (pun intended) Native > americans would have to assimilation in hind sight would be watching their > descendents walking around looking like?..Blake. If Blake's great great > grandfather could > see him now he'd be the first in line to take a blanket. Blake doesn't > care what you think of how he looks. Why? Because he is obviously more hip > than you. You judge him based on his material possessions, but that is so > capitalist and Blake is so not a capitalist. I should point out that I lied > about something earlier-Blake is, in fact, a hipster. > > The Aff > Blake had one helluva good aff win percentage this year. I never got to > debate it myself, as Blake always had a new, untopical aff to break against > us. But I have had talks and seen the data, and it was impressive. So now > it's time for the truth. In Oklahoma, death drive is just the term people > used when they get really lit at the bar and then try to drive home. He > also knows nothing about psychoanalysis. I know this because I've talked to > him, and I don't know a damn thing about it either. So I just made a bunch > of shit up and he just kept talking to me like what I was saying was > relevant. In all honesty, Blake has no idea what death drive > means. Neither did anyone else debating him. > But I'll say this: the most frustrating thing about debating this guy is > his 2AR. Anyone who debated him knows what I'm saying. Your first reaction > is: what the fuck is this guy talking about? Watching Cleary's 1ar and > Blake's 2ar is like watching Highlander 1 and 2 back-to-back. Yeah, it's > entertaining, but when you get to the sequel you have no idea what just > happened. First McCloud's immortal, now he's an alien? > After debating against the CJ 1ar/2ar combo, you know what it's like for > Ken Strange every round when he wakes up after the block. > Not that judges should take notice of this discrepancy. You can only > handle so many fancy words in one speech, which brings me to: > > The Postmodern Generator > Blake is the postmodern generator. It's one of his most cunning > qualities. If you are going for a perm against OU, good luck, because we > all know you have no idea what he said in the 1nr but every sentence was > followed by: "this is another disad to the perm," which is literally the > only sentence you could understand. Now this is assuming he answers the > perm. > > Any of you ladies and gents who have ever made out with Blake, here is > some insight: > I actually found this out the first time I made out with Blake. I am not > attracted to men, I just needed the practice and Russell was teaching a > class. > Blake doesn't know how to kiss. When you are kissing him, and you think > he's doing such a fantastic job, he is actually still just talking. You are > feeling his mouth and tongue as it continues to spout out random, > multisyllabic words that may or may not have meaning. But don't worry, > Blake loves that shit, so it was probably better for him than it was for > you. > So after we're done making out, he looks at me: > > BJ: What do you think? > MG: it was OK, but you spit a lot. Plus you know I'm into the rough > stuff. > BJ: What are you talking about? > MG: What are you talking about? > BJ: I was asking what your response to what I just said was. > MG: What did you say? I thought we were sharing a special moment. > BJ: I said, ""Culture is part of the collapse of reality," says Derrida; > however, according to Buxton[1] , it is not so much culture that is part of > the collapse of reality, but rather the futility of culture. If precultural > libertarianism holds, we have to choose between postcultural libertarianism > and patriarchial narrative. > "Class is fundamentally meaningless," says Foucault. In a sense, in > Amarcord, Fellini reiterates subcultural dialectic theory; in La Dolce Vita, > however, he deconstructs precultural libertarianism. Lyotard promotes the > use of surrealism to modify society. > However, Brophy[2] states that we have to choose between postdialectic > theory and the cultural paradigm of consensus. A number of materialisms > concerning the role of the writer as poet exist. > Therefore, Bataille suggests the use of precultural libertarianism to > challenge archaic perceptions of sexuality. An abundance of narratives > concerning surrealism may be discovered. > Thus, precultural libertarianism implies that narrative is created by the > masses. If precapitalist Marxism holds, we have to choose between > precultural libertarianism and the cultural paradigm of consensus. > MG: God I love it when you talk dirty, can I have one more practice > round? > > Let's be serious for a moment. That essay Blake spouted off while I was > tonguing him sounds like one of his speeches. You can imagine why it's so > easy for them to pick up Harris's ballot. Reading all of OU's evidence > after a round is like play-dough. It can say whatever you want, it's > completely subjective and the judge can make the card answer anything. It's > really a damn magic show that is allowed to go on because everyone has too > much pride. You don't know what they're saying, the judge doesn't know what > they're saying, but who's going to admit it. You know that if you argue you > are going to hear more shit you don't understand, which will only make you > feel more stupider. > > Give Back the Land > How could we talk about anyone from OU without mentioning give back the > land? That OU has popped so many great teams on give back the land is a > testament to their skill. Everyone seems to think that OU has an emotional > attachment to the argument, like it's their "project" to talk about Native > Americans. I don't mean to sell him out here, but Blake doesn't give a > shit. He has told me several times that he thought most of the US's land > acquisition was "savvy real estate maneuvering" and that Indian nations were > "lucky to get anything at all." That may be his personal stance, but you'll > be surprised to hear how he feels about the argument in terms of > debate. Blake thinks it's a terrible argument. He even knows that it isn't > competitive and always solved by the do both permutation. He doesn't give a > shit either way. It's funny that he beat you on such a bad argument. Let > me give you some advice right now: If you have ever lost to give back the > land-kill yourself. Now > , he defeated me on this argument in the Sems of UTD a few years back, and > part of me is now dead. If you are a young debater, and you watched them > run this argument, and now it interests you-please just let it go. Let's > have a huddle right now and lay a 3 year ban on give back the land. > > Blake on Conor > Conor, it's time you knew: Blake hates you. He is jealous of your > ability to be such a handsome, popular young man while at the same time > wearing just enough ridiculous looking suit jackets to be semi-hipster. He > is afraid you will spawn a new race of well-rounded, universally accepted > hipsters, which will clearly defeat the entire purpose of hipsterism. He > does sick shit to you while you sleep. And Conor, this is Malgor talking, > if I say something is sick?..it's sick. Remember what happened to us at the > Tokyo spa? Ten times worse than that. Friendly advice: brush your > teeth?..constantly. > > Blake on Blake > First, I'd like to point out how sweet the phrase "blake on blake" > sounds. Blake is incredibly insightful. He will really delve into the > depths of his soul to find answers in life. Of course, he always concludes > that he is the shit. Blake's self-defined "character flaws" consist of > things like: I'm just too pretty sometimes, or I really spend too much time > volunteering at the soup kitchen." Here is a great story: > > Blake thought about giving the CEDA trophy back, or just renouncing it > completely. He felt so guilty. His ultra-intellectual, well-rounded > hipsterness told him something was wrong. Finally, during some pillow talk > he and I had, he figured it out. Blake really hates capitalism. If you are > a capitalist, you are so not his friend. And if you believe in capitalist > ideals, you are basically like so Eurocentric that you are causing > intersubjective ontological violence on all of humanity. Well Blake is a > real horatio alger when it comes to debate. Him winning CEDA nationals is a > phenomenal achievement, lending legitimacy to the idea that if you just try > hard and pick yourself up by your bootstraps you'll achieve all your > dreams. To blake, that's a load of capitalist crap meant to keep most of > the population subservient to the ideals of the few rich fatcats that > control global production. And he read this article in International > Perspectives that told him that when indiv > iduals reinforce that capitalist ideology they are basically supporting > war, racism, sexism, genocide, and environmental destruction. Well Blake > wanted to have nothing to do with two of those things. This guy is so not > capitalist that he was gonna throw it all away just so no future debaters > would buy into such ultra-individualistic, neoliberal propaganda. Instead > of giving the trophy back, he decided to just donate some money to the > Monthly Review and call it a day. > > The Nice Stuff > It's really hard for me to bash Blake. I love him to death. I'd like to > use a lot of space here to say the honest stuff. If the stupid argument > that edebate will affect future employment decisions is true, then this > section might get him the job. > > You deserve all the success you had this season. Hell, you deserve > more. What you have done for OU debate is amazing. I was very proud of you > at every tournament, even when I was a little jealous of your > success. You've set a standard that will be nearly impossible for future > debaters to surpass. But honestly, Blake, I don't need to talk about how > great you are at debate. Only a great debater could take down 4 national > tournaments. > > You are a great friend. In fact, I can't remember a time since I've known > you when I didn't consider you a close friend. For 3 seasons you have > provided consistent support and guidance any time I needed it. I have had > and lost a lot of friends over the years, but I know that I will always be > able to count on you. You are one of the most sensitive, honest people I > have ever met. Every time we talk, you hit me with a level of sincerity > that is always reassuring. That you never betray yourself or others, and > are always honest, is a sign of great character. No matter how successful > you were at a tournament it was always me that you were concerned > with. Even during the lowest lows, you consistently supported me, assuring > me that better things would come. That kind of unselfishness is hard to > find in any setting, much less a competitive one. > > You have always carried yourself knowing that it is what you do now that > is important; it is what we do with the relationships we have now that shape > our impact on this world. I am honored to say you are one of my best > friends. Okay, I have a lot more to say, but this is starting to sound like > a love letter. > > May the four winds safely blow you home. > > Love > > malgor > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070510/42809d6a/attachment.htm From schiappa Thu May 10 20:11:41 2007 From: schiappa (schiappa at umn.edu) Date: 10 May 2007 20:11:41 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] (no subject) Message-ID: (On behalf of Ronald Walter Greene ) The University of Minnesota Department of Communication Studies welcomes David Cram Helwich to our faculty as the University of Minnesota Debate Coach and as a teaching specialist in argumentation theory and debate pedagogy. Furthermore, we welcome Eli Brennan to our faculty as a teaching specialist in argumentation. Eli will also be assisting David with developing the debate program at the University of Minnesota. As the Director of Undergraduate Studies, I look forward to helping David and Eli build a new culture of debate at the University of Minnesota. I ask the debate community to welcome and support David and Eli in their efforts to re-invent debate at the University of Minnesota. Go Gophers! Ski-U-Mah, Ron Greene green179 at umn.edu ------------ Ronald Walter Greene, Associate Professor Director of Undergraduate Studies, Department of Communication Studies University of Minnesota Debate Program Faculty Advisor Affiliated Graduate Faculty in American Studies and Rhetoric and Scientific and Technical Communication. From ajohns58 Thu May 10 21:23:03 2007 From: ajohns58 (Anthony Michael Johnson) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 20:23:03 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] (no subject) Message-ID: <77D8D3FD1E2C864AB73523248CD71754BB83D3@TELEGRAPH2.uwyo.edu> The Gophers should consider themselves extremely lucky. Dave is an amazing coach, and should do wonders with that program. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070510/d3d7f643/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Thu May 10 21:57:40 2007 From: andy.edebate (andy ellis) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:57:40 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] JV Novice Nats 2007-Tab room Message-ID: <4643db9f.1892c7b7.5830.3e41@mx.google.com> Er...2008...you know what i meant -----Original Message----- From: "Andy Ellis" To: "Edebate" Sent: 4/12/2007 11:41 AM Subject: JV Novice Nats 2007-Tab room We are preparing final details right now, but one feature i wanted to announce to people and start the process on is the Tab Room procedure. In the spirit of making this a truly national tournament, and building on a tradition of ceda representatives running a smooth and balanced tournament, we are inviting each region to designate one person from their region who would like to work in the tab room. Of course if every region applies we wont be running 10 versions of the tab software and specific jobs will be decided based on the skill pool of the selected . If for example you choose Korcok to be your representative, we will station him at the handling stupid problems abruptly desk... (jk)... We would like to know by Jan 1 who the various designates are or if your region chooses not to designate. The thinking behind this is that we want everyone regardless if they are from the east the west the north the south or the mid west to feel that the tab room is fair and balanced, not just ceda east and the mid-atlantic. This is not to suggest that their is any unfairness in the previous tab rooms, but to suggest that this is a national tournament and the whole nation of debaters should have a say about their representative in the tab room. The process could be similar to the voting for critic of the year, and once we have the group of tabbers we will have a series of on line discussions to make sure all bases and grounds are covered and all regional perspectives on novice and JV are appreciated. Joining the designated tabbers will be one towson person, and one person who is responsible for making the computers go. Andy Ellis From andy.edebate Thu May 10 21:57:50 2007 From: andy.edebate (andy ellis) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:57:50 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] DCA awards question to the community Message-ID: <4643dba8.31f1e11e.5830.3e56@mx.google.com> Well perhaps we cant have a celebration of community and fun without talking about who fuqued who...no really and here is a different argument to answer the 'elitism' problem...as a judge and debater who may not always know the dca picks intimatly either cause they are not my friends i dont judge them regularly or i dont go to all the same tournaments...i have at times enjoyed the dethinigification the dca provides...for every bit of terriblenss there is at least half a bit of information that says ah casey harrigan is a person not just part of MSU BH...the dca s in this sense are personification of the elitism of the normal season speaker awards lists...kinda likw here are the names of peopl you see all year...here is far more info about them than you see the rest o the year...maybe this also why i am watching as much as i can about anna and why when i go to the doctor i read people while i am waiting and not hilights....really can you honor yor friends in public without crossing what seem bvious lines -----Original Message----- From: "Malcolm Gordon" To: edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: 4/15/2007 12:00 PM Subject: [eDebate] DCA awards question to the community Yeah, there were obviously some issues with bios being inappropriate, but it's not like that's part of the mandate of the DCA. A lot of bios are very funny and tasteful. It's nice to have a countdown, type of funny things about your friends, and share stories with the community. Plus, it's not like Kall has something better to do. malgor _________________________________________________________________ Mortgage rates near historic lows. Refinance $200,000 loan for as low as $771/month* https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f8&disc=y&vers=689&s=4056&p=5117 _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From andy.edebate Thu May 10 21:58:06 2007 From: andy.edebate (andy ellis) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:58:06 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Changes at Pepperdine... Message-ID: <4643dbba.0a09373d.5830.3e86@mx.google.com> Maybe when the royals move to vegas their luck will improve Ps...for all i know the royals are already in vegas...please dont take anything written here as having any backing -----Original Message----- From: "Darren Elliott" To: "Sue Peterson" ; "Edebate" Sent: 4/24/2007 1:10 PM Subject: Re: [eDebate] Changes at Pepperdine... Congrats to Sue and Chico. It must feel great to be going home. Also, Pepperdine is being left in great hands and the Waves will keep on rolling. Congrats Sarah. Finally, OU is gaining quite an amazing coach, scholar, and person in Kylie. If only the Kansas City Royals could be as successful in 3 way trades where everyone ends up in great condition! : ) chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate and Forensics--KCKCC CEDA 2nd VP >>> "Sue Peterson" 4/24/2007 11:47 AM >>> Big changes are afoot at Pepperdine for the coming year! First of all, a big congratulations to Sarah Stone Watt, who has been hired in a newly established tenure-track Director of Forensics position at Pepperdine. Sarah is busily finishing up her PhD at Penn State and will return to sunny Southern California for the fall semester of this year. Please help me in congratulating and welcoming her. I think this position is a great testament to the commitment that Pepperdine is making to Forensics. Second, I will be moving from Pepperdine to Chico. I will always consider myself a Wave, but am excited to be returning to my Alma Mater in Chico. I am also excited at the return of Chico debate after their year's hiatus. Pepperdine has been wonderful to me and this was a difficult decision, but Chico is kind of like going home for me, so it seemed a great opportunity that I couldn't pass up. Finally, Kylie Robertson, who has served as a wonderful co-director at Pepperdine with me for the past three years, is moving onward and upward. She will be pursuing her PhD at the University of Oklahoma starting in the fall semester. Congratulations to Kylie! She will be a stellar professor wherever she ends up. I'm only sorry we couldn't keep her closer to the So Cal area. This means a few things - I will be handling the pre-tournament planning for the Pepperdine College tournament during the summer months, but Sarah will be the contact person once September rolls around. In addition, Pepperdine is looking for people who may be interested in filling mine and Kylie's positions. I can tell you that Pepperdine is a wonderful place to work. We have an amazingly supportive chair in the division and many faculty members and administrators who are looking to help the program grow and succeed. We have a great base of returning policy and parliamentary debaters and a very impressive recruiting class that includes policy debaters and individual events competitors. So, if you are looking for a position in the Southern California area, I encourage you to contact me or Sarah (ses1001 at psu.edu) for more information about the positions. The administration would like to fill these positions ASAP, so please don't delay if you're interested! I wish everyone a wonderful summer and look forward to seeing you all in the Fall semester! --Sue Peterson Pepperdine Waves Speech and Debate -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by KCKCC's MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. From andy.edebate Thu May 10 22:10:35 2007 From: andy.edebate (andy ellis) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 23:10:35 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] sorry Message-ID: <4643dea5.03e24f07.2b67.2d1a@mx.google.com> My gmail just delivered a bunch of old messages 1) in the draft folder or 2) it hasnt thught about sending over the last few months...luckily i didnt say anything turrible From rwgallow Thu May 10 22:44:27 2007 From: rwgallow (Galloway, Ryan W.) Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 22:44:27 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Samford Welcomes Abi Williams Message-ID: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E3065269AE@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> Samford University is thrilled to announce that Abi Williams will be joining us as the new assistant coach in the fall. While we will miss Ben "Gravy Cat" Coulter, we are excited to have Abi on board. Please join us in welcoming Abi to Birmingham! Dr. Ryan Galloway Director of Debate Samford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070510/c8095b32/attachment.htm From illinoisdebate Fri May 11 11:20:13 2007 From: illinoisdebate (Illinois Debate) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 11:20:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Anyone from ADA Message-ID: <804f062d0705110920jf41727btca96b82cee35d1ea@mail.gmail.com> We need another copy of the receipt for our entry fees at ADA Nats, if someone could backchannel me, thanks. -Tim -- I Debate: The Illinois Policy Debate Team Sponsored by: *The Institute of Government & Public Affairs *The Campus Honors Program University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign illinoisdebate at gmail.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070511/ee36e75b/attachment.htm From stables Fri May 11 12:18:07 2007 From: stables (Gordon Stables) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 10:18:07 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Reminder about upcoming deadline for topic wording papers Message-ID: <4644A54F.5050804@usc.edu> The deadline for submitting a wording paper is almost here, so I wanted to provide a reminder to the community that you can still develop and submit a proposal. If you have any interest in specific work, please let me know. The topic blog http://blog.cedatopic.com/ also provides a great way to both see our current items of consideration and also to leave your feedback. The full call for wording papers has been posted at the topic website http://www.cedatopic.com/ and is reprinted below. ---- The selected controversy is now researched with an interest in developing the possible specific propositions (or resolutions) for the coming season. The committee and community will both be invited to prepare such *wording papers* in advance of the CEDA summer business meetings. All wording papers submitted to the topic chair by *Sunday May 13, 2007* and relating to the controversy selected by the community vote will be placed on the agenda for the summer meetings and, subject to a committee vote, placed on the topic wording ballot. All wording papers submitted by the deadline and meeting the above guidelines will be voted on by the committee. Completed and germane papers will be presumptively considered for the ballot. The *CEDA summer business meeting* takes place in early summer and includes 2.5 days worth of deliberation on the wording choices. The location of the meeting is determined by the CEDA executive council after considering bids from host intuitions. The 2007 meeting will be hosted by James Madison University in Harrisonburg, VA from Monday, May 21-Wednesday May 23. The CEDA business meeting will take place immediately prior to the topic session (May 19-21). --- Thanks Gordon Chair, CEDA Topic Selection Committee -- 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 andy.edebate Fri May 11 12:41:13 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 13:41:13 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] More Radio Shows Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705111041t7a9a3e5p60e0378d9569c47b@mail.gmail.com> Hello, Tune it live at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/bmoredb8 Today at 4:30 i will be talking to Najib Jammal, debate coach of Frederick Douglass High School, and Directer of Youth Organizing Urban Revitalization Systems (Y.O.U.R.S). YOURS is a youth based community initiative which helps Baltimore City students to build susatianble youth run businesses. They currently work in urban gardening, T shirt production, and a variety of other Businesses the show will be an hour long and we will be joined by several of the yours students. Tomorrow at 10:30 Am we will be broadcasting live from the Baltimore open public debate tournament. We will talk to people as they register about the public debate and their cases, and what ever else transpires. We will cover the reading of the forst paring and parts of debates. Monday at 4:30 PM, i will be joined by Andreas Spiliadis, He will be discussing his new album LIFT, as well as urban debate, pedagogy, and debate across the curriculum. Andreas is a member of the band Jefferson Forklift and on staff at the Baltimore urban debate league as a school outreach, public debate, and debate across the curriculum specialist. Thursday at 4:30 PM we will be talking to the High School apprentices of the Baltimore Urban Debate League. The apprentices are paid employees who work as middle school coaches and assistants. We will discuss the program, its potential applications elsewhere, and its future. We hope also to be joined by middle school students, teachers and parents. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070511/06f00076/attachment.htm From james.maritato Fri May 11 15:00:54 2007 From: james.maritato (James Maritato) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 16:00:54 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Informal Announcement -- Marist College Seeking Assistant Coach Message-ID: Hello All, As many of you know, Sarah Stone Watt will be leaving us to direct at Pepperdine this coming season. Marist College will be searching for an assistant debate coach to begin working with the program in late August 2007 until May of 2008. A more formal posting is forthcoming, but details are up in the air as I am negotiating new salary/terms (meaning better) for this position with our admin. In the meantime, here are some details for those considering their options for next year: - You will travel with the team and we will cover all of your costs. - You will assist with research and instruction of the policy debate program and public debate initiatives - You will have the opportunity to work with both committed, experienced debaters as well as a contingent of eager and devoted novices - You will not have to teach any classes. - The position is part time, annual contract - You do not have to move to Poughkeepsie, NY. You can work with the team remotely via the Internet and distance learning resources. (I should note though, that a local candidate or someone who can travel to Poughkeepsie on a monthly or bi-monthly basis would be ideal. - If you are local and have an MA in Communication or relevant professional experience, you can likely pick up extra income teaching adjunct classes. If you have a BA and prior teaching/coaching experience we may also be able to work something out. - If you are not local and have an MA or relevant professional experience and are tech savvy, you might be able to adjunct classes online. - You need to have a driver's license I'm hoping to have the formal announcement out next week, but please feel free to e-mail me if you have any questions. Jim Maritato Director of Debate Marist College 845-575-3000 x2075 james.maritato at marist.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070511/2bfc1ed0/attachment.htm From vegam Fri May 11 16:52:39 2007 From: vegam (Vega, Matthew J.) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 16:52:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #6 Malcolm Eugene Gordon Message-ID: <1C1A133246EC8344B22D2FDFF3D341E6049133A9@KC-MSX4.kc.umkc.edu> DCA Debater #6 Malgor the Warrior 76 points What kind of douche-bag names himself ?Malgor the Warrior? and then continues to refer to himself by that name after the first grade? Shit. I have already offended douche-bags in the community sorry Stone. Let me start over Malgor was born in a swamp in Louisiana. He was 12lbs 8oz. When I say swamp, I mean that you used a fan boat to get to his ?house,? and when I say ?you used? I mean nobody probably used a fanboat to get to his house except his parents. The real story about how he got the now-lame moniker was that when he was 3 his parents used to enter him in contests wrestling 3-year-old alligators in the swamps of Louisiana they were of course toothless his parents, I mean. I wish that we had some video but I think the fact that his parents lived in a swamp and wrestled their child against alligators sort of explains why there was no video. He was actually known as Malgor the Magnificent until one of the gators got a hold of one of his testicles (part of many male?s anatomy not an attempt to offend). It was the first time that he was scathed by the young gators but he fought through it and was renamed Malgor the Warrior. Now you know. More on that testicle thing later. At some point Malcolm got on a really big fan boat and left the Cajun roots of Louisiana and headed for the big city Ozark, MO. A lot of people say that they are from the Ozarks, but few can say that they are from the capital of the Ozarks. A city so boogen, so hillbilly that it is simply called the name of the region I mean, why learn two names? I will say that it is impressive that they use the backwards s in their name, because I don?t think that they ever actually got to that letter when they were learning the alphabet in fifth grade. Ozark was just close enough to Springfield, MO that I was unfortunate enough to interact with people from that ?city? when I was attending Southwest Missouri State, now called MSU or Michigan State, I think. I had the pleasure of judging Malcolm at the state-qualifying tournament. He was atrocious. I voted for him. Several of you that have made the mistake of preffing me to judge you in the past four years might see a pattern. Suffice it to say, he knew nothing about debate, argument, speech, but he somehow seemed smarter than everyone else debating. Well, maybe not smarter, but funnier looking. In fact, this is one of the only reasons that I really remember judging him. After the round his coach asked me what I thought, I think because she wanted me to recruit him to SMS. I said, ?you mean that Drew Carey looking idiot? I guess he was ok.? Fritch apparently didn?t think so, which is why it is good that he is now struggling to read from a sheet of parings instead of heading the Missouri State Juggernaut. He really did look just like Drew Carey, which is pretty much why I voted for him. Keep in mind that this was Drew Carey before that piece of shit ?Who?s line is it anyway?? show that ruined a promising career for a self-depreciating unattractive fat man but it was just the beginning of the career for another. But it also set him apart from all the other really shitty debaters that I probably got the privilege to judge while in college but I forgot because they don?t look as ridiculous like all the idiots on Cross-x that think that they are really fucking awesome debaters that now suck so much at life that they spend all their time on cross-x making shit up about their debate expertise. I am not talking about you this time Louie, but I mean, come on. His coach later asked me to come help prepare them for NFL nationals. I said, ?you mean that Drew Carey looking idiot made it to nationals?? This probably does not say anything about Missouri debate except that it is a crapshoot. So, I put on my coveralls (they don?t take kindly to city folk down there, I was warned), and headed down to the single room school house known as Ozark High School. To make a long story short, I said ?conditionality is ? and he said ?I think we are just going to keep doing things how we do it.? I think that he only one two rounds at NFL, but at least he did not lose to Mikey Kearney like Martin Osborn did. Fast forward a couple of years actually, the only story that I really know from high school is the one that Malcolm tells everyone because he had such a lame high school experience and because he likes the shock value that makes him seem exotic, or something. For those who don?t know, Malcolm is not really funny, but you eventually laugh after he beats you over the head with the same joke for several hours. Anyway, this particular story is really the story of the all-american kid. It involved a liter of sprite and a liter of vodka most of which was gone at the time. He was driving around on the roads of Ozark, which means the dirt roads of Ozark, which I would have pointed out, except all the roads there are dirt, so they are just roads. Malcolm did not get the driver?s door of the car closed, because he was both an idiot and drunk, and so, when he turned the corner he fell out of his car going 30 mph. Kids, don?t be like Malcolm. Anyway, back to the fast forward. I move to Washington, forget about Malcolm for two years, then I move back. Linda Collier calls me to tell me that they need an assistant coach, so I come in to talk. I talk about how I could cut cards and stuff that I thought would be great skills for like the fourth coach on the staff to do. She tells me that they have this up and coming debater that she is really excited about. Right in the middle of a drink of some iced frappacrap from Starbucks, where we were meeting so that I did not have to see the squad room, she says, and I think her exact words were, ?I think that Malcolm Gordon is the next big thing for UMKC debate!? After I cleaned up what I spit up on myself, I took the job, because I knew that the senility had finally set in. After a couple of months, I realized that I was not the fourth coach, I was the only coach. Coffman was in law school and Linda hadn?t cut a file since the 80s. She had the time to make sure that the Pitch Weekly (a sweet city paper in Kansas City that had a several year obsession with Marcus Leach and others of KC Central fame) listed the UMKC Debate Team as the ?most likely team in Kansas City to win a National Championship? led by their ?exciting new coaching staff of Justin Skarb, Kamal Ghali, and Josh Coffman.? Those people beat me like a drum except Coffman I beat him last. I guess my only point here is that I came in two weeks before Georgia State and partners had already been decided, so I did not get a chance to sub someone in for Malcolm, like maybe my dog. We had 8 new debaters and several returning debaters, and we went for the Anarchy counterplan 3 of the four negative rounds hell of a job Bryce. This year mostly consisted of Malcolm and Bryce running around in coordinating jogging suits. Bryce had a huge head literally, not in the ego sense (but also in the ego sense), and Malcolm tried to catch up by growing some ridiculous fro where I think that he kept food stored for later. This year Malcolm also beat the Jordans on A-Spec...one more time just for you, Todd. Somehow Malcolm and Bryce managed to not only make it to the NDT, but clear at the NDT. This is actually when I knew that Linda was right. It was not because he cleared, but because when I asked ?if we win the flip, who wants the ball?? Without hesitation, Malcolm said he wanted to be aff (he was the 2A only back in the day). Keep in mind that this was long, long ago before you had to be fucking crazy to pick aff (KU BJ in semis of CEDA fucking crazy). Then he proceeded to lose on a 5-0, but whatever. The next year is one that we largely don?t speak of. Malcolm cut his hair like the piece of shit sellouts in Metallica, which Malcolm will defend to this day but they suck post hair cut. The only thing that I will note is that Malcolm and that about which we do not speak were far better on the negative than the affirmative. He again cleared to the elims, and then some crazy-ass team won the flip and chose to go aff, when they could have gone negative against maybe the worst affirmative being run on the topic that was massively untopical, had no impact and certainly didn?t solve anything. We won on a 3-2, in a decision that ?UMKC will be talking about for a long time.? Then we promptly lost on a 7-0 that would have been a 59-0, unless John Turner were on the panel, because that dude always voted for Malcolm. It was a decision that ?UMKC will not be talking about for a while.? This is also the year that Malcolm discovered that cheating (running kritiks) was a great way to win I will use the space allotted for that year to discuss Malcolm?s taste in fashion and music. Fashion: Malcolm?s fancy clothes are button up Spiderman and superman shirts. True story: I walked into Malcolm?s house that is right by the squad room and found Malcolm in only his Spiderman shirt and Blake Johnson in only Malcolm?s Superman shirt and they were playing Superfriends. Since his recent expansion in size, we have been able to get him to wear a shirt that Big Mike gave him when we need him to dress up, but that thing is still pretty much a moo-moo (is that PC, I don?t know anyway, it is a fucking nightgown on a fat man.) When he does not need to dress up he wears an assortment of WWF wrestling shirts I think the one with Stone Cold and a Bible verse is his favorite. By the way, that story about Blake and Malcolm is not true...I did not walk in on them, but I am sure that it has happened. Due to the fact that there are no radio stations where Malcolm grew up that play music recorded after 1990? he really loves him some 80s rock. His favorite band is Rush. He has spent several conversations with Ermo about trading Rush videos and bootlegs. I have no problem with Rush, but if you are going to pick a band that had most of their best action before you were born, I think that you could have done better. Note to anyone interested in showing Malcolm a good time, Tuesday, 7/3/07 Def Leppard with Styx and Foreigner play at Sandstone in KC. Spend a couple hours before hand playing Gears of War and you will probably get yourself an obsessed stalker. Then came Malcolm?s senior year. Coming off of an appearance in the octafinals of the NDT, Malcolm promptly won the first three tournaments that he attended, putting him as a front-runner for the Copeland. Actually, he was not anywhere near the Copeland, because the first three tournaments that he went to were Emporia, Central Oklahoma and North Texas. All fine tournaments, but you see the problem. What Malcolm had decided to do was see if he could let all the rep that he garnered from beating Harvard the year before completely wash off to the point that people emailed me after the Texas Swing and said something along the lines of ?you have a team that is really tearing up in Texas tell me about them.? ?Well, half of them were in the octafinals of the NDT!? But, whatever. This is really just a segue to the story about meeting Malcolm?s kin folk. We had decided that the best thing to do after the Texas Swing was not to return home where things like class, family, running water were, but instead, we should go hang out for a week with Malcolm?s kin in the swamps of Louisiana. This was truly a special experience. We finally found the house after the GPS kept telling me to ?make a u-turn? or ?head north to civilization.? There was some serious Deliverance shit going on down there packs of roving wild dogs, huge ?do not enter? signs, and a naked dude squealing like a pig. We rolled down the window to ask directions and the local said about Malcolm, "He's got a real purty mouth, ain't he?" That turned out to be one of his cousins. We finally found the house which had now been upgraded to a working telephone which we could use for dial-up, but since it took 15 minutes to get to the opening screen, I did not feel like we were going to get much work done. Then I remembered, we don?t need to do any work because our aff was about why topicality is bad. It had only a couple cards, and they were already certainly the most up-to-date cards that you could find on Lexis about why topicality was bad. What a great fucking argument. For those not fortunate enough to hear the aff, it started off with a shitty synopsis of a shitty movie called ?A History of Violence.? And then it got worse. Malcolm wrote it in two hours, and it won like 30 rounds, proving that Malcolm debated a bunch of shitty teams. This freed us up to eat the 9 meals a day that Malcolm?s aunt cooked for us. Meals mostly consisted of bacon and side-dishes with bacon in them. Culp, a vegetarian, was seen as a rescue case for Malcolm?s aunt. She constantly shoved food at him worried that he was going to whither away. The best part was that she would cook his vegetarian food in bacon grease. This was all much to Culp?s chagrin because he was able to enjoy the taste of what had caused a 150lb high school senior to gain 40lbs in college while still maintaining his ?activist? street cred, which was essential to most of his cross-examination strategies with that stupid aff. His cross-ex usually started with, ?well, I don?t know if you know this, but I AM AN ACTIVIST!? It was great the week in Louisiana was truly tremendous food, sleeping in, VHS movies from 1991, constant fear of being killed by the Cajun/hillbilly mix. Shit. I almost forgot the round for which Malcolm is second most famous for. Maybe most famous for. I don?t know. It was when the bus really fell off of the wheels. The high-high round at UT-D would likely have Malcolm and Culp vs. Cormack and some other guy. So we decided that we would run the same argument on either side, which we were already doing anyway, but I had no idea that it could reach this level. Sure enough, parings in the morning had us negative versus CJ with Kelly Winfrey in the back of the room with her KU sweatshirt on that she shamelessly wears while she hacks away for the school that she could not get into (I don?t have any reason to believe that she could not get into KU, but I think that it sounds better that way she does vote for them pretty much every round except this one). KU said something, and Malcolm and Andy danced. I was worried that we made fools out of ourselves, but then Jennings got up and made us look reasonable. Lots of people know of the round, but not many know that we won the round just remember that when you are trying to decide if Jennings is really a Copeland-quality debater. Atchison on Malcolm being aff: ?I would rather drink turpentine and piss on a fire than listen to that shit again.? Then there was CEDA. I told you that we would be getting back to that testicle. Some might remember that Malcolm and Andy were 4-0 set to debate Ozzie and Kearney, no doubt on our way to 5-0, when we got the news. Malcolm could not even walk across the parking lot from the Westin because one of his testicles finally got jealous of his stomach, because it got all the attention by continually expanding in size, so the testicle tried to assert itself. Let?s just say the testicle won the battle but lost the war. Malcolm is like a panda: it is more interested in sleeping and eating bamboo (and playing Madden) than it is in propogating the species. Of course Pandas are cute, so they are a little different. He recovered in time for the NDT, where he managed to be the eighth seed and draw the runner-up to the Copeland, for the second year in a row, but this time he lost at least so says 4 Berkeley HACKS (four District 3 judges that routinely voted for Malcolm). Thus ends the illustrious career of Malcolm Gordon. Gators, hope, failure Oh, wait, then they passed the ?Malcolm Gordon Rule? and allowed Malcolm to have ONE MORE YEAR! Not only that, but they elected the guy who ran topicality bad on the aff to the topic committee. So, maybe the election process has not been a well-oiled machine for more than one year. But that did not matter anyway, because the topics are obviously already decided well before the topic meetings. Malcolm was just there to make Joe Patrice shoot milk out of his nose. We assembled a crack team of slightly above average debaters (except Stan) to help make the inevitable losing more fun. His second senior year was really just a slew of teams that Malcolm had previously owned doing much better than him, except for Ozzie, he still owned him...apparently Aaron Lyttle had no instructions for Ozzie here. Malcolm never really made it past octas. He would complain that he kept getting good teams, but it was really like he made teams seem good by playing like a fancy welcome mat to Quarters. In fact, the only thing that allowed Malcolm to finally get a first round is Jackie?s unending desire to bring a points championship to Norman. Malcolm and Amy debated OU 4 times in D3 and won all four times. I don?t mean to slight the two judges that voted against us in the finals of UNT, but because we actually got Slusher to vote for us in an elimination round, we consider that to be a win. The rest of the season was much like the first with Malcolm and Amy puttering out early and then Amy going to bed and Malcolm screaming obscenities and doing impressions of Scotty Nguyen and Humberto Brenes ?me shark iz getting hooongreeee!? As was Malcolm. (I read this later and thought, maybe people will think that I am saying that Malcolm?s hunger for winning was increasing, or that I at least was attempting to use a double entendre, but I was not. Malcolm has an insatiable appetite for food. On debate trips he demanded that we drive even to places far away like Wake Forest because he knew that would mean that the squad would pay for his meals for two days. Then, once in the car he would demand to stop every two hours at a Cracker Barrel so that he could eat the Big Country Breakfast which was two of everything on the menu.) Malcolm came into CEDA with two normal sized testicles (and a third just slightly smaller than normal) and ready to take it down. Then we lost to Whitman RS for the 36th time. Malcolm asked what we could do better, Pointer said, ?go negative.? Touch?. But all was not lost. Malcolm was awarded the ?people?s? Top Speaker award. This means that Malcolm was not the ?best speaker? or ?best debater? at the tournament, but that he was in rounds with people like Jon Wright who pleaded for a 30 to validate his time in debate which forced the hand of the judge to give Malcolm a 30. (Actually, it did not force the hand of the judge because the judges could just NOT FUCKING GIVE THE POINTS THAT DEBATERS ASK FOR (Louie, Kelly, et al). That is why they call you judges, after all. You don?t do what they say, you JUDGE what they say, and then pontificate for a while about why you are better than them.). Anyway, he won top speaker which was quickly forgotten at Louie?s across the street from OU at around noon on the final elim day. ?REWIND!? screams Malgor from a table in the back. This for some reason meant that the waitress was supposed to bring another round of car bombs. The total of which was 38 between four people, Malcolm, Todd, Culp and Louie (yeah, Ermo, I lied, it was Louie, but I assumed that you figured it out when you heard stories about the Wichita State room.) There were two indelible moments, and several non-indelible moments. One less-than-indelible was when Louie got two free beers because he went up and started talking to an Indian in the bar about how he was his ?first priority.? But back to Malcolm. I hear him chanting, ?U S A, U S A!? and I turn to see him talking to Colby from the US Military Academy. This is probably 6 car bombs and 3 whiskey on the rocks into the early afternoon. He spends the next 45 minutes explaining to Colby and the whole USMA team that is at the bar why he loves the army but hates the war. I think that he is being genuine about this, but it turns out that he was really trying to convince Colby to talk to his partner Casey and let her know that he was an available bachelor. More on this later. The second moment was when Malcolm screamed at the waitress that she was ?a racist, an anti-semite, and she hates colored people.? We were promptly asked to leave we assume to protect their racist waitress. After two hours and a $400 tab, Malcolm heads back to the Oklahoma Legends. Colby was so entertained by the conversation that he had with Malcolm that he has Casey call from the airport. This wakes Malcolm up out of his passed out state, and he says the very romantic, ?WHY ARE YOU CALLING ME? CAN?T YOU LET ME SLEEP!? Which goes back to that whole ?Malcolm is like a panda? thing. We rolled into the NDT hoping to not be that first round team that does not clear and we made it to finals woop-de-do. You did it all without ever having to learn the difference between an agent counterplan and a plan inclusive counterplan aren?t kritiks wonderful. Think I focused on his debate life too much, well, I am his coach, not his friend...he is mostly intolerable. I do know that through it all, he also played video games. He is also the only person I know with a personal cabbie. Chris. That is Chris the Cabbie. I am pretty sure that he does not have internet, so I will just go ahead and say that Chris the Cabbie is generally an idiot that makes lots of comments that Josh Hoe would definitely say were inappropriate. After Malcolm told me one of the stories about Chris the Cabbie, I asked Malcolm why he puts up with him and Malcolm told me that he is his cab driver, not his friend but since he does not pay full price for cab rides anymore, I think that he needs to reevaluate that special relationship. I also think that he is a Chiefs fan, but he does not seem to know much about sports...I mean, he likes the NBA more than he likes baseball...idiot. So outside of debate there was video games, sleep, alcohol, and a place called Temptations Now, the serious stuff ostensibly for a possible future employer of Malcolm Eugene Gordon: Dear Manager of the Piggly Wiggly in Ozark. Malcolm knows the name of several types of food. He will not throw things at most customers. You do not have to pay him much because he will be living with his parents. Am I required to put in the stuff about Malcolm being a great guy and a good friend? I will leave that to Blake after a quick note about their friendship: It figures that Malcolm beat Blake out in the DCA rankings. He pretty much beat him in everything except speaker awards at the NDT. I think that Malcolm was 92-0 against Blake?s 2AR. This is central to their relationship. Malcolm wants a friend that other people think is good, but Malcolm owns. I am pretty confident this is why Malcolm is such good friends with Blake. Further proof, take another top five first round and great debater. Malcolm was well on his way to being the best of buds with Kathryn Clark, but Malcolm is 0-239 versus Kathryn Clark seriously, he never won even a ballot, so he had to look elsewhere and there was little Blake helpless to defend himself against topicality thinking that the following is a legit counterinterpretation ?if it is extratopical, sever it.? Begin: 10 One Liners About Malcolm Gordon by blake johnson Malcolm Gordon is the biggest thing to hit debate since neg fiat. Malcolm Gordon looks like one cabbage patch kid ate three others. If looks could kill, Malcolm Gordon would be penicillin. Malcolm Gordon walked into a wall with a hard-on .he broke his nose. Malcolm Gordon?s blood pressure is measured on the Richter scale. UMKC saved money this year by traveling Amy in a fold of skin on Malcolm?s torso. Malcolm Gordon is in shape, specifically round. Malcolm Gordon bleeds cookie dough. Malcolm Gordon?s garbage disposal eats better than the entire third world. If Malcolm Gordon were a part of the human anatomy, he?d be fat. End: 10 One Liners About Malcolm Gordon by blake johnson I love you Malcolm (this is still blake) and I still haven?t told anyone that your conspicuous absence after day one of CEDA last year was due to your ball exploding. People like you are the reason that this activity is great. Your an amazing friend, a honorable competitor, and the sexiest fat man since Biggie Smalls. As though you didn't know so already, you've been my debate role model for 3 years (this is still blake). I cant tell you how excited and proud your success makes me. You're, for all your bullshit, one of the most genuine people I know. I won't continue, because if DCAs bios were only about chronicling debate achievements and saying honest and cordial things about the recipients then no one would ever read them. From davismk13 Fri May 11 22:10:22 2007 From: davismk13 (Mike Davis) Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 23:10:22 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Summer Meeting/Topic Comm Travel Plans Message-ID: <9a7f6f740705112010q27817b04l9a2c38d763ea54b8@mail.gmail.com> Hey all, We are looking forward to hosting you in about a week. A few things: 1. Please let me know if you plan on attending and for how long. I want to make sure we have enough room/chairs in the meeting room we have reserved. 2. If you need help with hotel rooms let me know. As far as I know no one has had a hard time getting the conference rate even after the deadline. Please let me know if this is not the case. 3. Travel arrangements - Let me know if you need a ride from an airport and we can try to find someone coming from that area. We can pick up anyone from the regional airport and the Richmond folks have offered to help transport people if you are flying into Richmond. Just let me know what we can do to help you get here. If there is anything else. Please let me know. Mike -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070511/cd6a9004/attachment.htm From anabaptist Sat May 12 08:24:23 2007 From: anabaptist (Donald Bryson) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 09:24:23 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] may be a long shot Message-ID: <002c01c79498$db657df0$6501a8c0@Bryson> Does anyone know if a case list exists for CFL or NFL? Donald Bryson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070512/d1ff2fbc/attachment.htm From odekirk.scott Sat May 12 12:30:53 2007 From: odekirk.scott (scott odekirk) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 11:30:53 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #5: Jessica Yeats Message-ID: <724663690705121030n501f9d63ibdc1c42537c4f6f4@mail.gmail.com> Jessica finished in 5th place with 85 points. To the 5th Papal Delegation on Satanic Happenings and Exorcisms: Dear Distinguished and Holy Members, I have been in Idaho for nearly 8 years tracing the Jessica Yeats phenomenon and I regret to inform you that this will most likely be my last correspondence. I have only discovered recently that my previous letters have not reached you; I believe they have been intercepted by yet undiscovered? forces. In any case, I have sent seven copies of this manuscript in different directions by horseback and I have also "posted" this message to her email exchange community. I hope that some righteous soul might come across this letter and bring it to you, but if our fate is left to these debaters I fear that I will surely fail. Since I received the priesthood and the writes of exorcism I have never been so challenged or intrigued. The following is a recounting of some pieces of evidence I have gathered while studying the Jessica Yeats situation. I will attempt to write only the facts but I must admit that as I have spent more time with Ms. Yeats I have come to doubt my own capacities of observation and reason ? In 1985, Jessica's parents received a knock at their door, when they opened it they noticed a tightly wrapped bundle neatly placed on their porch. There were strange bovine tracks headed away from the package into the woods and the air seemed to stink of death. When they opened the bundle they say a beautiful infant with wild eyes. She seemed so cute, strangely though, her skin was blisteringly hot to the touch and her vomit could reportedly disintegrate steel. Her parents were never ones to shy away from a challenge, so they overlooked some things (her mother was most shocked that even as a baby when Jessica giggled it sounded like an evil James Earl Jones) and quickly enrolled the young child in ballet classes. After a few years of what her parents called "discipline and focus" Jessica seemed just like the other girls. Jessica's parents wouldn't speak much about her teenage years, but after a bit of digging I found some things. In 1998, Coeur D'Alene Police reported the bodies of seven middle-school children were found in a forest clearing in a bloody arrangement. Officers reported finding a Wendy's salad that was "picked at" rigorously, a cryptic note which read "the ugly parts of life make life beautiful," and a cell phone which had apparently been dropped on the ground so many times it yielded no substantial evidence. Jessica dabbled in debate and theater in high school where her drama coach allegedly said her depiction of Captain Hook was both mesmerizing and revolting. This was her last role until starring in an oft seen film as "Josh Branson the Velociraptor." According to dispatcher testimony in 2001, Idaho State Police stopped a "young aggressive mousy brunette" on a secluded highway just outside of Sandpoint. The officers were next seen in the bottom of a ravine crushed under the weight of their patrol car. When approached later about this incident Jessica could only respond that the Police Academymovies were "the worst movies ever made." By the time Jessica was a senior in high school I was convinced Jessica was possessed by a demon the rank and severity of which I had not yet identified. When it came time to decide which college Jessica would attend much was at stake. I felt, and her father agreed that it was too early to unleash Jessica on a major metropolitan area so far away from home in her current "condition." I was in her bedchambers for hours and hours performing The Prayer Against Satan while she writhed until she finally agreed to attend Idaho State University. I was pleased to find out that she would join the debate team which had always been an outlet for her frustration. I would later be troubled to learn that she loved debate because it provided an "opportunity to hurt people." If you have ever been in a cross examination with her then you know what she meant. I didn't fully realize the impact Jessica had on the ISU campus until I attended a lecture by one of the prominent philosophy professors on campus: Dr. Levensen: Which brings me to a great poem by W.B. Yeats? Yeats? Jessica Yeats? [brow furrows, he squints intensely]?[3 minute pause] Student: Hey, are you alright? Levensen: Yeats.... Jessica Yeats.... dear God... Student: Sir!?! Levensen: class dismissed. [storms out] Interestingly Dr. Carl Levensen is a Jew. But since I am concerned here with Jessica's serious sins I will not waste your time with her so-called "anti-Semitic episodes." I ran across some excerpts from Jessica's first college coach Calum Matheson which seem to be "illustrative": August 12, 2003 Today I arrived in Pocatello, Idaho to meet the teams that I will be coaching this year. All of them seem great, but I must confess that one student, Jessica Yeats, disturbs me. I first thought that something might be wrong when she told me that she is from "a city in northern Idaho." It is common knowledge that there ARE no cities in this desolate place, only the white supremacist compounds scattered in the empty sea of potato fields. I'm told that the introduction of the wheel to Idaho sometime last year might change this. The locals hope to discover fire soon as well, assuming that the Mormons allow it. October 17, 2003 Visiting Idaho again. The team continues to work hard. I was beginning to think that my impressions of Idaho were false, until I encountered a group of the locals on my way to the store. I don't speak their language, but fortunately I had some change in my pockets. The novelty of the shiny metal distracted them enough for me to escape. Jessica has taken to calling me "dad." I have elected to say nothing about this--I am three years older than she is, and most Mormons are grandparents by my age. I call her "DC" because someday she may be the President. Something like that. January 4, 2004 Watched Jessica give a practice speech today, detailing her desire to "pop a cap in humanity's ass." I wrote a Wipeout file for the team as a joke. Jessica seems to revel in it, and doesn't see anything funny about the idea. DC would make a disturbing President indeed. The speech was excellent, though. As a committed believer in the inherent value of all human life and the glory and beauty of puppies and children and terrorists, I must say that I feel offended by her. If only there was a forum, perhaps on the Internet, where I could express my opinions about offensive speech in debate. Oh well. Maybe someday there will be. That'll fix everything. April 1, 2004 Proud of the team's performance at the NDT. Jessica has given up her habit of vomiting before important debates, for which I am very thankful. But there are other ways that she is like Linda Blair. Her invectives against critiques have suddenly stopped, and she appears to be interested in them. Exclusive interest in one type of argument seems often to be a product of laziness, or too many Emo or Country concerts, depending on the obsession. But this is something different. She has found a way to disguise her contempt for humanity in the language of ineffectual stoners and spoiled upper-middle class poseurs. Oh, sure, there's always a couple who are sincere, but not her. What if no one notices? Could her target audience be too high to call her out? God help us if that is the case... >From the very beginning of Jessica's time on the Idaho State Debate Team all of her teammates felt her strange powers of control. Sadly she now makes her partner vomit for her before rounds (thank the Lord that Paul was a trooper). I observed a mind-blowing recurring phenomenon the morning after nearly every tournament as the ISU team gathered to travel home. Every time, without fail, nobody had any idea where she was, her things were still thrown around violently throughout the hotel room as she had left them, and as always our flight was to leave in an hour. Despite their anger, and compelled by an unknown and unseen force her teammates would go to her room, pack all of her things neatly in her bag, load them in the rentals and wait patiently for her to arrive. In these moments I even found myself saying, "we'll be alright she will show up, she'll show up, she will, she will." She would always arrive at the final moments usually carried on a throne by slaves (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iA1GC3T-Ldg) but none of us seemed surprised by this. Jessica's mysterious powers of persuasion were best brought to light by some of the decisions that she received while debating. I cannot recount the amount of times I heard a critic give a decision much like this at the end of a round: "ok, uh? good debate everybody? um, there is just all this? uh? you see there really is a lot, you know, over here in this part of the debate that I just don't think that you, well? I mean its like in cx when, uh? anyway, I vote aff? yeah. It's a lot you know." I cannot determine whether this odd compulsion by judges to vote for her over and over for what seems to be no reason comes from. It may just be due to her pre-emptive strikes. She is only debater that I have observed who regularly argues with judges who vote for her. Once after I had finished watching a debate between two skinny nihilists and two whining Mexicans I rushed to Jessica's room to find out how her round went. When I walked in, Paul was huddled in the back corner (which was usual) and Jessica was crouched over a bloody mass. As I approached I saw a crooked pair of horn rimmed glasses atop bloody entrails and a severed arm which lay strewn about the center of the room. She turned around and quickly swallowed the finger hanging out of the side of her mouth. She hurriedly squeaked, "He already turned in his ballot!" Apparently the Michigan State Debate team replaced Repko with an animatronic version without even missing a beat. Reverend Foy and I once believed that if she was made to preach the word that she might come around. At first she took to the teachings of the gospel so well, even the relativist liberal army known as "the College Debate Community" listened to her preaching about her "convert the chinese" and "the only women who get abortions are party girl sinners" affs. She was so adept with Christian values, I was amazed. After converting nearly 35 members of the debate community I felt that she had finally excised her demons. My hopes were dashed one day this past year in the squad room when we had this conversation: Jessica: Hey Scott, I think we need a new aff. Me: Why? 10 straight tournaments spanning two years with one questionably topical aff isn't that long. Jessica: I think they are finally ready? Me: Who? Jessica: You know, the minions. The confusable ones. Me: Ready for what? Jessica: Well I have gotten them to believe in faith, now they need to have faith in something that is worth a shit. Me: The word of God isn't worth something? Jessica: No, its nothing compared to Nazism. Me: [choking] you want to run Nazism good? Jessica: Yeah, of course. Ever heard of Carl Schmidt? I have already cut 200 cards. All of Jessica's arguments ultimately boiled down to "drinking human blood is good." Unfortunately now she is headed to Washington DC and will without a doubt end up in some public office. Her drive to destroy all others will clearly serve her well there. I am afraid that the only thing I have succeeded in doing is giving her greater tools for corrupting the innocent. I fear now for my life. When she reads these words my days will be numbered. Even now I can sense her tromping up to my door and tapping on the glass with her well sharpened claws. Honestly my life is not worth much now since I think she has driven me totally mad, sometimes I wake up in the middle of the night shouting "reciprocal emnity is not the annihilation of the enemy but the maintenance of that relation without terminus." I even find myself saying in conversation "a debate round is only a yes/no response to a plan." Yesterday I used a document map, good Lord what is happening to me? I believe if we are going to successfully solve the Jessica Yeats situation at this point we must stop treating this as a simple case of "a child of god possessed." Instead we must recognize that Jessica Yeats is most likely the Antichrist. God help us all. Sincerely and Urgently, Rev. Scott A. Odekirk Order of the Sacred Heart P.S. Just in case you thought I was going to drop this locker room dick measuring contest, Jessica's is bigger. If you have debated her you know it is true. much thanks to the entire ISU debate team, and Calum. Special thanks to Anne Rice's *The Witching Hour* for creative inspiration. P.P.S. Also one last thing. Jessica thinks gay men are genuine and lesbians are "faking it." This isn't a joke. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070512/aba04062/attachment.htm From DIUMSTEAD Sat May 12 15:41:53 2007 From: DIUMSTEAD (DIUMSTEAD at aol.com) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 16:41:53 EDT Subject: [eDebate] St. Stephen's Debate Team, Austin, Texas, Seeking Part-time Policy Coach for 2007-2008 Message-ID: St. Stephen's Debate Team, Austin, Texas,?seeks to hire?a part-time,?Austin-based policy debate coach for the 2007-2008 debate season. We are seeking an individual with subtantial national policy debate experience, strong organization and research skills, and prior successful coaching experience. Practices will begin in August 2007. Hours are flexible, however, the ability to travel to multiple state and national tournaments is required. Pay is negotiable. Interested applicants should reply to Diane Umstead, St. Stephen's Debate Coordinator, at diumstead at aol.com. ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070512/a11bfc04/attachment.htm From doyle Sat May 12 16:14:59 2007 From: doyle (Doyle Srader) Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 16:14:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] One more time: AFA Distinguished Service Award: Call for Nominations In-Reply-To: <461BA192.3070501@sfasu.edu> References: <461BA192.3070501@sfasu.edu> Message-ID: <46462E53.9070501@sfasu.edu> Re-sending one more time, to catch people who were mired in post-nationals decompression before they leave town for the summer. The Professional Development and Support Committee of the AFA would like to invite nominations for the DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD. AFA will present the award at the annual convention in Chicago. The Distinguished Service Award recognizes long-term service to the American forensics community. The recipient of the award typically comes from within the forensics community (active or retired). Nominations do not need to be elaborate. When possible, however, a nomination file may include a letter or nomination and the candidate's vita, indicating service and supporting items. Areas of interest to the committee might include items such as: positive impact on the field in terms of current research practices, educational practices, or community development and, and consideration of career as a model for AFA professionals. You can send your nominations to me at this address. If you need to send paper materials (vita, letters, etc.), direct them to: Doyle Srader P.O. Box 13048, SFA Station Nacogdoches, TX 75962-3048 Fax: (936) 468-1331 Right now there are four nominees, which is few enough that there's room for more, but also enough that you might want to send supporting materials either with your nomination or not long afterward. -- Doyle Srader, Ph.D. Lecturer, Communication Studies Stephen F. Austin State University http://www.faculty.sfasu.edu/f_sraderdw/ Jeremiah 15:19-20 From andy.edebate Sun May 13 00:20:53 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 01:20:53 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Baltimore College Debate can now take donations Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705122220o79a164d9i1761239192cc4699@mail.gmail.com> I have added a paypal button to the www.baltimorecollegedebate.org website. It is a buy now button on the bottom of the home page, you can either pay through your pay pal account or via credit card..... Donations will go to program expenses, and will help support our efforts to create debate opportunities for as many students as we can. We are not as of yet a 501c3 and will thusly not be able to give you a tax exemption letter with the thank you letter we will send out but if you would like to help out anyway, we would appreciate anything you are willing to donate...thank you and sorry for the sales pitch -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070513/1155ca7c/attachment.htm From doyle Sun May 13 12:17:04 2007 From: doyle (Doyle Srader) Date: Sun, 13 May 2007 12:17:04 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] AFA Distinguished Service: Previous Winners In-Reply-To: <46462E53.9070501@sfasu.edu> References: <461BA192.3070501@sfasu.edu> <46462E53.9070501@sfasu.edu> Message-ID: <46474810.9020306@sfasu.edu> A couple of folks have backchanneled, asking who's won the award previously. Since that's not currently available from the AFA website, I'm sending along the list of past winners. 1979 University of Alabama Annabel Hagood 1980 John Carroll University (Ohio) Austin J. Freeley 1981 Wayne State University (Michigan) George Ziegelmueller 1982 Baylor University (Texas) Glenn Capp 1983 Fullerton State University (California) Lucy Keele 1984 University of Colorado Wayne Brockriede 1985 University of Utah Malcolm Sillars 1986 San Diego State University (California) Jack Howe 1987 Texas Tech University Vernon McGuire 1988 University of Kansas Donn Parson 1989 Northwestern University (Illinois) David Zarefsky 1990 University of Maine Raymie McKerrow 1991 Miami University (Ohio) Gerald Sanders 1992 University of Northern Iowa Walter Ulrich 1993 Macalester College (Minnesota) Scott Nobles 1994 Concordia College (Minnesota) Jerry Anderson 1995 Mankato State University (Minnesota) Larry Schnoor 1996 University of North Carolina V. William Balthrop 1997 University of Utah Rebecca Bjork 1998 University of Wisconsin, River Falls James W. Pratt 1999 University of Illinois, Urbana Joseph W. Wenzel 2000 Pace University, New York Jerry M. Goldberg 2001 Colorado College James A. "Al" Johnson 2002 West Texas A & M University Guy Yates 2003 University of Maryland James F. Klumpp 2004 Boston College Dale Herbeck 2005 University of Iowa David Hingstman 2006 Emory University Melissa Wade If someone's absence from that list seems to you a glaring omission, then put something together and nominate them. -- Doyle Srader, Ph.D. Lecturer, Communication Studies Stephen F. Austin State University http://www.faculty.sfasu.edu/f_sraderdw/ Numbers 18:29 From andy.edebate Mon May 14 10:45:04 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 11:45:04 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Seeking community input Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705140845h1a0fe019q48def8e4aae50309@mail.gmail.com> Hello, I am preparing my presenation for the ceda Meeting this weekend and will be blogging the various parts of it as i compile my research and writting. Please help me out by reading and commenting. The message there now is a preview, i will be adding a section of the presentation each day.there are other messages feel free to comment on them as well. http://bmoredebate.blogspot.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070514/621cf277/attachment.htm From debate Mon May 14 11:57:02 2007 From: debate (debate at ou.edu) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 11:57:02 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Narrow the topic can you please... Message-ID: I wont make the topic committee this year. To be honest, i felt rather disrespected last year when I attended, but now i do have the experience to talk some trash. This year, there were too many affirmatives. I almost worked our coaching staff to death. (both of us) I mean you had quirin and then milliken and vawa, nope, i mean morrison and then casey there were like 20 affs at least. so narrow it down a little It would be nice if we had the topic researched by the end of october this year instead of december I am sure I will be missed enough that the meeting will run on time for those who attend, watch out for the last day, "nothing can be put on the ballot at the last minute" but i hear some changes are in place like, do we already know the possible resolutions? "small" schools need a narrow topic so they can compete toe to toe with the "big" schools that what is missing, a little bit more narrowing of the topic, then we have competitive equity.... i mean we can: be mean to the middle east be nice to the middle east deal with specific areas like weapons or aid or we could just let the debaters debate Resolved: The USFG should substantially change its foreign policy in the Middle East. I know it probably cant pass the grammarian "what if" speak, but once again, i will say, its not rocket science simplify it dont try to control it with any resolution we will get debate, with narrow resolutions come shallow ideas debate Democracy at its best. Massey From db8coach Mon May 14 13:19:08 2007 From: db8coach (db8coach at cox.net) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 14:19:08 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Narrow the topic can you please... Message-ID: <17293128.1179166748460.JavaMail.root@fed1wml26.mgt.cox.net> Amongst all his other sarcasm Jackie Massey wrote >>>>>>>>>> "small" schools need a narrow topic so they can compete toe to toe with the "big" schools >>>>>>>>>> I would think that the proof of this was obvious this year. OU won CEDA Nats and UMKC was in the final round of the NDT. Sure, both might have been even if the topic had been bigger, but still....... Coincidental? I think not. Sorry, I really enjoyed being able to cut case cards. Bob Lechtreck Bakersfield College From davismk13 Mon May 14 13:47:14 2007 From: davismk13 (Mike Davis) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 14:47:14 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Topic meeting transportation Message-ID: <9a7f6f740705141147h19bc6b83u1f5d134aa3a2de57@mail.gmail.com> Hello, RJ Green has offered to do an airport run if someone pays for gas. Let me know if you are interested. If anyone else needs any help with travel arrangements please let me know. I have only heard from one person so far who needs help getting here. Also, I have not heard from many people about who is attending and for how long. Please let me know. -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070514/6b10f73f/attachment.htm From debate Mon May 14 14:06:01 2007 From: debate (debate at ou.edu) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 14:06:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Narrow the topic can you please... In-Reply-To: <17293128.1179166748460.JavaMail.root@fed1wml26.mgt.cox.net> References: <17293128.1179166748460.JavaMail.root@fed1wml26.mgt.cox.net> Message-ID: Hello Bob, You are so confused. UMKC has a huge coaching staff. We have a huge team -- 28 plus not small > Amongst all his other sarcasm Jackie Massey wrote > > >>>>>>>>>> > "small" schools need a narrow topic so they can compete toe to toe > with the "big" schools > >>>>>>>>>> > > I would think that the proof of this was obvious this year. OU won > CEDA Nats and UMKC was in the final round of the NDT. Sure, both might > have been even if the topic had been bigger, but still....... > Coincidental? I think not. > > Sorry, I really enjoyed being able to cut case cards. Its not about you, its about the debaters. And what, you brushed up on your mead and khalizad indicts. Did that much really change? I challenge you to chart your success. Start back in the late 80's, and work yourself up to this point. (I think Bakersfield has been involved for a while, i could be confused - i would admit that) Has your teams been more or less competitive with say, NDT Champions Emory or Harvard. This topic was as narrow as they get, how did the true small schools do this year? The schools that were represented, but usually not in the past, also debated differently and have become effective of making debate what they want it to be. I think narrow resolutions crush small schools that do traditional debate. You find a card that says X and the larger schools with many researchers have already found the answers to that card, that quote your evidence. You lose, get their cite, then they out update you on something else. Dont fool yourself with "case" specific debate, it wil happen with a broader resolution. This was a great topic area, even though it was somewhat dictated without resistance. i feel like a butthead, but still didnt like the process. That still does not mean that narrow topics are good. Best, Massey > Bob Lechtreck > Bakersfield College From scottelliott Mon May 14 16:02:01 2007 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 16:02:01 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Why a Broad Mid-East Topic is best. Message-ID: <1179176521.4648ce494a87b@webmail.grandecom.net> If it will will result in Jackie and Jason having to do more work, then I am all for as broad a topic as possible. May I suggest: Resolved: Somebody, someone, some organization, country, countries, group, groups, and/or collection of beings, sentient and/or non-sentient, should do something and/or nothing in the Middle-East. That should keep people busy for at least the first semester. Scott Elliott From kevinr33 Mon May 14 16:20:49 2007 From: kevinr33 (Kevin Rabinowitz) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 17:20:49 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #4: Brent Culpepper Message-ID: <20070514172049.CPG02379@punts1.cc.uga.edu> Brent was 4th, with 88 points?87 from his wide array of different gmail accounts. I decided to post his bio today, instead of yesterday, out of respect for his mother. Five (or six or seven) long years ago, a young Naveen was making one of his usual hourly trips to the University of Georgia library. Eyes blood-shot, he was exhausted from a long night of partying and being a social butterfly around campus (well?the blood shot eyes part is definitely true). Either way, as he walked up the steps of the library, he experienced the most painful flash of bright light he?s ever experienced. Trying in vain to shield his eyes, Naveen wondered what could possibly be the source. A natural disaster? an angel? God himself? The light moved closer and suddenly began speaking: ?Hi Naveen?you wouldn?t happen to have any extra hair gel would you?? Confused by the question, Naveen finally brought himself to look directly at the source of this bright light. He found himself looking directly into the radiant, bleached blonde tips of campus heart-throb, Brenton Tippett Culpepper. That?s right, Brent Culpepper?s studly approach to impressing the ladies of Athens, GA in his freshman year involved undeniable charisma, a wicked sense of humor, the tan of a seasoned farmer that could be produced only in Warner Robins, Georgia (pronounced: whiter than anywhere in Oklahoma) ? all topped off with bleaching the shit out of select regions of his hair (as well as lots and lots of hair gel?tons of it. Unlike the tips, however, the gel trend continued all 14 years of Brent?s debate tenure at UGA. We frequently had to make special accommodations at the airport for Brent?s giant bottle of maximum strength hair gel which he refused to abandon just in case a crowd of women was waiting for him as he got off the plane.) Anyway, Naveen convinced Brent to debate at that encounter by explaining that debate could be a fulfilling endeavor that will complete him spiritually and emotionally ? as well as the concept of GDS, which Brent was not familiar with at the time. It took a few vicious months of ridicule on the team for Brent to stop bleaching his hair like a middle schooler with damaged self-esteem/standard Oklahoma CJ fan and finally become his natural self (except for the max strength hair gel part). Luckily, pictures were still captured, which you can view here. Other highlights of Brent?s Iftimie-ish reign on debate fashion include: - Wearing a turtleneck approximately 4 days per week during his sophomore year around campus (even when 85+ degrees outside?was he hiding something?) (No.). - Placing in the ?euro-trash? contest at Fullerton despite swearing that he didn?t dress up for it - Almost getting into a bar fight last year because he was hitting on some guys 14-year old sister?not a fashion story but it had to be in here somewhere. I?ve already gotten ahead of myself ? there are a few funny things to know about Brent?s days of high school debate prior to his lengthy tenure at UGA. Debate wise, things were a little different then for young Brent. For example, on the WMD topic ? by far one of the best topics of all time in the eyes of my generation ? Brent?s affirmative was to teach kids about nuclearism. On a topic where we were given free reign to read advantages that claimed more victims than Josh Hoe on edebate, Brent chose to read one advantage ? deterrence bad?lame. The neg strat? Spanos?Just Spanos. Needless to say, the high school debate experience was not kind to Brent (and blonde tips surely did not help the cause). Still his favorite stories involve epic showdowns with Josh Branson ? who he claims only got the best of him in a ?few elim rounds? (right, cause we?re sure you owned him in the prelims, Brent). When asked to comment on these classic high school throwdowns, Branson responded like most: ??who the fuck is Brent Culpepper?? Not knowing who Brent is was common five years ago, but you better believe he knew who you were. As a matter of fact, Brent single handedly changed the nature of all arguments with his unique approach to communication in the squad room?an approach riddled with name dropping. My freshman year, Brent would never fail to add credibility to his precise and well thought out comments by prefacing every statement with ?I was having this long conversation with John (Turner), Jon (Sharp), Ace, Shawn, Ken (Strange or Rufo), the Pope, etc..)?and we decided (insert random insight along the lines of ?if the plural of goose is geese, then the plural of moose MUST be meese?).? It didn?t take long for me to realize that most of Brent?s statements should be taken with less credibility than a Blake Johnson 2AR (that shit was not in the 1AR?ever). Flashback: September 2006 Georgia State, first tournament of the year ? We win our quarters debate and are asked to move to the top floor of the hotel to debate Fullerton - not an easy debate as Brent and I were one of the more?vulnerable teams debating Fullerton. Always the tricky one, Brenda hit us early ? minutes within walking into the room. She stared right into Brent?s fragile eyes and said ?You look a lot like Alex?very euro.? Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a meltdown. Brent wouldn?t shut up about the comment. Despite all efforts at getting him focused for the debate, I?ve never seen such a collapse. He was out like Bard in the?prelims. Shocking as it is, a majority of our ?strategy talk? prior to a Fullerton debate included a very thorough and involved back and forth discussion about whether or not to ?go fast.? In this debate, we decided to go fast?or at least I thought we did. Brent must have still been on cloud 9, because in the middle of Louis?s 1AC, Brent turns and asks ?Kevin?are we going fast in this debate?? My answer an obvious yes, Brent immediately flipped the belligerent switch that most didn?t get the privilege of seeing until he was owning Arnett in a ?who can be more drunkenly belligerent contest? after the Harvard tournament ? a contest Arnett won by being silent while Brent relentlessly bitched about the rules. During the 1AC, the following exchange occurred: Brent: But?what if they read a speed K Me: Then we?ll read more answers than they?ll -- Brent: Did you hear her say I look like Alex? Me: [crying] We ended up winning through a divine act of a higher power. Thank you La Llorona, you?ll always have a shoulder to cry on. This may shock a lot of people we?ve debated, but Brent is actually one of the nicest people you?ll ever meet outside of debates. He?s always thoughtful of others (sometimes too thoughtful for his own good, like when he offered to walk a girl home from a bar and ended up sleeping in the bushes ?alone- next to an All-State building) (okay, that?s more being a stupid drunk/having no game than thoughtful, but you get the point). Despite his courtesy outside of debate, Brent was notoriously one of the biggest douches in the community when it came to debates. I?ll let the funniest debater in the community do the work for me here, take it away Osborn: (by the way - Osborn got robbed in the ?funniest? DCA category?Gabe isn?t even funny unless its measured on the Unintentional Comedy scale ? in which case the clear choice is Dan Luxemberg ? that guy is hysterical) Back to Osborn: bandana: haha the debate community thinks yr fast that must be so embarassing me: haha they think brents faster bandana: yeah maybe they mixed up "Fast" with "jackass" Osborn has reason to be sassy ? he was probably victimized by Brent as much as anyone in the elims of Wake when Brent sat down and started eating a sandwich while Osborn was asking him questions ? informing the audience that he?d answer when ?asked a better question?. Since Osborn was conducting the cross-ex, Brent was never in a position to stop eating the sandwich. Surely that was only one unique instance of Brent being an ass, you must be saying to yourself ? Brent is such a kind, southern gentleman ? there?s no way he could turn into a dick so frequently?oh how wrong you are. Brent?s dickish-ness transcends anything this community has seen for decades. Allow me to elaborate: - Prelims of Northwestern, a team went for ?Brent is a dick? for 6 minutes of the 1AR. It was such a compelling argument that I was forced to impact turn in my 2NR due to the strength of the link. Even though the round blew, I?m glad this happened during my debate tenure?everyone should have to defend their partner?s shameful conduct in a debate at some point. - Prelims of Kentucky, Brent went out of his way in CX to inform a young debater that it is ?highly unlikely? that the two of them could ever be friends. - Elims of USC, Durkee interrupted a relatively heated CX with Brent to whine ?Dude, stop treating me like a child!? Brent?s response, ?well then stop acting like one? - Dartmouth RR, Gabe told Brent ?I can play the douche game too?, to which Brent responds ?What do I get when I win? - An official ?Douche Off? was scheduled to occur between Brent and Blake Johnson at the NDT. Although it never occurred (we made an early exit to prepare, but Oklahoma didn?t reciprocate), I?m convinced that the event would have eclipsed the drama of any Osborn-Kernoff ?Fro Off, but Brent would have prevailed when Blake inevitably started getting emotional at the mere mention of lifemate Malcolm Gordon. Other examples are probably better left off of a public forum accessed by employers. I?d hate to improve Brent?s life by ruining his chances of getting his soul purchased by a slave-driving law firm. It wouldn?t be right to assemble a bio about Brent without including his passion in life: alcoholic beverages. Some of Brent?s finest moments have been under the influence of 12-13 Jamesons. Many of you might be curious about the story behind Brent?s ?performance? at the awards ceremony at last year?s NDT ? an event that Ed Panetta later described as ?the most embarrassing moment of this millennium for Georgia Debate.? In all honesty, Brent would have been fine in the absence of one of the following two factors: (1) the bottle of red wine that he stole from the bar and chugged for about 30 seconds, or (2) Mike Davis. From the bar, Brent went to the awards ceremony and sat at our table, demanding that one of the members of the hotel staff bring him a plate of food from the self-serve buffet, which they were kind enough to do. He then chugged approximately 11 cups of coffee (not a joke). At the handing out of the NDT cups, Brent had a few kind words for select members of the community, calling some ?cheaters? while screaming at others ?what have you done for the community?? He got lost in his quest to make it to the front of the room, but made it a point to hug Elizabeth Gedmark no less than three times. After that, it was back to the bar. So how did Brent make the transition from reading spanos in every debate and going 4-4 at the NDT to suddenly becoming the speediest debater (in bed) that this community had to offer? The answer is simple: Jarrod Atchison. Brent wouldn?t do ANYTHING without the direct order of Jarrod. When Jarrod said jump, Brent made his dinner, fed his dog, kissed his feet, did his taxes, and then asked how high. Jarrod told Brent to write a big-stick Morrison Aff, so he wrote one. Jarrod told Brent to write two affs going opposite directions for the elims, so he wrote them. Jarrod told Brent to beat Idaho State with our shame aff, and he?well, I guess Jarrod?s influence did have its limits. To be honest, the only original idea that Brent had all year was our Shame Aff?which he wrote last year.(While we?re on the topic, its important for everyone in the community to know: please stop blaming me for the shame aff and accept my heartfelt apology?it was not my idea) The best part about debating with Brent is his unshakable confidence. And by unshakable confidence I mean painfully pessimistic, zero self-esteem, wouldn?t bet on himself to win in a race with Barbaro (too soon?) style confidence. Whenever given the opportunity, Brent was always sure to put his money on the opposite of him/us. It wasn?t just his insistence on flipping Neg in every debate, regardless of if we had a strat. It wasn?t even his habit of betting against us to win any debate that was reasonably close (note: if you judged/debated us this year and saw Brent talking to me while we were waiting on the decision, theres a 75% chance that he was outlining the terms of how much he would wager that we lost). Indeed, the tell-tale sign of Brent?s utter lack of confidence could be found immediately after the 2NR ended in any Aff debate when Brent would look at me with the ?shit, we?re fucked? look, even if the other team had dropped 3 add-ons and conditionality bad. (This is the only possible explanation I can come up with for why he wasn?t voted one of the best 2A?s in the country. Don?t you people know anything about Aff win percentages?) Despite a consistent lack of confidence, Brent had no shortage of self-righteous ?I?m Keith Hernandez? moments in any given debate. In the quarters of Kentucky, against Missouri State KO with a panel of Brad Hall, JP Lacy, and Michael Klinger ? I gave Brent explicit instructions to kick the K in the 1NR. When he didn?t include it in his order, I said aloud, for the room to hear, ?Brent, kick the K. We won?t win the K with this panel?. Without a flow, Brent exclaims ?Fine, K on top??he proceeds to go for the K for the first minute of his 1NR, dropping 2 shitty internal link arguments at the bottom of the 1NR on the disad that he was supposed to be extending. Not satisfied with figuratively kicking me in the balls, he was sure to bitch about me ?giving him too much in the 1NR? at the end of the debate?and every other neg debate this year. Speediest debater my ass. Outside of debates, Brent took a unique approach to his 2nd greatest passion - women. On our flight to the Dartmouth RR, Brent was (un)fortunate enough to sit next to a 55 year old woman, who didn?t look a day over?54, but she had dyed blonde hair so Brent insisted that she was hot (a bond was formed harkening back to Brent?s blonde tips days). This was a conversation I just couldn?t miss. At the *ding* of a No Smoking sign, Brent?s game was on like monopoly. Topics of conversation included: Brent?s recently terminated relationship (lie), his passion for salsa dancing (lie), his favorite hair gel brand (truth), and his upcoming business convention in Hanover (lie). It was clear that Brent had experience hitting on (much) older women ? one of his favorite stories involves the middle school teacher that he swears he dated while taking her class. But on an airplane? That?s a whole new ballgame. Through the course of the flight, he bought her two crown royale & cokes (classy) and even dropped one or two arms touches. He escorted her off the flight, mere seconds from closing the deal?until she ran into her ?boy?friends arms (I use the term ?boy? loosely?this dude looked like a mix of Senator Robert Byrd and the president of the AARP, but what do you expect, she was 55). I would have been disgusted if I wasn?t so busy keeling over in hysterical laughter. Better luck next time Brent?there?s always GDS. I guess I should say something nice...Brent's always been a good friend and a hard working debater?except in his sophomore year when he just ran the K all year, but he was still a good friend then. I can?t tell you the number of times that I?ve dropped a bunch of shit in my 1AR and forced Brent to make me look good by waxing poetically in the 2AR. Indeed, he?s come a long way from going 4-4 at the NDT and getting owned by Branson on deterrence good. There?s no doubt in my mind that Brent is going to excel at whatever law school he goes to and be incredibly successful in life. Congratulations on being a top 5 DCA debater, Brent ? you deserve it. I'm sorry you got beat by Conor. I wish you the best in continuing with all of the success you?ve had up to this point. Now please, just graduate already? From kevinr33 Mon May 14 16:33:48 2007 From: kevinr33 (Kevin Rabinowitz) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 17:33:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #4: Brent Culpepper - Picture Update Message-ID: <20070514173348.CPG03741@punts1.cc.uga.edu> Apparently edebate didn't appreciate my link to pictures of Brent... For visual effect, just go to google images and type in: "Ryan Seacrest" That is all. -Kevin From drmosbornesq Mon May 14 18:01:06 2007 From: drmosbornesq (bandana martin) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 16:01:06 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] DCA debater #5: Smoltz jersey Message-ID: <39c09a80705141601q748b1940n7ce24485cc223e5d@mail.gmail.com> Rabinowitz forgot something important in his Culpepper bio that I figured I'd address because I don't like Culpepper and the more people know what kind of a d-bag he is the better. Round 8 at the China topic NDT and Kearney and I's prize for going 3-4 through the first seven rounds is a little (more) first round action in the form of UGA CR. We saunter down to the room and started asking questions ("what aff will it be?" "how's it feel to be the first round that didn't clear?"). As far as I could tell, I was the only sober one in the room, and this includes at least two of the judges (I won't name names because I don't remember names). This made our frantic prep to answer Culpepper's new 'sports bad' aff (as if there wasn't a time and place for the 'shame' aff) all that much more difficult. Luckily, we were able to construct a PIC because Kearney had some 'baseball good' cards (typed up from Field of Dreams, that kid was a hoss) which we used to beat #16's ass along with impact turning the case. After naming the aff 'the politics of underperformance' Rabinowitz did the right thing and dispensed with all of the hippy parts of the case and engaged in the hegemony and prolif debate. Kearney, never being one to sack down (not a typo), kicked the counterplan and read more cards in the 2NR about why hegemony was unsustainable than I usually had him read in our currency 1AC (I think the total count was 5). We felt pretty good because at least we went 4-4 and finally we had exacted revenge for the team that beat us so bad on Consult Japan earlier in the year (thanks for the 27.5s Stacy Nathan). Thus, all we could do was laugh when silly Culpepper only put the counterplan in his order for the 2AR. Before he could begin, though, the UGA coaches who had been rooting for Culpepper from the stands the whole time (must have bene hard to watch) produced his beloved John Smoltz Atlanta Braves jersey to wear in his send-off 2AR. How sweet. In two minutes' time, Culpepper went for the "argument" that Kearney had not kicked out of the counterplan and that it solved worse for racism - one of which was a lie and one of which was ridiculous because Rabinowitz kicked out of racism earlier. When the speech ended, Culpepper left the room and immediately began to get hammered. Kearney and I packed up in higher spirits than usual for the NDT. While putting away the hegemony file that, sadly, none of the judges would be interested in seeing because of Culpepper's antics, we agreed that in the highly unlikely, ridiculous, hilarious event that we lost the debate, we would not argue with the judges because this was Culpepper's last round ever. We did lose. And it was not his last round ever. Kearney and I passed up on the opportunity to focus a highly-disappointing NDT's worth of angst onto two judges who had announced what the third judge would later declare to be "the worst decision in the history of the activity." We passed it up for Culpepper. Culpepper who came back and beat us in three rounds (all 2-1's except for round 8 at Harvard which woulda been a 6-1 if it were the NDT finals - Ermo-style), got top 10 speaker awards and won the Copeland. Damn you, Culpepper. I never saw the Smoltz jersey again but every time I look at Culpepper (and sometimes at Rabinowitz) it's all I can think about. Brent Culpepper is a bad person. Martin Osborn -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070514/645d0267/attachment.htm From Kelly.McDonald Mon May 14 21:14:11 2007 From: Kelly.McDonald (Kelly McDonald) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 19:14:11 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] topic meeting roommate? Message-ID: <573F49EC9809E84DBEA02A14BBEF378901C89962@EX05.asurite.ad.asu.edu> if you are going to JMU for the topic committee portion and would like to share a room to defray costs, please drop me a note. i will be leaving at the meeting's end on wednesday but have a reservation already at the hotel. kelly Kelly M. McDonald, Ph.D. Assistant Professor & Principal, Consortium for Strategic Communication 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 Consortium for Strategic Communication http://comops.org/ From mudman19 Mon May 14 22:24:24 2007 From: mudman19 (James Parrish DAVIS) Date: Mon, 14 May 2007 22:24:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] DCA debater #5: Smoltz jersey In-Reply-To: <39c09a80705141601q748b1940n7ce24485cc223e5d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070514/49e2eec9/attachment.htm From marc.wilson Tue May 15 08:16:16 2007 From: marc.wilson (Marc Wilson) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 09:16:16 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Summer Intership - Wash DC/N Va. Message-ID: Dear Debaters, I am looking to fill two paid summer internship slots at Appian, a Business Process Management (BPM) software company headquartered in Tysons Corner, VA. The job would include significant research into various regulatory/compliance issues as well as the acquisition/procurement area. But simply, I need a lot of specific kinds of information on topics such as HIPPA, the Patriot Act, etc. to help mold our software to match the guidelines laid out in these regulations -- and I can't teach non-debaters effective research skills fast enough. I am looking for folks to start anytime between now and early June and ending whenever you need to go back to school (July, August, Sept). You can check out the company at www.appian.com or you can email me directly at marc.wilson at appian.com. Thanks, Marc Wilson VP Professional Services/Co-Founder Dartmouth '96 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/8ab4df6a/attachment.htm From mjjanas Tue May 15 09:32:24 2007 From: mjjanas (Janas, Michael J.) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 09:32:24 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CIDD Tours, 2007-2008 Message-ID: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E302067821@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> Committee on International Discussion and Debate Opportunities for 2007-2008. The CIDD will be supporting several tours this year. Please look at your budget and calendar to see if you or your students can participate. In September, the British National Team will tour the United States. If you are interested in hosting the British, please contact Sam Nelson at Cornell University (smn33 at cornell.edu). He can give you a sense of timing and associated costs. In early spring, the Japanese National Team will tour the United States. If you are interested in hosting the Japanese, please contact Mike Janas at Samford University (mjjanas at samford.edu). He can give you a sense of timing and associated costs. This winter we will be sending a team to tour Britain as we have done nearly every year since 1928. We will choose the team in November. Team members must be less than 25 years old and free during a period running from January until February. It is wonderful chance to experience international debate at its best. If you know someone who is interested and available, we will be hosting try-outs in November. Please have them contact Mike Janas (mjjanas at samford.edu) for more information about the tour. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/9ec53190/attachment.htm From daisy_verney Tue May 15 09:48:16 2007 From: daisy_verney (Danielle Verney) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 10:48:16 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Narrow the topic can you please... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Jackie, I was wondering what your reasoning was for saying that a narrow topic is bad for smaller schools who do traditional debate. As the coach of a small-ish school (or really more a medium school with a small coaching staff and a lot of younger debaters) which does very traditional debate, I thought that narrower topics were better for a couple of reasons: *More specific disadvantage and counterplan ground--so judges don't have to hear the same agent counterplan + politics debate every round and so debaters get to have varied strategies from round to round * Better case evidence on the neg * Easier to assign a very specific area to a younger debater--some of our kids aren't so great at executing "okay, go cut a disad" but are stellar at "find a card that says X", which seems easier on a narrower topic, particularly earlier in the season. Perhaps this has less to do with being a smaller school and more to do with being a novice and JV based program which does traditional debate? Thanks, Danielle Verney O'Gorman Navy Debate _________________________________________________________________ Catch suspicious messages before you open them?with Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_protection_0507 From db8coach Wed May 16 12:14:19 2007 From: db8coach (Bob) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 10:14:19 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Narrow the topic can you please... References: <17293128.1179166748460.JavaMail.root@fed1wml26.mgt.cox.net> Message-ID: <001101c797dd$a4360a00$6701a8c0@bobsputer> >>>>>>>>>> Hello Bob, You are so confused. UMKC has a huge coaching staff. We have a huge team -- 28 plus not small >>>>>>>>>> I don't think so. I think if anything is true, it is that you are being disingenuous. I think that in ANY other discussion of small vs. large you would be claiming to be a small school. You would claim that while you may, indeed, have 28 squad members that they are largely inexperienced (tho no doubt smart and hard working) novices and JVs. You would also claim that your huge coaching staff of TWO certainly doesn't qualify you as a "large" school. As for UMKC, I think you are again being disingenuous. While Malgor and Amy may have had some great help from friends and GTAs, I think Matt might not agree about the "huge coaching staff". And they certainly weren't flooded with a squad of 30 and a sizable budget. In fact, this was a squad which was rumored to be on the chopping block. However, if you want to consider yourselves to be Borgs, go ahead. Korcok often thinks of himself as a young guy with a full head of hair..... Just saying it don't make it so. Additionally, I don't know if it's true or not, but Blake's bio mentioned that they were actually topical this year. If that is true, then that is reason enough to write a narrow topic. If we can get even 1 non-topical team to actually debate the topic I think narrow topics are worth it. >>>>>>>>>> > Sorry, I really enjoyed being able to cut case cards. Its not about you, its about the debaters. >>>>>>>>>> No, it's about all of us. I am really tired of everyone assuming that coaches are not part of the activity..... We are. I have to be in the debates as well. I cut cards too. I am at the same tournaments the debaters are. I have to listen to the debates. Is it ALL about me? No, but it is about me ALSO, and my preferences should not be discounted. >>>>>>>>>> And what, you brushed up on your mead and khalizad indicts. Did that much really change? >>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I know you fancy yourself a funny guy who likes sarcasm and irony. But Jackie, you don't know me well enough to make judgements about how many and what kinds of cards I cut. And people who live in "give back land" houses should definately not throw stones. This year BC had a few generic positions (brand new to this topic), but most of the debating done by the novices (which means everyone but the JV team) was done ON case or with case specific c/plans. And I saw a lot of other teams doing that as well. Sure, there are always going to be those teams that debate their same one argument year after year, but writing a broad topic won't change that, it will only discourage the others from writing specifics. >>>>>>>>>> I challenge you to chart your success. Start back in the late 80's, and work yourself up to this point. (I think Bakersfield has been involved for a while, i could be confused - i would admit that) >>>>>>>>>> I started at BC in 1987. The debate team itself goes back to 1929, but I was still pretty young then..... >>>>>>>>>> Has your teams been more or less competitive with say, NDT Champions Emory or Harvard. >>>>>>>>>> Hmmmmm, I would have to say that we have NEVER been competitive with Emory or Harvard. I think the better test is how competitive we have been with Pepperdine, San Fransisco State, Cal Poly, Chico State, and all the other Community Colleges. And in charting my successes with THOSE teams I honestly think it has been better with narrow topics. This year, in fact, was one of our most successful years in a long time. This with one JV team and 4 kids who knew nothing about policy debate. And I think it was because they were able to get a handle on the res and the whopping 4 SC cases. It wasn't overwhelming for them to read the literature. It was easy enough to understand what the aff was doing and how that made them topical or not. With a broad topic, each of the 10,000 affirmatives means a whole new discussion and something else for them to study instead of studying for tests. And we ran topicality FAR less than normal. I think there is something to be said for debating substance rather than procedurals. >>>>>>>>>> I think narrow resolutions crush small schools that do traditional debate. You find a card that says X and the larger schools with many researchers have already found the answers to that card, that quote your evidence. You lose, get their cite, then they out update you on something else. >>>>>>>>>> Yeah, that is what we call debate. It is part of the process. And while we lose to that with some schools I find it INFINITELY preferable to debating a team who thinks that the way make the world a better place is to 1) play with a ball of wool like a kitten, 2) get in touch with your own excrement, or 3) watch avante gard pornography. That isn't what I envisioned when I got into this activity, and it isn't the legacy I want my debaters to be left with when they leave BC. Additionally, do you really think that same Borg school isn't writing new affs every tournament on broader topics so that you CAN'T get a case debate going with them? Sure they are. I see it all the time. >>>>>>>>>> Dont fool yourself with "case" specific debate, it wil happen with a broader resolution. >>>>>>>>>> Really? That's your observation is it? People do case debate more on the broader resolutions? Is that what OU does? It isn't what BC does. Hmmmm, it certainly hasn't been my observation. Yeah, you made a true statement. It WILL HAPPEN with a broader rez. Will it happen AS MUCH? I don't think so. It's really very simple. I like to teach my novices about debate. I teach them about as many aspects of debate as I can. Some folks teach mostly about criticisms. That's OK with me. But they are going to do that on ANY topic. Me, my job is much harder on the broad topics. So I will always support a narrow topic. Simple, no? Respectfully, Bob Lechtreck Bakersfield College -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070516/41a7c1cc/attachment.htm From elibrennan Tue May 15 10:55:49 2007 From: elibrennan (Eli Brennan) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 11:55:49 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Topic Size Message-ID: Just cleared by inbox of the debate about topic size. Good stuff... But I had this idea. I would suggest the topic committee to eschew any topic either too narrow OR too broad, instead, writing one that's 'just right.' The nice thing about this idea is that it avoids the pitfalls of both. thanks for your attention. -- Eli Brennan UMN Debate- The Golden (aka bloodthirsty) Gophers. "So it goes." - Vonnegut -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/01dd1ec5/attachment.htm From smithr Tue May 15 10:59:41 2007 From: smithr (Ross K. Smith) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 11:59:41 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] GOP debate coverage tonight Message-ID: <4649D8ED.4090100@wfu.edu> www.DebateScoop.org invites your comments, and I'll be on blogtalk radio with Alan Coverstone tonight beginning at 11:30 EDT. Go here to listen and for the info about calling in or sending IM's to the show: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hostpage.aspx?show_id=25807 -- Ross K. Smith Debate Coach Wake Forest University 336-758-5268 (o) 336-251-2076 (cell) www.DebateScoop.org From alfred.snider Tue May 15 11:23:37 2007 From: alfred.snider (Alfred Snider) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 09:23:37 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] WDI sholarship Deadline Message-ID: <4649DE89.2000000@uvm.edu> Come be a part of the World Debate Institute's college policy debate program this summer. Apply for a scholarship to make it possible. Jackie Massey, Kevin Kuswa, Sarah Snider, David Register, Gordie Miller and more will work along with our outstanding group of WDI Scholars. You can come for one weekend (topic lectures, evidence set, 4 practice debates, party) or for one week (more, more) or the full two weeks (much more). No hidden costs at WDI - copying, printing, supplies, Lexis-Nexis codes, tshirt, full evidence set, social activities - all included. Information is at http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ The deadline for scholarship applications is the end of May. Please email janet.nunziata at uvm.edu if you have questions, or mikyung.kwon at uvm.edu, or me, although I am currently in Mexico on vacation, but I love to hear from you. Tuna -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Global Debate Blog http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/ Debate Training site http://debate.uvm.edu World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ GATEWAY TO ALL THINGS DEBATE http://debateoneworld.org 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From andy.edebate Tue May 15 11:26:05 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 12:26:05 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] More about debate comics Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705150926v2aceca55md679b165e13bc2aa@mail.gmail.com> Here is one place where you can buy debate komiks https://www.theyoursstore.com/displayProductDocument.hg?productId=1&categoryId=1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/af0aaa5c/attachment.htm From kkuswa Tue May 15 13:02:08 2007 From: kkuswa (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 14:02:08 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell passes References: Message-ID: <19C985294CCF2F498EEC7FF4A0320EA905140F82@pollux.richmond.edu> http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3176379 From andy.edebate Tue May 15 13:56:18 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 14:56:18 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell passes In-Reply-To: <19C985294CCF2F498EEC7FF4A0320EA905140F82@pollux.richmond.edu> References: <19C985294CCF2F498EEC7FF4A0320EA905140F82@pollux.richmond.edu> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705151156i67189c24h5bbceb8a27690dac@mail.gmail.com> i cant seem to find the smiley, for smiling from ear to ear because the world became a better place today, so this will just have to do :) Andy PS-i know we arent supposed to celebrate it when people die, but to me thats kinda silly, he was a bad person that did a lot of damage to a lot of people, and made the world a less good place. Our world is better with out him, as if he where Stijdom, Sharon, or Cheney.... On 5/15/07, Kuswa, Kevin wrote: > > > > http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3176379 > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/f85cadfb/attachment.htm From stables Tue May 15 14:15:39 2007 From: stables (Gordon Stables) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 12:15:39 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell passes In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0705151156i67189c24h5bbceb8a27690dac@mail.gmail.com> References: <19C985294CCF2F498EEC7FF4A0320EA905140F82@pollux.richmond.edu> <9368bc9b0705151156i67189c24h5bbceb8a27690dac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <005c01c79725$6d463410$0502a8c0@stables> It is a sad, sad sign for our community that one of my immediate reactions upon hearing this news was that I was waiting for the first rude and insensitive post. I am far too busy with topic work to get into a long back and forth today, so consider this my only comment. We in debate rarely agree on a lot of things, but hopefully we agree that there is a value in a process like debate where students can exchange ideas and learn from each other and their coaches. Regardless of the political or personal ideologies of those students or coaches, debate can only work when people are willing to be open to those ideas. You don't have to know or care anything about Dr. Falwell outside of debate to realize that he was one of the most passionate supporters of our activity. His long-standing commitment to a program allowed a lot of students, many of which didn't have high school experience, to grow and learn from debate. He supported expanding their program, hosting the NDT as well as a large tournament each year. At that tournament he took the unusual step of appearing before the participants and answering their questions. Anyone who witnessed any of these sessions will remember how much he took part in the very willingness to hear opposing arguments that we find so valuable. Apart from the general rudeness and callousness of celebrating anyone's passing, we have to keep in mind that we lost perhaps the most passionate supported of debate among university presidents or chancellors. His teams, unlike many of more enlightened liberal programs, never had ideological restrictions on their arguments or their willingness to support the community. In that way Andy and Dr. Falwell both cared deeply about the activity. I just wish you took the high road Andy. You are a better person than this. 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: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Andy Ellis Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:56 AM To: Kuswa, Kevin Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Falwell passes i cant seem to find the smiley, for smiling from ear to ear because the world became a better place today, so this will just have to do :) Andy PS-i know we arent supposed to celebrate it when people die, but to me thats kinda silly, he was a bad person that did a lot of damage to a lot of people, and made the world a less good place. Our world is better with out him, as if he where Stijdom, Sharon, or Cheney.... On 5/15/07, Kuswa, Kevin wrote: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3176379 _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/2c9b35f6/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Tue May 15 14:36:20 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 15:36:20 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell passes In-Reply-To: <005c01c79725$6d463410$0502a8c0@stables> References: <19C985294CCF2F498EEC7FF4A0320EA905140F82@pollux.richmond.edu> <9368bc9b0705151156i67189c24h5bbceb8a27690dac@mail.gmail.com> <005c01c79725$6d463410$0502a8c0@stables> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705151236v13236535id778db25c938b763@mail.gmail.com> Sorry, his benefit to debate does not outweigh the detriment he caused the world... i dont understand this type of thinking...that we should exonerate people from the destruction they caused simply because they died....I included anologies purpsoefully, Stijion while alive impelmented apartheid, Sharon inetntionally started a war that has killed thousands, and before that did a lot of bad as well, Cheney has been the archictecht of a world system, that will kill hundreds of thousands...falwell has led a fundementalist christian theological takeover of our democracy, that in ways supports all the above but s.african apatheid...sorry if it doesnt seem like the high road, but i smile every time the world becomes a better place and Falwell no longer doing his work makes the world better from my perspective. On 5/15/07, Gordon Stables wrote: > > It is a sad, sad sign for our community that one of my immediate > reactions upon hearing this news was that I was waiting for the first rude > and insensitive post. > > > > I am far too busy with topic work to get into a long back and forth today, > so consider this my only comment. > > > > We in debate rarely agree on a lot of things, but hopefully we agree that > there is a value in a process like debate where students can exchange ideas > and learn from each other and their coaches. Regardless of the political or > personal ideologies of those students or coaches, debate can only work when > people are willing to be open to those ideas. > > > > You don't have to know or care anything about Dr. Falwell outside of > debate to realize that he was one of the most passionate supporters of our > activity. His long-standing commitment to a program allowed a lot of > students, many of which didn't have high school experience, to grow and > learn from debate. He supported expanding their program, hosting the NDT as > well as a large tournament each year. At that tournament he took the unusual > step of appearing before the participants and answering their questions. > Anyone who witnessed any of these sessions will remember how much he took > part in the very willingness to hear opposing arguments that we find so > valuable. > > > > Apart from the general rudeness and callousness of celebrating anyone's > passing, we have to keep in mind that we lost perhaps the most passionate > supported of debate among university presidents or chancellors. His teams, > unlike many of more enlightened liberal programs, never had ideological > restrictions on their arguments or their willingness to support the > community. > > > > In that way Andy and Dr. Falwell both cared deeply about the activity. I > just wish you took the high road Andy. You are a better person than this. > > > > 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:* edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto: > edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] *On Behalf Of *Andy Ellis > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:56 AM > *To:* Kuswa, Kevin > *Cc:* edebate at ndtceda.com > *Subject:* Re: [eDebate] Falwell passes > > > > i cant seem to find the smiley, for smiling from ear to ear because the > world became a better place today, so this will just have to do :) > > Andy > PS-i know we arent supposed to celebrate it when people die, but to me > thats kinda silly, he was a bad person that did a lot of damage to a lot of > people, and made the world a less good place. Our world is better with out > him, as if he where Stijdom, Sharon, or Cheney.... > > On 5/15/07, *Kuswa, Kevin* wrote: > > > > http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3176379 > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/29f6bc23/attachment.htm From louden Tue May 15 14:58:40 2007 From: louden (louden) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 15:58:40 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell passes In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0705151236v13236535id778db25c938b763@mail.gmail.com> References: <19C985294CCF2F498EEC7FF4A0320EA905140F82@pollux.richmond.edu> <9368bc9b0705151156i67189c24h5bbceb8a27690dac@mail.gmail.com> <005c01c79725$6d463410$0502a8c0@stables> <9368bc9b0705151236v13236535id778db25c938b763@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <464A10F0.4090000@wfu.edu> We recognize he was /human and that he passed/. Political exaltation or fixing blame ought to wait at least a respectful period of time. On 5/15/2007 3:36 PM, Andy Ellis wrote: > Sorry, > > his benefit to debate does not outweigh the detriment he caused the > world... > > i dont understand this type of thinking...that we should exonerate > people from the destruction they caused simply because they died....I > included anologies purpsoefully, Stijion while alive impelmented > apartheid, Sharon inetntionally started a war that has killed > thousands, and before that did a lot of bad as well, Cheney has been > the archictecht of a world system, that will kill hundreds of > thousands...falwell has led a fundementalist christian theological > takeover of our democracy, that in ways supports all the above but > s.african apatheid...sorry if it doesnt seem like the high road, but i > smile every time the world becomes a better place and Falwell no > longer doing his work makes the world better from my perspective. > > > > > On 5/15/07, *Gordon Stables* > wrote: > > It is a sad, sad sign for our community that one of my immediate > reactions upon hearing this news was that I was waiting for the > first rude and insensitive post. > > > > I am far too busy with topic work to get into a long back and > forth today, so consider this my only comment. > > > > We in debate rarely agree on a lot of things, but hopefully we > agree that there is a value in a process like debate where > students can exchange ideas and learn from each other and their > coaches. Regardless of the political or personal ideologies of > those students or coaches, debate can only work when people are > willing to be open to those ideas. > > > > You don't have to know or care anything about Dr. Falwell outside > of debate to realize that he was one of the most passionate > supporters of our activity. His long-standing commitment to a > program allowed a lot of students, many of which didn't have high > school experience, to grow and learn from debate. He supported > expanding their program, hosting the NDT as well as a large > tournament each year. At that tournament he took the unusual step > of appearing before the participants and answering their > questions. Anyone who witnessed any of these sessions will > remember how much he took part in the very willingness to hear > opposing arguments that we find so valuable. > > > > Apart from the general rudeness and callousness of celebrating > anyone's passing, we have to keep in mind that we lost perhaps the > most passionate supported of debate among university presidents or > chancellors. His teams, unlike many of more enlightened liberal > programs, never had ideological restrictions on their arguments or > their willingness to support the community. > > > > In that way Andy and Dr. Falwell both cared deeply about the > activity. I just wish you took the high road Andy. You are a > better person than this. > > > > 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:* edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com > [mailto: > edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com > ] *On Behalf Of *Andy Ellis > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:56 AM > *To:* Kuswa, Kevin > *Cc:* edebate at ndtceda.com > *Subject:* Re: [eDebate] Falwell passes > > > > i cant seem to find the smiley, for smiling from ear to ear > because the world became a better place today, so this will just > have to do :) > > Andy > PS-i know we arent supposed to celebrate it when people die, but > to me thats kinda silly, he was a bad person that did a lot of > damage to a lot of people, and made the world a less good place. > Our world is better with out him, as if he where Stijdom, Sharon, > or Cheney.... > > On 5/15/07, *Kuswa, Kevin* > wrote: > > > > http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3176379 > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Allan Louden, Dir. Ben Franklin Transatlantic Initiative Wake Forest University Box 7347, Reynolda Station Winston-Salem, NC 27109 (336) 758-5408 (Office) (336) 406-8451 (Cell) (336) 758-4691 (fax) www.bftf.org/ www.wfu.edu/~debate www.wfu.edu/~louden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/f5aa4c97/attachment.htm From rwgallow Tue May 15 15:07:23 2007 From: rwgallow (Galloway, Ryan W.) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 15:07:23 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell Passing Message-ID: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E3065269C2@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> Gordon has been far more eloquent than I can be in his discussion of Falwell. I think Falwell's contributions to debate should be applauded, and our community owes a deep gratitude for both the monetary contributions and time commitments that Falwell gave to the activity. A specific attribute I always liked about Falwell was his willingness to engage in the Question & Answer periods at Liberty. This is a man who would walk into a room and defend his views in a question & answer period knowing that the vast majority of the room disagreed with him. I frequently disagreed with Falwell's political point of view, but admired the fact that he would engage in this process with students, and directly confront his critics. Indeed, I frequently found the exchanges to be enlightening to all, both in clarifying Falwell's position, and exposing potential weaknesses in the very arguments Falwell was defending. And yet, he was always open to hear the point of view of his critics. I'm stunned that we would see a response in this forum celebrating the death of Falwell. RG -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/df237207/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Tue May 15 15:10:56 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 16:10:56 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell passes In-Reply-To: <464A10F0.4090000@wfu.edu> References: <19C985294CCF2F498EEC7FF4A0320EA905140F82@pollux.richmond.edu> <9368bc9b0705151156i67189c24h5bbceb8a27690dac@mail.gmail.com> <005c01c79725$6d463410$0502a8c0@stables> <9368bc9b0705151236v13236535id778db25c938b763@mail.gmail.com> <464A10F0.4090000@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705151310y63def09do31fdea263d32abab@mail.gmail.com> Does the same apply for bin laden, hussein, stalin, hitler, pol pot, che, reagan, i just dont get it, i recognize his humanity, im sad for his family, genuinely...but i dont really know the man, but do know his effect and work to orient the political climate of this country, and know that the whole world will be better tomorrow than it was today. I guess im saying its no more disrespectful to ignore the mans humanity than it is to ignore the work the man dedicated his life to. So be sad for the mans family and loved ones, recognize that we dont all die having lived lives that make things better, and pay honor to his lifes work by recognizing the impact it had. On 5/15/07, louden wrote: > > We recognize he was *human and that he passed*. Political exaltation or > fixing blame ought to wait at least a respectful period of time. > > On 5/15/2007 3:36 PM, Andy Ellis wrote: > > Sorry, > > his benefit to debate does not outweigh the detriment he caused the > world... > > i dont understand this type of thinking...that we should exonerate people > from the destruction they caused simply because they died....I included > anologies purpsoefully, Stijion while alive impelmented apartheid, Sharon > inetntionally started a war that has killed thousands, and before that did a > lot of bad as well, Cheney has been the archictecht of a world system, that > will kill hundreds of thousands...falwell has led a fundementalist christian > theological takeover of our democracy, that in ways supports all the above > but s.african apatheid...sorry if it doesnt seem like the high road, but i > smile every time the world becomes a better place and Falwell no longer > doing his work makes the world better from my perspective. > > > > > On 5/15/07, Gordon Stables wrote: > > > > It is a sad, sad sign for our community that one of my immediate > > reactions upon hearing this news was that I was waiting for the first rude > > and insensitive post. > > > > > > > > I am far too busy with topic work to get into a long back and forth > > today, so consider this my only comment. > > > > > > > > We in debate rarely agree on a lot of things, but hopefully we agree > > that there is a value in a process like debate where students can exchange > > ideas and learn from each other and their coaches. Regardless of the > > political or personal ideologies of those students or coaches, debate can > > only work when people are willing to be open to those ideas. > > > > > > > > You don't have to know or care anything about Dr. Falwell outside of > > debate to realize that he was one of the most passionate supporters of our > > activity. His long-standing commitment to a program allowed a lot of > > students, many of which didn't have high school experience, to grow and > > learn from debate. He supported expanding their program, hosting the NDT as > > well as a large tournament each year. At that tournament he took the unusual > > step of appearing before the participants and answering their questions. > > Anyone who witnessed any of these sessions will remember how much he took > > part in the very willingness to hear opposing arguments that we find so > > valuable. > > > > > > > > Apart from the general rudeness and callousness of celebrating anyone's > > passing, we have to keep in mind that we lost perhaps the most passionate > > supported of debate among university presidents or chancellors. His teams, > > unlike many of more enlightened liberal programs, never had ideological > > restrictions on their arguments or their willingness to support the > > community. > > > > > > > > In that way Andy and Dr. Falwell both cared deeply about the activity. I > > just wish you took the high road Andy. You are a better person than this. > > > > > > > > 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:* edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] > > *On Behalf Of *Andy Ellis > > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:56 AM > > *To:* Kuswa, Kevin > > *Cc:* edebate at ndtceda.com > > *Subject:* Re: [eDebate] Falwell passes > > > > > > > > i cant seem to find the smiley, for smiling from ear to ear because the > > world became a better place today, so this will just have to do :) > > > > Andy > > PS-i know we arent supposed to celebrate it when people die, but to me > > thats kinda silly, he was a bad person that did a lot of damage to a lot of > > people, and made the world a less good place. Our world is better with out > > him, as if he where Stijdom, Sharon, or Cheney.... > > > > On 5/15/07, *Kuswa, Kevin* wrote: > > > > > > > > http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3176379 > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.comhttp://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > -- > Allan Louden, Dir. Ben Franklin Transatlantic Initiative > Wake Forest University > Box 7347, Reynolda Station > Winston-Salem, NC 27109 > (336) 758-5408 (Office) > (336) 406-8451 (Cell) > (336) 758-4691 (fax) > www.bftf.org/www.wfu.edu/~debate www.wfu.edu/~louden > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/9f25baaa/attachment.htm From privethedge Tue May 15 15:16:52 2007 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 13:16:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Falwell Passing In-Reply-To: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E3065269C2@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> Message-ID: <130445.54551.qm@web50902.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Really? Stunned???? Does anything on edebate really stun anyone? Say what you will about Falwell, and you can say plenty (his comments about 9/11 moved me to try to move the Virginia High School state debate tourney from Liberty) the man was a friend to debate. And, Andy - you should reflect that your habit of smiling when the world is made better is kind of a vague and arbitrary standard...while you applaud the death of Falwell, can you be sure that nobody will applaud your passing as well? H. "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill "Have a Cluckity, Cluck, Cluck Day" --------------------------------- Give spam the boot. Take control with tough spam protection in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/32b6384c/attachment.htm From anabaptist Tue May 15 15:17:27 2007 From: anabaptist (Donald Bryson) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 16:17:27 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell, Baptists, Ellis, debate..... Message-ID: <001401c7972e$1034bd10$6501a8c0@Bryson> Ext. of Stables A2: Ellis Yeah, so I'm one of the few in the debate community who can/will admit to this.....I'm a Baptist. I'm not a fundamentalist, but I am evangelical (yes there's a difference and don't display your ignorance and tell me there's not). Just so ya know, it's hard to be a political conservative in this community because the moment you let anyone know, they jump on you like a pack of wolves. Your comments just help to further ostracize anyone who is conservative within the community. I think that it is a sad day when anyone in our community celebrates someone's death due to their action in AMERICAN POLITICS. Good heavens, Andy. From the way you talk it sounds like me and my church are about to march on the BUDL right now and insist that white supremacy and elitism be hammered into high school students because Jerry Fallwell said so. Seriously? The South African Apartheid? Is that what my father does every time he goes to Ghana, Nigeria, or Kenya? Oh gosh....well I didn't know. I'm glad that you can inform me of what MY ACTIONS are doing. I understand that you don't agree with the religious right or its politics but the comparison that you made is absolutely and atrociously offensive to a bunch of people. Not necessarily in this community, I know, but I like to consider myself a part of this community. Okay, now that I'm out of the way, we'll get back to Falwell. Yes, Dr. Falwell ticked off a lot of people. Ya know what, so did Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, FDR, JFK, Jimmy Carter, Barry Goldwater, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., Bill Frist, me, Andy Ellis, any assortment of panels at the NDT, etc. Does this mean that when any of these people die that the people that disagreed with them should celebrate because they feel the world has become a better place? I could be wrong (doubtful) but I think that that is functionally your argument Andy. Was it a good thing that Stalin died? Probably. He killed a lot of people. Was it a good thing that Hitler died? Probably. Is it sad that a human life ended? It should be. Is it a sad thing that Jerry Falwell died? Yes. Did he help debate? Yes. Did he upset some people and make some waves in politics? Yes. Did he kill thousand upons thousands of people and cause suffering beyond all comprehension like the people you mention? If he did, please tell me of these great happenings because I missed them on Lexis. Your world may be better. Fine. You may feel better about how American politics will take shape or something like that, but it's still sad that you celebrated his death. I disagreed with a big ol' pile of Falwell's theology. He and I come from two schools of theological thought (within Baptists anyway). So if you think that I'm defending my role model or someone that I really looked up to, I'm not. You think you took your own little metaphysical high road, huh? My ass. I do have a question, are we going to meet the president (or chancellor) of Towson at any of the Baltimore tournaments this year? Donald Bryson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/e6a730bc/attachment.htm From rhernandez Tue May 15 15:21:48 2007 From: rhernandez (Ramie Hernandez) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 13:21:48 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell Passing In-Reply-To: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E3065269C2@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> References: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E3065269C2@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/2ee46e15/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Tue May 15 15:25:30 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 16:25:30 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell Passing In-Reply-To: <130445.54551.qm@web50902.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E3065269C2@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> <130445.54551.qm@web50902.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705151325r71e0145dn907f4e5b007057e9@mail.gmail.com> I would think that it likely meant that i had been effective, if i could be half as effective as falwell in acheiving my political goals, i would imagine there would be some smiles...thats fine, and you know what i bet the good reverend would agree with me. Stables and Galloway seem on the same page...the page that says lets look to his lifes work to decide about his passing...i may not be winning that debate an no one may be enagaging it, but IT DOES OPEN THE DOOR to discussions about other implications stemming from his work...Louden, seems to get that, and doesnt exalt or blame, and i guess that makes more sense, but to me seems to ignore that falwell as we know him is through his work...in a sense i only lose because i was the first person to make an arg...its like a davis, dunn, turley panel On 5/15/07, Duane Hyland wrote: > > Really? Stunned???? Does anything on edebate really stun anyone? > > Say what you will about Falwell, and you can say plenty (his comments > about 9/11 moved me to try to move the Virginia High School state debate > tourney from Liberty) the man was a friend to debate. > > And, Andy - you should reflect that your habit of smiling when the world > is made better is kind of a vague and arbitrary standard...while you applaud > the death of Falwell, can you be sure that nobody will applaud your passing > as well? > > H. > > > "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" > > "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of > the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that > person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind? If the > opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error > for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the > clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its > collision with error." John S. Mill > > > > "Have a Cluckity, Cluck, Cluck Day" > > ------------------------------ > Give spam the boot. Take control with tough spam protection > in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/c5d9857c/attachment.htm From ajhawk2 Tue May 15 15:35:13 2007 From: ajhawk2 (Jennings, Andrew Joseph) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 15:35:13 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Andy Ellis Message-ID: <5AEAA61062779A46A0A9A3BC298FE1B502ED5D86@MAILBOXONE.home.ku.edu> Andy, certainly you evidence for the claim that dick cheney will kill hundreds of thousands.....i forgot, you were sick the day they taught law at law school (Cruise, 92). () saddam worse then the US Burns 2k3 (John F., pulitzer prize winning author, new york times, 1/23, pg. google) DOING the arithmetic is an imprecise venture. The largest number of deaths attributable to Mr. Hussein's regime resulted from the war between Iraq and Iran between 1980 and 1988, which was launched by Mr. Hussein. Iraq says its own toll was 500,000, and Iran's reckoning ranges upward of 300,000. Then there are the casualties in the wake of Iraq's 1990 occupation of Kuwait. Iraq's official toll from American bombing in that war is 100,000 ? surely a gross exaggeration ? but nobody contests that thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians were killed in the American campaign to oust Mr. Hussein's forces from Kuwait. In addition, 1,000 Kuwaitis died during the fighting and occupation in their country. GOP for life- Jennings From debate.gsu Tue May 15 15:36:56 2007 From: debate.gsu (Dr. Joe Bellon) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 16:36:56 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell Passing In-Reply-To: References: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E3065269C2@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> Message-ID: Look, you are unlikely to find anyone in the world who dislikes Falwell's politics more than I do. Ask my debaters how uncomfortable it made me to be in the same room with him. Still, let's not go clicking our heels too publicly just yet, shall we? It is simply rude to Falwell's family, friends, and supporters to celebrate his death in this fashion, and so soon after his passing. Second, let us hope that wishing death upon those who disagree with us is not something we do with regularity, at least not seriously and never in public. Third, Falwell was a powerful advocate of debate, and those of us on the left should be excited when those on the right see debate as the proper activity for resolving political differences. These three are all arguments that others have made, in one form or another. Let me add a fourth. Falwell was an incredibly skilled advocate of his own cause (as anyone who ever sparred with him at the Liberty tournament can attest). Perhaps you think this is not something that should be celebrated, since we dislike his politics. I disagree. Without a skilled opponent to contend against, your arguments will never succeed. If all you ever do is preach to the choir, you will end up not being able to answer the objections of those who truly differ with you. I will never forget my first encounter with Falwell at a Liberty Q & A. I thought I was quite clever in asking him a tough question. He made me look like a fool. It was then that I realized how difficult the task of public argument truly is, and what kind of skills are needed to succeed at it. Falwell was always bluntly open about his conservative views, and he presented a challenge that anyone on the left must be able to deal with. I do not wish to erase his existence, as though he was the font of all evil. Perhaps others will see this as some sort of facile justification for any atrocity. Don't get it twisted: I would love to convince those who agree with Falwell to change their minds, and it would be great if we could all rise above intolerance. I have fought that fight all my life. I am not saying bad people are good. I am saying that we should rejoice in victory through persuasion and social evolution, not through death or suffering. -Joe On 5/15/07, Ramie Hernandez wrote: > > I would like to echo the statements of Gordon and the others. When I > heard of Mr. Falwell's death, the first thing that came to my mind was how > supportive he was of debate and the community in general. As a serious > Catholic, I can honestly say that I disagreed with Mr. Falwell's views. As > a debater, however, I must acknowledge his contributions to the activity and > his willingness to stand up for and defend his beliefs. And as a serious > Catholic, I cannot applaud or rejoice in the death of any individual. As > Dr. Louden said, indeed there will be time to criticize Mr. Falwell. For > the sake of his family and the Liberty community (especially their > debaters), now is not the appropriate time to level criticism. > > Rami Hernandez > English Teacher > Director of Forensics > Loyola High School of Los Angeles > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/d528fe48/attachment.htm From berchnorto Tue May 15 15:40:20 2007 From: berchnorto (NEIL BERCH) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 16:40:20 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell passes References: <19C985294CCF2F498EEC7FF4A0320EA905140F82@pollux.richmond.edu> <9368bc9b0705151156i67189c24h5bbceb8a27690dac@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Maybe this is just a function of my particular vantage point on life at the moment (and maybe that makes me hypocritical), but to my mind this is kind of the exemplar for "If you don't have anything nice to say, .." Andy--I'm almost always with you on substance (and we'd probably be in general agreement if we were sitting on a panel analyzing "Falwell's contributions to American politics"), but this was a time when you shouldn't have hit the "Send" key. Respectfully, Neil ----- Original Message ----- From: Andy Ellis To: Kuswa, Kevin Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 2:56 PM Subject: Re: [eDebate] Falwell passes i cant seem to find the smiley, for smiling from ear to ear because the world became a better place today, so this will just have to do :) Andy PS-i know we arent supposed to celebrate it when people die, but to me thats kinda silly, he was a bad person that did a lot of damage to a lot of people, and made the world a less good place. Our world is better with out him, as if he where Stijdom, Sharon, or Cheney.... On 5/15/07, Kuswa, Kevin > wrote: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3176379 _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/d573d85d/attachment.htm From jpzompe Tue May 15 15:45:44 2007 From: jpzompe (jpzompe at ilstu.edu) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 15:45:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell Passing In-Reply-To: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E3065269C2@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> References: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E3065269C2@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> Message-ID: <20070515154544.x43wbse3kk40k40k@webmail2.ilstu.edu> I won't enter the fray of the Ellis and Jennings moronic ramblings. It is seriously a loss to the community that Falwell has passed. Gordon, Ryan and others have spoken to this already. As such, although I'm no longer on the NDT committee, I STRONGLY encourage the NDT committee/Board to immediately send condolences and flowers from the debate community to Liberty University and/or Falwell's funeral. AND, he should be remembered and honored posthumously at the 2008 NDT. Whether you liked the man or not, he was a solid, committed force to high school and college debate. He should be remembered as such. zomp -- Joseph P. Zompetti, Ph.D. Director of Forensics Illinois State University School of Communication www.isuforensics.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using Illinois State University Webmail. From daisy_verney Tue May 15 15:47:18 2007 From: daisy_verney (Danielle Verney) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 16:47:18 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell Passing In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0705151325r71e0145dn907f4e5b007057e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I think some sensitivity would be warranted here. As a Catholic, I was offended by public celebrations of the Pope's death. I would guess that there are some on this forum who feel much the same way about Dr. Falwell, and I think we should respect those feelings. There are also those who knew him personally and considered him to be a friend and a counsellor, and I think we should be particularly sensitive to the loss that they are feeling. Additionally, his contributions to debate, particularly on the novice level, cannot be denied and should not be ignored. Finally, I think it's important to remember that, though the community for the most part leans (perhaps heavily) to the left, we ought to extend our tolerance and inclusiveness to political and religious conservatives as well, if only because constantly debating people who agree with you is less interesting fun than debating those with a genuinely different point of view. Danielle Verney O'Gorman _________________________________________________________________ Make every IM count. Download Messenger and join the i?m Initiative now. It?s free. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGHM_MAY07 From pearfg5 Tue May 15 15:53:10 2007 From: pearfg5 (Forrest Pearce) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 16:53:10 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell Passing In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0705151325r71e0145dn907f4e5b007057e9@mail.gmail.com> References: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E3065269C2@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> <130445.54551.qm@web50902.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <9368bc9b0705151325r71e0145dn907f4e5b007057e9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1179262390.464a1db6361d0@squirrel.wfu.edu> No, the reason you lost here is because you're a fucking dumbass. I've never been inspired to post here before but this is out of control. There are obviously people who know and respect Falwell who will be reading this list-serve, the fact that they have to be subject to the filth you put up here earlier in the day is ridiculously insensitive. Your argument that we should be happy when people who we disagree with politically die is absurd: a)the reason that we disagree with a political ideology is because we think that ideology causes problems in the world b)anyone who is at all politically motivated contributes in a way to the success of the ideology they choose c) by your own logic, we should be happy when anyone dies who is not aligned with us in all political views, because from our perspective they are contributing to global suffering Pol Pot? Stalin? Are you fucking serious? Get some perspective. The only person who should be compared to Hitler here is you, as I'm sure he was happy about the deaths of many people who's religious views he felt were causing a "takeover" in his country. At least Falwell had the courage to apologize the day after he made those 9/11 comments, you should be mature enough to do the same. Quoting Andy Ellis : > I would think that it likely meant that i had been effective, if i could be > half as effective as falwell in acheiving my political goals, i would > imagine there would be some smiles...thats fine, and you know what i bet the > good reverend would agree with me. > > Stables and Galloway seem on the same page...the page that says lets look to > his lifes work to decide about his passing...i may not be winning that > debate an no one may be enagaging it, but IT DOES OPEN THE DOOR to > discussions about other implications stemming from his work...Louden, seems > to get that, and doesnt exalt or blame, and i guess that makes more sense, > but to me seems to ignore that falwell as we know him is through his > work...in a sense i only lose because i was the first person to make an > arg...its like a davis, dunn, turley panel > > On 5/15/07, Duane Hyland wrote: > > > > Really? Stunned???? Does anything on edebate really stun anyone? > > > > Say what you will about Falwell, and you can say plenty (his comments > > about 9/11 moved me to try to move the Virginia High School state debate > > tourney from Liberty) the man was a friend to debate. > > > > And, Andy - you should reflect that your habit of smiling when the world > > is made better is kind of a vague and arbitrary standard...while you > applaud > > the death of Falwell, can you be sure that nobody will applaud your passing > > as well? > > > > H. > > > > > > "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" > > > > "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of > > the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that > > person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind If the > > opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error > > for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the > > clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its > > collision with error." John S. Mill > > > > > > > > "Have a Cluckity, Cluck, Cluck Day" > > > > ------------------------------ > > Give spam the boot. Take control with tough spam > protection > > in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > From whit_whitmore Tue May 15 15:56:32 2007 From: whit_whitmore (Whit Whitmore) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 16:56:32 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell passes Message-ID: On 5/15/07, Andy Ellis wrote: "Does the same apply for bin laden, hussein, stalin, hitler, pol pot, che, reagan, i just dont get it, i recognize his humanity, im sad for his family, genuinely...but i dont really know the man, but do know his effect and work to orient the political climate of this country, and know that the whole world will be better tomorrow than it was today. I guess im saying its no more disrespectful to ignore the mans humanity than it is to ignore the work the man dedicated his life to. So be sad for the mans family and loved ones, recognize that we dont all die having lived lives that make things better, and pay honor to his lifes work by recognizing the impact it had." Andy, looking back on the edebate archives from December, I don't seem to see your celebratory posts for the death of Saddam and Pinochet. If it's true that Falwell (and Reagan?) are in the same company, then why didn't we get updates on your facial expression on 12/10/06 and 12/30/06. _________________________________________________________________ Add some color. Personalize your inbox with your favorite colors. www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/personalize.html?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_addcolor_0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/37b2b1af/attachment.htm From MJ-Hlavacik Tue May 15 16:03:28 2007 From: MJ-Hlavacik (Mark J Hlavacik) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 16:03:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell Passing In-Reply-To: <1179262390.464a1db6361d0@squirrel.wfu.edu> References: <821AB4E5068CAB43A2539D4DD81F38E3065269C2@SAMFORDMAIL.ad.samford.edu> <130445.54551.qm@web50902.mail.re2.yahoo.com> <9368bc9b0705151325r71e0145dn907f4e5b007057e9@mail.gmail.com> <1179262390.464a1db6361d0@squirrel.wfu.edu> Message-ID: <1179263008.464a2020e1531@webmail.wiu.edu> for godwin's sake, both of you. Quoting Forrest Pearce : > No, the reason you lost here is because you're a fucking dumbass. I've never > been inspired to post here before but this is out of control. > > There are obviously people who know and respect Falwell who will be reading > this > list-serve, the fact that they have to be subject to the filth you put up > here > earlier in the day is ridiculously insensitive. > > Your argument that we should be happy when people who we disagree with > politically die is absurd: > a)the reason that we disagree with a political ideology is because we think > that > ideology causes problems in the world > b)anyone who is at all politically motivated contributes in a way to the > success > of the ideology they choose > c) by your own logic, we should be happy when anyone dies who is not aligned > with us in all political views, because from our perspective they are > contributing to global suffering > > Pol Pot? Stalin? Are you fucking serious? Get some perspective. The only > person > who should be compared to Hitler here is you, as I'm sure he was happy about > the deaths of many people who's religious views he felt were causing a > "takeover" in his country. > > At least Falwell had the courage to apologize the day after he made those > 9/11 > comments, you should be mature enough to do the same. > > > > Quoting Andy Ellis : > > > I would think that it likely meant that i had been effective, if i could > be > > half as effective as falwell in acheiving my political goals, i would > > imagine there would be some smiles...thats fine, and you know what i bet > the > > good reverend would agree with me. > > > > Stables and Galloway seem on the same page...the page that says lets look > to > > his lifes work to decide about his passing...i may not be winning that > > debate an no one may be enagaging it, but IT DOES OPEN THE DOOR to > > discussions about other implications stemming from his work...Louden, > seems > > to get that, and doesnt exalt or blame, and i guess that makes more sense, > > but to me seems to ignore that falwell as we know him is through his > > work...in a sense i only lose because i was the first person to make an > > arg...its like a davis, dunn, turley panel > > > > On 5/15/07, Duane Hyland wrote: > > > > > > Really? Stunned???? Does anything on edebate really stun anyone? > > > > > > Say what you will about Falwell, and you can say plenty (his comments > > > about 9/11 moved me to try to move the Virginia High School state debate > > > tourney from Liberty) the man was a friend to debate. > > > > > > And, Andy - you should reflect that your habit of smiling when the world > > > is made better is kind of a vague and arbitrary standard...while you > > applaud > > > the death of Falwell, can you be sure that nobody will applaud your > passing > > > as well? > > > > > > H. > > > > > > > > > "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" > > > > > > "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were > of > > > the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing > that > > > person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind If > the > > > opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging > error > > > for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the > > > clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its > > > collision with error." John S. Mill > > > > > > > > > > > > "Have a Cluckity, Cluck, Cluck Day" > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > Give spam the boot. Take control with tough spam > > > protection > > > in the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta. > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > eDebate mailing list > > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From andy.edebate Tue May 15 16:07:20 2007 From: andy.edebate (andy ellis) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 17:07:20 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell passes Message-ID: <464a20ff.59bc2a16.175e.1f72@mx.google.com> I dont know i was busy...i think there is a myspace blog or comment from when deklerk died...no one has ever acused me of being terribly thourough...or consistent...but its not like saddam or piochet shared my politics more than falwell...che maybe...people smiled when he died...i bet that made him smile from heaven...likewise even if dr falwell does not agree with me he is certainly scowling from heaven at all of you who would ignore the 'bad stuff' in his lfe that he thought was the good stuff...boring mundane eulogies where we remember how he helped us while ignoring the rest is myopic and equally disrespectful...jennings...ill answer the cheney arg later. -----Original Message----- From: "Whit Whitmore" To: "E Debate" Sent: 5/15/2007 4:56 PM Subject: Re: [eDebate] Falwell passes On 5/15/07, Andy Ellis wrote: "Does the same apply for bin laden, hussein, stalin, hitler, pol pot, che, reagan, i just dont get it, i recognize his humanity, im sad for his family, genuinely...but i dont really know the man, but do know his effect and work to orient the political climate of this country, and know that the whole world will be better tomorrow than it was today. I guess im saying its no more disrespectful to ignore the mans humanity than it is to ignore the work the man dedicated his life to. So be sad for the mans family and loved ones, recognize that we dont all die having lived lives that make things better, and pay honor to his lifes work by recognizing the impact it had." Andy, looking back on the edebate archives from December, I don't seem to see your celebratory posts for the death of Saddam and Pinochet. If it's true that Falwell (and Reagan?) are in the same company, then why didn't we get updates on your facial expression on 12/10/06 and 12/30/06. _________________________________________________________________ Add some color. Personalize your inbox with your favorite colors. www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/personalize.html?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_addcolor_0507 From kkuswa Tue May 15 16:10:38 2007 From: kkuswa (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 17:10:38 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell passes References: <19C985294CCF2F498EEC7FF4A0320EA905140F82@pollux.richmond.edu> <9368bc9b0705151156i67189c24h5bbceb8a27690dac@mail.gmail.com> <005c01c79725$6d463410$0502a8c0@stables> <9368bc9b0705151236v13236535id778db25c938b763@mail.gmail.com> <464A10F0.4090000@wfu.edu> Message-ID: <19C985294CCF2F498EEC7FF4A0320EA905140F94@pollux.richmond.edu> i liked joe's post. i smile thinking about Falwell and Paul Strait engaging in a fetal tissue research discussion at the tournament. i smile thinking about the "Jesus v. Batman" question posed a few years later. i smile thinking about the growth and progress of liberty debate--i hope it continues. kevin Rev. Jerry Falwell , Moral Majority Founder, Dies at 73 By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 4:50 p.m. ET LYNCHBURG, Va. (AP) -- The Rev. Jerry Falwell , the folksy, small-town preacher who used the power of television to found the Moral Majority and turn the Christian right into a mighty force in American politics during the Reagan years, died Tuesday at 73. Falwell was discovered without a pulse in his office at Liberty University and pronounced dead at a hospital an hour later. Dr. Carl Moore, Falwell's physician, said he had a heart condition and presumably died of a heart rhythm abnormality. Driven into politics by the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that established the right to an abortion , Falwell founded the Moral Majority in 1979. One of the conservative lobbying group's greatest triumphs came just a year later, when Ronald Reagan was elected president. Falwell credited the Moral Majority with getting millions of conservative voters registered, aiding in Reagan's victory and giving Republicans control of the Senate. ''I shudder to think where the country would be right now if the religious right had not evolved,'' he said when he stepped down as Moral Majority president in 1987. Fellow TV evangelist Pat Robertson , himself a one-time GOP candidate for president, declared Falwell ''a tower of strength on many of the moral issues which have confronted our nation.'' The rise of Christian conservatism -- and the Moral Majority's full-throated condemnation of homosexuality, abortion and pornography -- made Falwell perhaps the most recognizable figure on the evangelical right, and one of the most controversial ones, too. Over the years, Falwell waged a landmark libel case against Hustler magazine founder Larry Flynt over a raunchy parody ad, and created a furor in 1999 when one of his publications suggested that the purse-carrying ''Teletubbies'' character Tinky Winky was gay. Matt Foreman, executive director of National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, extended condolences to those close to Falwell, but added: ''Unfortunately, we will always remember him as a founder and leader of America's anti-gay industry, someone who exacerbated the nation's appalling response to the onslaught of the AIDS epidemic, someone who demonized and vilified us for political gain and someone who used religion to divide rather than unite our nation.'' The 1980s marked the religious conservative movement's high-water mark. In more recent years, Falwell had become a problematic figure for the GOP. His remarks a few days after Sept. 11, 2001, essentially blaming feminists, gays and liberals for bringing on the terrorist attacks drew a rebuke from the White House, and he apologized. Falwell's declining political star seemed apparent when he quietly led in and out of the Republican Party's 2004 national convention. Just four years earlier, he was invited to pray from the rostrum. The big, blue-eyed preacher with a booming voice started a fundamentalist church in an abandoned bottling plant in Lynchburg in 1956 with just 35 members. He built it into a religious empire that included the 22,000-member Thomas Road Baptist Church, the ''Old Time Gospel Hour'' carried on TV stations around the country and 7,700-student Liberty University, which Falwell founded in 1971 as Lynchburg Baptist College. >From his living room, he broadcast his message of salvation and raised the donations that helped his ministry grow. ''He was one of the first to come up with ways to use television to expand his ministry,'' said Robert Alley, a retired University of Richmond religion professor who studied and criticized Falwell's career. Falwell had once opposed mixing preaching with politics, but changed his views. The Moral Majority grew to 6.5 million members and raised $69 million as it supported conservative politicians and railed against abortion, homosexuality, pornography and bans on school prayer. Falwell became the face of the religious right, appearing on national magazine covers and on talk shows. In 1983, U.S. News & World Report named him one of 25 most influential people in America. ''Dr. Falwell was a man of distinguished accomplishment who devoted his life to serving his faith and country,'' said Sen. John McCain , a GOP presidential contender who during the 2000 primaries referred to Falwell and Robertson as ''agents of intolerance.'' McCain has since distanced himself from those comments. In 1984, Falwell sued Hustler for $45 million, charging that he was libeled by an liquor-ad parody that quoted him as saying he lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse. A federal jury found the fake ad did not libel him, but awarded him $200,000 for emotional distress. The verdict was overturned in a landmark 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that even pornographic spoofs about a public figure enjoy First Amendment protection. With Falwell's high profile came frequent criticism, even from fellow ministers. The Rev. Billy Graham once rebuked him for political sermonizing on ''non-moral issues.'' Falwell quit the Moral Majority in 1987, saying he was tired of being ''a lightning rod'' and wanted to devote his time to his ministry and Liberty University. But he remained outspoken and continued to draw criticism for his remarks. In 1999, he told an evangelical conference that the Antichrist was a male Jew who was probably already alive. Falwell later apologized for the remark but not for holding the belief. A month later, his National Liberty Journal warned parents that Tinky Winky, the children's TV character, was a gay role model and morally damaging to children. Falwell was re-energized after family values proved important in the 2004 presidential election. He formed the Faith and Values Coalition as the ''21st Century resurrection of the Moral Majority,'' to seek anti-abortion judges, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and more conservative elected officials. In 1987, Falwell took over the PTL (Praise the Lord) ministry in South Carolina after the Rev. Jim Bakker got caught in a sex and money scandal. Falwell slid fully clothed down a theme park water slide after donors met his fundraising goal to help rescue the rival ministry. He gave it up seven months later after learning the depth of PTL's financial problems. Largely because of the sex scandals involving Bakker and fellow evangelist Jimmy Swaggart, donations to Falwell's ministry dropped from $135 million in 1986 to less than $100 million the following year. Hundreds of workers were laid off and viewers of his television show dwindled. Liberty University was $73 million in debt and on the verge of bankruptcy, and his ''Old Time Gospel Hour'' was $16 million in debt. By the mid-1990s, two local businessmen with long ties to Falwell began overseeing the finances and helped get companies to forgive debts or write them off. Falwell dreamed that Liberty would grow to 50,000 students and be to fundamentalist Christians what Notre Dame is to Roman Catholics and Brigham Young University is to Mormons. Falwell's father and his grandfather were militant atheists, he wrote in his autobiography. He said his father made a fortune off his businesses -- including bootlegging during Prohibition. As a student, Falwell was a star athlete and a prankster who was barred from giving his high school valedictorian's speech after he was caught using counterfeit lunch tickets. He ran with a gang of juvenile delinquents before becoming a born-again Christian at 19. He turned down an offer to play professional baseball and transferred from Lynchburg College to Baptist Bible College in Springfield, Mo. ''My heart was burning to serve Christ,'' he once said in an interview. ''I knew nothing would ever be the same again.'' Falwell had made careful preparations for a transition of his leadership to his two sons, Jerry Falwell, Jr., now vice chancellor of Liberty University, and Jonathan Falwell, executive the pastor of Thomas Road Baptist Church. Falwell is survived by his wife, Macel, his two sons and a daughter, Jeannie Falwell Savas. Funeral arrangements were not immediately known. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney , a Mormon whose own faith has become an issue during his run for the presidency, said Falwell ''built and led a movement based on strong principles and strong faith,'' and ''the legacy of his important work will continue through his many ministries where he put his faith into action.'' ________________________________ From: louden [mailto:louden at wfu.edu] Sent: Tue 5/15/2007 3:58 PM To: Andy Ellis Cc: Gordon Stables; edebate at ndtceda.com; Kuswa, Kevin Subject: Re: [eDebate] Falwell passes We recognize he was human and that he passed. Political exaltation or fixing blame ought to wait at least a respectful period of time. On 5/15/2007 3:36 PM, Andy Ellis wrote: Sorry, his benefit to debate does not outweigh the detriment he caused the world... i dont understand this type of thinking...that we should exonerate people from the destruction they caused simply because they died....I included anologies purpsoefully, Stijion while alive impelmented apartheid, Sharon inetntionally started a war that has killed thousands, and before that did a lot of bad as well, Cheney has been the archictecht of a world system, that will kill hundreds of thousands...falwell has led a fundementalist christian theological takeover of our democracy, that in ways supports all the above but s.african apatheid...sorry if it doesnt seem like the high road, but i smile every time the world becomes a better place and Falwell no longer doing his work makes the world better from my perspective. On 5/15/07, Gordon Stables wrote: It is a sad, sad sign for our community that one of my immediate reactions upon hearing this news was that I was waiting for the first rude and insensitive post. I am far too busy with topic work to get into a long back and forth today, so consider this my only comment. We in debate rarely agree on a lot of things, but hopefully we agree that there is a value in a process like debate where students can exchange ideas and learn from each other and their coaches. Regardless of the political or personal ideologies of those students or coaches, debate can only work when people are willing to be open to those ideas. You don't have to know or care anything about Dr. Falwell outside of debate to realize that he was one of the most passionate supporters of our activity. His long-standing commitment to a program allowed a lot of students, many of which didn't have high school experience, to grow and learn from debate. He supported expanding their program, hosting the NDT as well as a large tournament each year. At that tournament he took the unusual step of appearing before the participants and answering their questions. Anyone who witnessed any of these sessions will remember how much he took part in the very willingness to hear opposing arguments that we find so valuable. Apart from the general rudeness and callousness of celebrating anyone's passing, we have to keep in mind that we lost perhaps the most passionate supported of debate among university presidents or chancellors. His teams, unlike many of more enlightened liberal programs, never had ideological restrictions on their arguments or their willingness to support the community. In that way Andy and Dr. Falwell both cared deeply about the activity. I just wish you took the high road Andy. You are a better person than this. 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: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com ] On Behalf Of Andy Ellis Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:56 AM To: Kuswa, Kevin Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: Re: [eDebate] Falwell passes i cant seem to find the smiley, for smiling from ear to ear because the world became a better place today, so this will just have to do :) Andy PS-i know we arent supposed to celebrate it when people die, but to me thats kinda silly, he was a bad person that did a lot of damage to a lot of people, and made the world a less good place. Our world is better with out him, as if he where Stijdom, Sharon, or Cheney.... On 5/15/07, Kuswa, Kevin wrote: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3176379 _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate ________________________________ _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -- Allan Louden, Dir. Ben Franklin Transatlantic Initiative Wake Forest University Box 7347, Reynolda Station Winston-Salem, NC 27109 (336) 758-5408 (Office) (336) 406-8451 (Cell) (336) 758-4691 (fax) www.bftf.org/ www.wfu.edu/~debate www.wfu.edu/~louden From scottaherndon Tue May 15 16:28:55 2007 From: scottaherndon (Scott Herndon) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 16:28:55 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell passes In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0705151310y63def09do31fdea263d32abab@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Ok, I can't do it... You say: So be sad for the mans family and loved ones, recognize that we dont all die having lived lives that make things better, and pay honor to his lifes work by recognizing the impact it had. So, my question is how is smiling at his death because he amde the world a worse place doing any of the things you suggest? How did your 'smile he's dead' post pay honor to his work? Scott Herndon >From: "Andy Ellis" >To: louden >CC: edebate at ndtceda.com, "Kuswa, Kevin" >Subject: Re: [eDebate] Falwell passes >Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 16:10:56 -0400 > >Does the same apply for bin laden, hussein, stalin, hitler, pol pot, che, >reagan, i just dont get it, i recognize his humanity, im sad for his >family, >genuinely...but i dont really know the man, but do know his effect and work >to orient the political climate of this country, and know that the whole >world will be better tomorrow than it was today. I guess im saying its no >more disrespectful to ignore the mans humanity than it is to ignore the >work the man dedicated his life to. > >So be sad for the mans family and loved ones, recognize that we dont all >die >having lived lives that make things better, and pay honor to his lifes work >by recognizing the impact it had. > >On 5/15/07, louden wrote: >> >> We recognize he was *human and that he passed*. Political exaltation or >>fixing blame ought to wait at least a respectful period of time. >> >>On 5/15/2007 3:36 PM, Andy Ellis wrote: >> >>Sorry, >> >>his benefit to debate does not outweigh the detriment he caused the >>world... >> >>i dont understand this type of thinking...that we should exonerate people >>from the destruction they caused simply because they died....I included >>anologies purpsoefully, Stijion while alive impelmented apartheid, Sharon >>inetntionally started a war that has killed thousands, and before that did >>a >>lot of bad as well, Cheney has been the archictecht of a world system, >>that >>will kill hundreds of thousands...falwell has led a fundementalist >>christian >>theological takeover of our democracy, that in ways supports all the above >>but s.african apatheid...sorry if it doesnt seem like the high road, but i >>smile every time the world becomes a better place and Falwell no longer >>doing his work makes the world better from my perspective. >> >> >> >> >>On 5/15/07, Gordon Stables wrote: >> > >> > It is a sad, sad sign for our community that one of my immediate >> > reactions upon hearing this news was that I was waiting for the first >>rude >> > and insensitive post. >> > >> > >> > >> > I am far too busy with topic work to get into a long back and forth >> > today, so consider this my only comment. >> > >> > >> > >> > We in debate rarely agree on a lot of things, but hopefully we agree >> > that there is a value in a process like debate where students can >>exchange >> > ideas and learn from each other and their coaches. Regardless of the >> > political or personal ideologies of those students or coaches, debate >>can >> > only work when people are willing to be open to those ideas. >> > >> > >> > >> > You don't have to know or care anything about Dr. Falwell outside of >> > debate to realize that he was one of the most passionate supporters of >>our >> > activity. His long-standing commitment to a program allowed a lot of >> > students, many of which didn't have high school experience, to grow and >> > learn from debate. He supported expanding their program, hosting the >>NDT as >> > well as a large tournament each year. At that tournament he took the >>unusual >> > step of appearing before the participants and answering their >>questions. >> > Anyone who witnessed any of these sessions will remember how much he >>took >> > part in the very willingness to hear opposing arguments that we find so >> > valuable. >> > >> > >> > >> > Apart from the general rudeness and callousness of celebrating anyone's >> > passing, we have to keep in mind that we lost perhaps the most >>passionate >> > supported of debate among university presidents or chancellors. His >>teams, >> > unlike many of more enlightened liberal programs, never had ideological >> > restrictions on their arguments or their willingness to support the >> > community. >> > >> > >> > >> > In that way Andy and Dr. Falwell both cared deeply about the activity. >>I >> > just wish you took the high road Andy. You are a better person than >>this. >> > >> > >> > >> > 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:* edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com >>[mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] >> > *On Behalf Of *Andy Ellis >> > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:56 AM >> > *To:* Kuswa, Kevin >> > *Cc:* edebate at ndtceda.com >> > *Subject:* Re: [eDebate] Falwell passes >> > >> > >> > >> > i cant seem to find the smiley, for smiling from ear to ear because the >> > world became a better place today, so this will just have to do :) >> > >> > Andy >> > PS-i know we arent supposed to celebrate it when people die, but to me >> > thats kinda silly, he was a bad person that did a lot of damage to a >>lot of >> > people, and made the world a less good place. Our world is better with >>out >> > him, as if he where Stijdom, Sharon, or Cheney.... >> > >> > On 5/15/07, *Kuswa, Kevin* wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3176379 >> > _______________________________________________ >> > eDebate mailing list >> > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> > >> > >> > >> >>------------------------------ >> >>_______________________________________________ >>eDebate mailing list >>eDebate at www.ndtceda.comhttp://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate >> >> >>-- >>Allan Louden, Dir. Ben Franklin Transatlantic Initiative >>Wake Forest University >>Box 7347, Reynolda Station >>Winston-Salem, NC 27109 >>(336) 758-5408 (Office) >>(336) 406-8451 (Cell) >>(336) 758-4691 (fax) >>www.bftf.org/www.wfu.edu/~debate >>www.wfu.edu/~louden >> >> >> >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ PC Magazine?s 2007 editors? choice for best Web mail?award-winning Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507 From scottelliott Tue May 15 17:16:15 2007 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 17:16:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Why we should praise Fallwell Message-ID: <1179267375.464a312f83f1e@webmail.grandecom.net> It is my understanding the Mr. Fallwell was a ardent supporter of college debate; participated in open discussions with college debaters from a round the country; and provided financial and administrative support for the Liberty Debate program. I think people who are saying, essentially, that they are glad he is dead, should be ashamed of themselves and are merely demonstrating their intellectual immaturity. I was raised southern babtist, but I have long since left the church. Regardless of my religious views, I can still admire someone for their support of academic debate. Scott From alyse.kraus Tue May 15 19:06:05 2007 From: alyse.kraus (Alyse Kraus) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 20:06:05 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell passes Message-ID: " i cant seem to find the smiley, for smiling from ear to ear because the world became a better place today, so this will just have to do :)" Why am I not surprised that you were the first person to make some insensitive and rude comment? Say what you want about his political beliefs, disagree with them if you want to (I know I did) but one thing you, as a member of the debate community, should apprectiate is that he was EXTREMELY committed to supporting debate. The Liberty debate team literally would not exist were it not for the support of Dr. Falwell. He was so intent on having debate be part of the student experience at Liberty that he single-handedly ensured the program would survive during its early years. When I was a sophomore and we traveled a team so large that our budget was nearly gone by the time ADA Nats and Towson rolled around, Dr. Falwell put up enough of his own money to ensure that the teams would make it to those last two tournaments (the amount isn't important but it was enough to send nearly 20 debaters to Towson and to Boston for ADA's). He also personally recognized the Liberty debate team nearly every chance he got and was the single biggest supporter of Liberty debate I ever met. Years ago at the Liberty tournament when those who attended the tournament were told they weren't allowed to smoke, someone asked Dr. Falwell about it at the banquet and he said that he didn't think that was fair. He supported the coaching staff every year when they informed the RA's and Faculty members not to harass the sometimes strange groups of people hanging around campus smoking. It seems like something small but it shows that the man was nothing if not committed to the presence of debate at Liberty. He also made time out of a pretty busy schedule to attend the banquet of the Liberty tournament EVERY year and make himself available for questions. Regardless of whether or not you liked his answers, he made himself available. I don't know of any faculty or administration members at other schools who ever did that. I agree with Gordon. It's sad that the moment I heard he passed my immediate thought was "Now which person on edebate will be the first to make an asinine and crass remark about how it's good that we're 'rid' of Falwell?" Congratulations Andy, you once again have set a high standard that many in our community which preaches tolerance of opinions and ideas can aspire to - you must be proud. My condolences to everyone at LU, Alyse Kraus Catholic University, formerly Liberty University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/ae1b868f/attachment.htm From alyse.kraus Tue May 15 19:29:13 2007 From: alyse.kraus (Alyse Kraus) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 20:29:13 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell passes (quick post-script) Message-ID: I would also like to point out that, as a member of a community where we frequently hear about programs fading away, being cut, or having to fight for funds, so long as Dr. Falwell was around you would never see that scenario at Liberty. Also, as a coach at a school where the administration has functionally pulled the rug out from under us and ended what was once a successful and vibrant program, I can say that I would have been happy to have a Dr. Falwell as Chancellor or President. Too often programs need to fight for institutional recognition or support. Dr. Falwell broke the mold and fought for debate using his substantial institutional power and resources. Many administrators with whom you are probably much more politically compatible have never done half as much. Remember that the next time you make some comment about schools struggling for funds or how debate excludes people. Jerry Falwell loved and supported debate and helped build a program where ANYONE who wanted to could learn to debate, get great coaching, and travel to a large number of tournaments every year. I can't help but wish there were more administrators like him - in that world Catholic, Alabama, and countless other schools might still have programs. Alyse Kraus Catholic University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/a40b2139/attachment.htm From blakejohnson Tue May 15 19:50:32 2007 From: blakejohnson (Johnson, Joseph B.) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 19:50:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater # 4: Conor Cleary Message-ID: <0C10B7CD7775E2498869EDDE876D63501E9964@XMAIL1.sooner.net.ou.edu> Conor received 112 pts. Attached is his bio. If you're offended by R rated humor, you needn't open it. blake -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/da196fb8/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: conordca.doc Type: application/msword Size: 61952 bytes Desc: conordca.doc Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/da196fb8/attachment.doc From kendog_3 Tue May 15 20:39:58 2007 From: kendog_3 (kenny hanson) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 01:39:58 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell passes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070516/fa357988/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Tue May 15 20:54:47 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 21:54:47 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705151854na70a36dj85c71fac537f0795@mail.gmail.com> Uh, there seem to be a few arguments from a resounding number of posts. First let me say.. I apologize to falwells family, friends, students, and supporters, if any of them are reading edebate on this terrible day then i am sorry if my words have added to their sorrow, and suffering....i honestly thought my response was not likely to even be a blip on the "sorrow" radar for those intimatly connected to this death, and i honestly still think thats the case...i think its realitivly easy to pile on and say there goes andy being rude and insensitive, and this is the worst sin ever, but really, its not, and im not at the familys space telling them that their man deserved to die, nor am i desecrating his grave, and in reality if he was an important part in your life why the hell are you cocnerened on this day about what i have to say about it? Now some answers.... Kevin talks about times when falwell made him smile when he was alive. i agree i love the fact that he submitted himself to a debate community that was for the most part hostile to him, in fact i think its a sign that he is strong in his convictions. I smiled at these times as well. I also smile when i think about the debate team he created, and the region his support helped to thrive. Maybe, at times that didnt seem clear. and maybe it wasnt even at times to me, but at the end of the day good job on building a great debate team, ill never take that away from him... But i guess when i remember back to those banquets what i most appreicated was the way falwell stood by his convictions, he preferred to spar with those who disagreed with him, not to engage in friendly banter with those who agreed, he stood from a position of power, i mean he was winning the fight for the soul of america that he had been engaging for several decades, and those that vehemetly disagreed with him where a sign of his success. Then a bunch of people say...But damn he did sooooooo much for debate. Let me put this this way. I voted for melissa wade as god on facebook, i think she rocks...solid....if in addition to the debbate work she did she started a eurohetropatriarchy supremacist movement, that spread viraly through the american political culture i dont really think i would ignore the white supremacist movement in order to celebrate her debate success....simply put i can concede all the jerry good for debate arguments and if the cost of all that is the power of the moral majority in american politics then its not worth it. Im sorry if that notion is troubling, but to me its absolutly scarry that "no one hates the politics as much as i do" but he WAS good for debate. Did you ever think that perhaps he started and supported the debate team and the college in the futherence of that politics? Even not making that argument im just not in the for the "he helped us so we will side step his evil" argument. You may say my its good when people i dont like die argument is a jsutification for all sorts of bad stuff, but it at least is no worse than " but he was good for debate" Herndon Says...how do you honor his life,...i think its simple, i dont pretend for thesake of civility he did not accomplish all that he did. I vehemetly disagree with what he accomplished, but you all seem to be willing to like pretend most of that work didnt occur and al he did was hook up some underserved debaters. Lets see what else... why didint you celebrate saddams death, what if you died, you arnt consistent, you are an ass....oh and falwell was not a dictator like pol pot...ok fair enough and neither was che or reagan or cheney , look the point of all that was that people who are as politically revolutionary as falwell, inevitably through their success generate dislike and hatred, most of them like falwell have some blood on their hands as a result of their politics, thus some people smile when they die.... really, i dont get what this fight is about, i may have been insensitive, but in order to challeneg my insensitivity you all are making some tragically bad arguments...not all of you mind you, but the ones who say " i hate his politics but he has done so much for debate" are downright dangerous. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/6d0bb44b/attachment.htm From jpzompe Tue May 15 21:06:39 2007 From: jpzompe (jpzompe at ilstu.edu) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 21:06:39 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0705151854na70a36dj85c71fac537f0795@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0705151854na70a36dj85c71fac537f0795@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20070515210639.m11qaro0tcgcsssw@webmail2.ilstu.edu> Abhoring Falwell's politics, but respecting what he did for debate, is not "downright dangerous." It is a political reality -- a reality that apparently you have no grasp of. The point of the matter is that we live in a world where people don't always agree. We have differences. I don't appreciate some of the comments or policies that emerged as a result of Falwell, but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate some of the good things he did. Your politics is the one that is dangerous, Andy. If we all believed as you, dogmatism would rampant throughout every town and city in America. No one would ever get along. Violence would be commonplace in your world, where it was okay for people to dismiss literally everything other people do or believe simply because there is a disagreement. There is nothing wrong with feeling passionate about what you believe, Andy. But therein is where you have more in common with Falwell than you'd probably like to admit. zomp Quoting Andy Ellis : > Uh, there seem to be a few arguments from a resounding number of posts. > > First let me say.. I apologize to falwells family, friends, students, and > supporters, if any of them are reading edebate on this terrible day then i > am sorry if my words have added to their sorrow, and suffering....i honestly > thought my response was not likely to even be a blip on the "sorrow" radar > for those intimatly connected to this death, and i honestly still think > thats the case...i think its realitivly easy to pile on and say there goes > andy being rude and insensitive, and this is the worst sin ever, but really, > its not, and im not at the familys space telling them that their man > deserved to die, nor am i desecrating his grave, and in reality if he was an > important part in your life why the hell are you cocnerened on this day > about what i have to say about it? > > Now some answers.... > > Kevin talks about times when falwell made him smile when he was alive. > > i agree i love the fact that he submitted himself to a debate community that > was for the most part hostile to him, in fact i think its a sign that he is > strong in his convictions. > > I smiled at these times as well. > > I also smile when i think about the debate team he created, and the region > his support helped to thrive. > > Maybe, at times that didnt seem clear. and maybe it wasnt even at times to > me, but at the end of the day good job on building a great debate team, ill > never take that away from him... > > But i guess when i remember back to those banquets what i most appreicated > was the way falwell stood by his convictions, he preferred to spar with > those who disagreed with him, not to engage in friendly banter with those > who agreed, he stood from a position of power, i mean he was winning the > fight for the soul of america that he had been engaging for several decades, > and those that vehemetly disagreed with him where a sign of his success. > > > Then a bunch of people say...But damn he did sooooooo much for debate. > > Let me put this this way. I voted for melissa wade as god on facebook, i > think she rocks...solid....if in addition to the debbate work she did she > started a eurohetropatriarchy supremacist movement, that spread viraly > through the american political culture i dont really think i would ignore > the white supremacist movement in order to celebrate her debate > success....simply put i can concede all the jerry good for debate arguments > and if the cost of all that is the power of the moral majority in american > politics then its not worth it. > > Im sorry if that notion is troubling, but to me its absolutly scarry that > "no one hates the politics as much as i do" but he WAS good for debate. > > Did you ever think that perhaps he started and supported the debate team and > the college in the futherence of that politics? > > Even not making that argument im just not in the for the "he helped us so we > will side step his evil" argument. You may say my its good when people i > dont like die argument is a jsutification for all sorts of bad stuff, but it > at least is no worse than " but he was good for debate" > > Herndon Says...how do you honor his life,...i think its simple, i dont > pretend for thesake of civility he did not accomplish all that he did. I > vehemetly disagree with what he accomplished, but you all seem to be willing > to like pretend most of that work didnt occur and al he did was hook up some > underserved debaters. > > Lets see what else... > > why didint you celebrate saddams death, what if you died, you arnt > consistent, you are an ass....oh and falwell was not a dictator like pol > pot...ok fair enough and neither was che or reagan or cheney , look the > point of all that was that people who are as politically revolutionary as > falwell, inevitably through their success generate dislike and hatred, most > of them like falwell have some blood on their hands as a result of their > politics, thus some people smile when they die.... > > > really, i dont get what this fight is about, i may have been insensitive, > but in order to challeneg my insensitivity you all are making some > tragically bad arguments...not all of you mind you, but the ones who say " i > hate his politics but he has done so much for debate" are downright > dangerous. > -- Joseph P. Zompetti, Ph.D. Director of Forensics Illinois State University School of Communication www.isuforensics.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using Illinois State University Webmail. From andy.edebate Tue May 15 21:18:17 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 22:18:17 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell In-Reply-To: <20070515210639.m11qaro0tcgcsssw@webmail2.ilstu.edu> References: <9368bc9b0705151854na70a36dj85c71fac537f0795@mail.gmail.com> <20070515210639.m11qaro0tcgcsssw@webmail2.ilstu.edu> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705151918v7df5ad5exf8d11b8d0db82b1e@mail.gmail.com> This is not a guy who buys pepsi when i am a coke man...its not opples and boonoonoos...again my argument is not we cant celebrate the good parts its that the bad parts outweigh them...I will say again i would trade everygood thing he did in debate if it meant he would not have led the moral majority to their increidible political power... On 5/15/07, jpzompe at ilstu.edu wrote: > > Abhoring Falwell's politics, but respecting what he did for debate, is not > "downright dangerous." > > It is a political reality -- a reality that apparently you have no > grasp of. The point of the matter is that we live in a world where > people don't always > agree. We have differences. I don't appreciate some of the comments or > policies that emerged as a result of Falwell, but that doesn't mean I > can't > appreciate some of the good things he did. > > Your politics is the one that is dangerous, Andy. If we all believed as > you, > dogmatism would rampant throughout every town and city in America. No one > would ever get along. Violence would be commonplace in your world, where > it > was okay for people to dismiss literally everything other people do or > believe > simply because there is a disagreement. > > There is nothing wrong with feeling passionate about what you believe, > Andy. But therein is where you have more in common with Falwell than > you'd probably > like to admit. > > zomp > > > Quoting Andy Ellis : > > > Uh, there seem to be a few arguments from a resounding number of posts. > > > > First let me say.. I apologize to falwells family, friends, students, > and > > supporters, if any of them are reading edebate on this terrible day then > i > > am sorry if my words have added to their sorrow, and suffering....i > honestly > > thought my response was not likely to even be a blip on the "sorrow" > radar > > for those intimatly connected to this death, and i honestly still think > > thats the case...i think its realitivly easy to pile on and say there > goes > > andy being rude and insensitive, and this is the worst sin ever, but > really, > > its not, and im not at the familys space telling them that their man > > deserved to die, nor am i desecrating his grave, and in reality if he > was an > > important part in your life why the hell are you cocnerened on this day > > about what i have to say about it? > > > > Now some answers.... > > > > Kevin talks about times when falwell made him smile when he was alive. > > > > i agree i love the fact that he submitted himself to a debate community > that > > was for the most part hostile to him, in fact i think its a sign that he > is > > strong in his convictions. > > > > I smiled at these times as well. > > > > I also smile when i think about the debate team he created, and the > region > > his support helped to thrive. > > > > Maybe, at times that didnt seem clear. and maybe it wasnt even at times > to > > me, but at the end of the day good job on building a great debate team, > ill > > never take that away from him... > > > > But i guess when i remember back to those banquets what i most > appreicated > > was the way falwell stood by his convictions, he preferred to spar with > > those who disagreed with him, not to engage in friendly banter with > those > > who agreed, he stood from a position of power, i mean he was winning the > > fight for the soul of america that he had been engaging for several > decades, > > and those that vehemetly disagreed with him where a sign of his success. > > > > > > Then a bunch of people say...But damn he did sooooooo much for debate. > > > > Let me put this this way. I voted for melissa wade as god on facebook, i > > think she rocks...solid....if in addition to the debbate work she did > she > > started a eurohetropatriarchy supremacist movement, that spread viraly > > through the american political culture i dont really think i would > ignore > > the white supremacist movement in order to celebrate her debate > > success....simply put i can concede all the jerry good for debate > arguments > > and if the cost of all that is the power of the moral majority in > american > > politics then its not worth it. > > > > Im sorry if that notion is troubling, but to me its absolutly scarry > that > > "no one hates the politics as much as i do" but he WAS good for debate. > > > > Did you ever think that perhaps he started and supported the debate team > and > > the college in the futherence of that politics? > > > > Even not making that argument im just not in the for the "he helped us > so we > > will side step his evil" argument. You may say my its good when people i > > dont like die argument is a jsutification for all sorts of bad stuff, > but it > > at least is no worse than " but he was good for debate" > > > > Herndon Says...how do you honor his life,...i think its simple, i dont > > pretend for thesake of civility he did not accomplish all that he did. I > > vehemetly disagree with what he accomplished, but you all seem to be > willing > > to like pretend most of that work didnt occur and al he did was hook up > some > > underserved debaters. > > > > Lets see what else... > > > > why didint you celebrate saddams death, what if you died, you arnt > > consistent, you are an ass....oh and falwell was not a dictator like pol > > pot...ok fair enough and neither was che or reagan or cheney , look the > > point of all that was that people who are as politically revolutionary > as > > falwell, inevitably through their success generate dislike and hatred, > most > > of them like falwell have some blood on their hands as a result of their > > politics, thus some people smile when they die.... > > > > > > really, i dont get what this fight is about, i may have been > insensitive, > > but in order to challeneg my insensitivity you all are making some > > tragically bad arguments...not all of you mind you, but the ones who say > " i > > hate his politics but he has done so much for debate" are downright > > dangerous. > > > > > > -- > Joseph P. Zompetti, Ph.D. > Director of Forensics > Illinois State University > School of Communication > www.isuforensics.com > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using Illinois State University Webmail. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/87e70413/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Tue May 15 21:24:22 2007 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 20:24:22 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] real question about Fallwell and Andy Message-ID: Is all life sacred? _________________________________________________________________ Change is good. See what?s different about Windows Live Hotmail. http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/default.html?locale=en-us&ocid=RMT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_changegood_0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/aa7c65b4/attachment.htm From anabaptist Tue May 15 21:26:22 2007 From: anabaptist (Donald Bryson) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 22:26:22 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] atrocities Message-ID: <000601c79761$99fb8cd0$6501a8c0@Bryson> Okay, I just want to know what these atrocities are that Andy keeps talking about? Seriously.... are there Concentration Camps for Yankees outside of Lynchburg? was Falwell secretly funding al-Quaeda to kill off Andy's family? is Liberty really just a brain-washing center for the religious right? Seriously, atrocities? You're throwing impact language like it's nothing Andy. This isn't a fiatted world that we've created in a debate round. What the hell are you talking about? Bryson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/592abda2/attachment.htm From mmangus Tue May 15 21:41:02 2007 From: mmangus (Michael Mangus) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 22:41:02 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Need last-minute LD staff? Message-ID: <93ba10490705151941u52d463b6wd2aca7a13a10fd1a@mail.gmail.com> if your high school workshop has a Lincoln-Douglas component and you need to make a last-minute addition to your staff, backchannel me. one of my camp jobs for this summer fell through today and i have no other marketable skills. i am free from now until mid-august except for another camp commitment june 30-july 22. as an LDer, i won glenbrooks and was top seed at toc; as a freelance coach i've worked as an assistant for successful LD programs including glenbrook north, strake jesuit, and menlo-atherton; i now do "real" debate at pitt. id be willing to work for cheap because i dont want to go back to telemarketing. thanks, michael mangus mmangus at gmail.com From beth.skinner Tue May 15 22:11:15 2007 From: beth.skinner (Beth Skinner) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 23:11:15 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0705151918v7df5ad5exf8d11b8d0db82b1e@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0705151854na70a36dj85c71fac537f0795@mail.gmail.com> <20070515210639.m11qaro0tcgcsssw@webmail2.ilstu.edu> <9368bc9b0705151918v7df5ad5exf8d11b8d0db82b1e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4550c7380705152011n1e0bab32v5c0510598ab008e@mail.gmail.com> I'm not getting into the specifics of all these arguments but will turn instead to the topic of death and how we relate to it. One point that's recurred in this discussion is the 'now is not the time for criticism' thread. I think that the closer we are in time or relationship to a traumatic loss the less we might be used to hearing criticisms of the dead person but that is a question of manners and propriety - not a question of rightness or wrongness of someone's estimation of the dead person's value. I'll give an example. In March I was judging a round at WVU JV/Novice nationals when I found out my dad had died. Part of my head stayed in the very interesting "Where the Wild Things Are" round while a smaller part was remembering my dad and in particular times when he read stories like that to me. Now my dad wasn't an angel or a devil and definitely not above criticism but if someone that weekend had been pointing out his flaws things would not have turned out well for that person. Lucky for me I wasn't subscribed to a listserv where people were discussing him. I don't suppose that Dr. Falwell's family is hearing anything at all from edebate but if they are its nothing in comparison to what is in the whole rest of the media - this was a man who lived his life in plain view of the world. That leaves the debaters who were touched by Dr. Falwell's life and death. When I die I hope that people reflect kindly on me but that's not what I live for (and I'm pretty sure that he didn't either). I'll hope for my debaters that people say "Beth was a good person" instead of "she was an evil fascist" but if that's what people feel then they should say it. If you believe in the power debate holds then you shouldn't censor thoughts like that. The idea that its ok to criticize someone only after an appropriate period of time is just a question of manners. I think that makes it also fair to ask whether its good manners to say that abortionists were to blame for the 9/11 attacks. Or to that AIDS is god's punishment for a society that allows homosexuality. Or that if you're not born again you're a failure as a human being. Etc. My point is that having listened to Dr. Falwell best the smartest debaters year after year at the Liberty question and answer sessions that his response to 'you said something mean' was almost never to apologize for it - it was to defend it. I think he really did believe in the power of debate. Beth On 5/15/07, Andy Ellis wrote: > > This is not a guy who buys pepsi when i am a coke man...its not opples and > boonoonoos...again my argument is not we cant celebrate the good parts its > that the bad parts outweigh them...I will say again i would trade everygood > thing he did in debate if it meant he would not have led the moral majority > to their increidible political power... > > On 5/15/07, jpzompe at ilstu.edu wrote: > > > > Abhoring Falwell's politics, but respecting what he did for debate, is > > not > > "downright dangerous." > > > > It is a political reality -- a reality that apparently you have no > > grasp of. The point of the matter is that we live in a world where > > people don't always > > agree. We have differences. I don't appreciate some of the comments or > > policies that emerged as a result of Falwell, but that doesn't mean I > > can't > > appreciate some of the good things he did. > > > > Your politics is the one that is dangerous, Andy. If we all believed as > > you, > > dogmatism would rampant throughout every town and city in America. No > > one > > would ever get along. Violence would be commonplace in your world, > > where it > > was okay for people to dismiss literally everything other people do or > > believe > > simply because there is a disagreement. > > > > There is nothing wrong with feeling passionate about what you believe, > > Andy. But therein is where you have more in common with Falwell than > > you'd probably > > like to admit. > > > > zomp > > > > > > Quoting Andy Ellis : > > > > > Uh, there seem to be a few arguments from a resounding number of > > posts. > > > > > > First let me say.. I apologize to falwells family, friends, students, > > and > > > supporters, if any of them are reading edebate on this terrible day > > then i > > > am sorry if my words have added to their sorrow, and suffering....i > > honestly > > > thought my response was not likely to even be a blip on the "sorrow" > > radar > > > for those intimatly connected to this death, and i honestly still > > think > > > thats the case...i think its realitivly easy to pile on and say there > > goes > > > andy being rude and insensitive, and this is the worst sin ever, but > > really, > > > its not, and im not at the familys space telling them that their man > > > deserved to die, nor am i desecrating his grave, and in reality if he > > was an > > > important part in your life why the hell are you cocnerened on this > > day > > > about what i have to say about it? > > > > > > Now some answers.... > > > > > > Kevin talks about times when falwell made him smile when he was alive. > > > > > > > > i agree i love the fact that he submitted himself to a debate > > community that > > > was for the most part hostile to him, in fact i think its a sign that > > he is > > > strong in his convictions. > > > > > > I smiled at these times as well. > > > > > > I also smile when i think about the debate team he created, and the > > region > > > his support helped to thrive. > > > > > > Maybe, at times that didnt seem clear. and maybe it wasnt even at > > times to > > > me, but at the end of the day good job on building a great debate > > team, ill > > > never take that away from him... > > > > > > But i guess when i remember back to those banquets what i most > > appreicated > > > was the way falwell stood by his convictions, he preferred to spar > > with > > > those who disagreed with him, not to engage in friendly banter with > > those > > > who agreed, he stood from a position of power, i mean he was winning > > the > > > fight for the soul of america that he had been engaging for several > > decades, > > > and those that vehemetly disagreed with him where a sign of his > > success. > > > > > > > > > Then a bunch of people say...But damn he did sooooooo much for debate. > > > > > > Let me put this this way. I voted for melissa wade as god on facebook, > > i > > > think she rocks...solid....if in addition to the debbate work she did > > she > > > started a eurohetropatriarchy supremacist movement, that spread viraly > > > through the american political culture i dont really think i would > > ignore > > > the white supremacist movement in order to celebrate her debate > > > success....simply put i can concede all the jerry good for debate > > arguments > > > and if the cost of all that is the power of the moral majority in > > american > > > politics then its not worth it. > > > > > > Im sorry if that notion is troubling, but to me its absolutly scarry > > that > > > "no one hates the politics as much as i do" but he WAS good for > > debate. > > > > > > Did you ever think that perhaps he started and supported the debate > > team and > > > the college in the futherence of that politics? > > > > > > Even not making that argument im just not in the for the "he helped us > > so we > > > will side step his evil" argument. You may say my its good when people > > i > > > dont like die argument is a jsutification for all sorts of bad stuff, > > but it > > > at least is no worse than " but he was good for debate" > > > > > > Herndon Says...how do you honor his life,...i think its simple, i dont > > > pretend for thesake of civility he did not accomplish all that he did. > > I > > > vehemetly disagree with what he accomplished, but you all seem to be > > willing > > > to like pretend most of that work didnt occur and al he did was hook > > up some > > > underserved debaters. > > > > > > Lets see what else... > > > > > > why didint you celebrate saddams death, what if you died, you arnt > > > consistent, you are an ass....oh and falwell was not a dictator like > > pol > > > pot...ok fair enough and neither was che or reagan or cheney , look > > the > > > point of all that was that people who are as politically revolutionary > > as > > > falwell, inevitably through their success generate dislike and hatred, > > most > > > of them like falwell have some blood on their hands as a result of > > their > > > politics, thus some people smile when they die.... > > > > > > > > > really, i dont get what this fight is about, i may have been > > insensitive, > > > but in order to challeneg my insensitivity you all are making some > > > tragically bad arguments...not all of you mind you, but the ones who > > say " i > > > hate his politics but he has done so much for debate" are downright > > > dangerous. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Joseph P. Zompetti, Ph.D. > > Director of Forensics > > Illinois State University > > School of Communication > > www.isuforensics.com > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > This message was sent using Illinois State University Webmail. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/f85ec741/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Tue May 15 22:43:40 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 15 May 2007 23:43:40 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] atrocities In-Reply-To: <000601c79761$99fb8cd0$6501a8c0@Bryson> References: <000601c79761$99fb8cd0$6501a8c0@Bryson> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705152043v69f73b80m23296e6a3700fc70@mail.gmail.com> Unless someone would like to contend one of the following two arguments 1)Jerry falwell built the moral majority in to a major force that drasticly shaped the landscape of american culture and politics. 2)his death is a loss to that movemnt then im not going to engage this debate too much, like i dont have time right now to explain in depth all the things he has done that are bad but perhaps one of the more thourough people on the list jockeying for the "who hates falwells politics the most but can still take the high road" can explain why they hate his politcs so much. But i do have some cards from kuswas article 1. Falwell was key ushering in the reagan era and conservative politics. Driven into politics by the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that established the right to an abortion , Falwell founded the Moral Majority in 1979. One of the conservative lobbying group's greatest triumphs came just a year later, when Ronald Reagan was elected president. Falwell credited the Moral Majority with getting millions of conservative voters registered, aiding in Reagan's victory and giving Republicans control of the Senate. ''I shudder to think where the country would be right now if the religious right had not evolved,'' he said when he stepped down as Moral Majority president in 1987. I will make several arguments here, 1) this political work has created a much more hostile climate for homosexuality, many activists who have been involved in the community for years, think that when falwell created the gay hatred industry, the result was an increase in suicides and gay bashings. Reasonable people can disagree and statistics can prove or disprove this claim, but homosexuality is a political issue now in ways it wasnt in the past. ( I think if you deny this, i will find falwell quotes that back me up, but please dont disagree with me that falwell marketed for political purposes his dislike of homosexuality) 2) He has created a climate (by design) hostile to abortion rights, again reasonable people might disagree about this debate, but there is no questioning falwells influence here. 3) Regan era conservative politics ushered in an era of policymakers who have crafted foreign and domestic policies which have killed many people. From welfare, to anti communism, to anti terrorism, the world very clearly bears the imprint of the reagan years and everyday blodd is shed as a result. im not saying without regan everything would have been peachy, but that the world is a more dangerous and hostile and death friendly place for the majority of the people of the world as a result of reagans polcies...and political operatives which likely may have been consinged to a fringe if not for falwell... More from kuswa's article... 2. Please contact Matt Forman to tell him the same things you are telling me. He is also lamenting the politics of falwells life, he is violating the lets not talk bad about the dead standard, he is just slightly more diplomatic than i....this might be the contact info for his office *Washington, DC* 1325 Massachusetts Ave. NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20005 Phone: 202.393.5177 Fax: 202.393.2241 Matt Foreman, executive director of National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, extended condolences to those close to Falwell, but added: ''Unfortunately, we will always remember him as a founder and leader of America's anti-gay industry, someone who exacerbated the nation's appalling response to the onslaught of the AIDS < http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/aids/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier> epidemic, someone who demonized and vilified us for political gain and someone who used religion to divide rather than unite our nation.'' 3. Falwell devoted his lifes work to the politics you all are trying to forget 'Dr. Falwell was a man of distinguished accomplishment who devoted his life to serving his faith and country,'' said Sen. John McCain 4. I dont know if i used the word attrocity, my comparisons are simply to other revolutionaries, which falwell was... 5. Christopher Hitchens if far worse than I and MILLLIONS OF PEOPLE ARE WATCHING HIM NOW On 5/15/07, Donald Bryson wrote: > > Okay, I just want to know what these atrocities are that Andy keeps > talking about? Seriously.... > > are there Concentration Camps for Yankees outside of Lynchburg? > > was Falwell secretly funding al-Quaeda to kill off Andy's family? > > is Liberty really just a brain-washing center for the religious right? > > Seriously, atrocities? You're throwing impact language like it's nothing > Andy. This isn't a fiatted world that we've created in a debate round. > What the hell are you talking about? > > Bryson > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070515/6fd69f23/attachment.htm From mleber Tue May 15 23:20:22 2007 From: mleber (Michael Eber) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 00:20:22 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] atrocities In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0705152043v69f73b80m23296e6a3700fc70@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <003e01c79771$89499cf0$6401a8c0@MIKEEBER> Falwell's death won't hurt his movement if Americans consider your callous reaction as representative of the political left. You do realize that most people are not persuaded by analogies between your opponents and Pol Pot, right? --Mike _____ Unless someone would like to contend one of the following two arguments 1)Jerry falwell built the moral majority in to a major force that drasticly shaped the landscape of american culture and politics. 2)his death is a loss to that movemnt _____ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070516/9a264e14/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Tue May 15 23:45:54 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 00:45:54 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Done Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705152145o1d54079ne7cf65776cea6f0b@mail.gmail.com> I have apologized to falwells family and friends who might be reading. I will also apologize for comparing him to pol pot stalin etc, though i have disclaimed many times, and included in my intial list a spectrum of political perpsectives, my attempt to compare falwell to other revolutionary leaders who brought about much of their polictial vision, failed ( in part because none of you see falwell as a revolutionary and in part because you cant as qucikly connect the dots to the suffering he has caused) I will continue backchannels, but i'm not gonna say the same thing over and over again, many of you disagree with me, and to be honest i dont think i would give a fuqk if you smiled when i died. One last note, i truly do appreciate the support he gave liberty, the region, and the national debate community, i do not mean in any way to take away from that loss, my only argument is that should not be the only part of his lifes work we look at, so perhaps this is a perm, i can accept the good things he did for debate, but think that the rest of his work should be considered as well amd as ralph reed says we should consider the consequential nature of that life...wholly not just myopicaly focused o the debate community -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070516/eb6d7e40/attachment.htm From debatekorea Wed May 16 00:56:45 2007 From: debatekorea (Jason Jarvis) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 01:56:45 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Later Jerry. . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: ......just got the news about the passing of Falwell. I dont like to revel in the death of anyone. I am sure his family and his university is grieving. My regrets and condolences to their pain. Jerry wasnt a Nazi.....he was just an ignorant bigot with a very public platform. Ellis may have gone too far......However, it is impossible to ignore the fairly terrible things he advocated. I know people who have died of AIDS, I have gay friends and family members who suffer from the bigotry and ignorance he so unapologetically espoused. He supported debate. Hurrah! However, it was for a political end that he felt debate helped him to achieve. His Q and A sessions were a lovely example of non-sequiters and smoke and mirrors camouflaged as open discussion. Religious zealots that mix politics with god are dangerous, whether its Osama, Jerry Falwell, Ahmadenijad or George Bush. At the end of the day I feel sorry for his loved ones, but I wont miss him or his bigotry one iota. I cant remember him ever apologizing to my family or loved ones....dont know why anyone else ought to be apologetic for feeling the same way I do. Jason L. Jarvis _________________________________________________________________ Like the way Microsoft Office Outlook works? You?ll love Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_outlook_0507 From nathan.sweed Wed May 16 01:05:28 2007 From: nathan.sweed (Nathan Sweed) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 02:05:28 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] FALLSWELL THAT ENDS WELL Message-ID: <236fc4b70705152305g37515b29pbc80d28b983c3ebe@mail.gmail.com> Kuswa: Wither is Jerry? I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Andy: I'm a very gay scientist. Gordon: Look, I'm no web-spinner, but Jesus and the Holy Ghost probably think you're a dick. Louden: At least wait a little while (there's no telling if he's coming back). Donald "Darko" Bryson: 28 days... six hours... 42 minutes... 12 seconds. That... is when...Jennings will post something funny. Jennings: [something not funny] Whit McRedundantName: Were you gay in December? Andy: Closeted. BJ: A perfect segue into this short biography. Kuswa: I smiled. But not at Jenning's post. Stannard: Is life sacred? I'm sure you people could really provide some answers on this one. -Ravenna Wilson*** From adamhfar Wed May 16 01:35:35 2007 From: adamhfar (Adam Farra) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 02:35:35 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Later Jerry. . . . In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I shudder at the comments of people who defend Falwell because of his contributions to debate. All of you defenders should retract your comments immediately and publicly. "But he supported debate!" sounds like a collectively selfish standard to set. Yes, debate can be used for altruistic ends - but to simply turn cheek when we see someone who throws down cash and support for our activity...that is sad, especially since there are openly gay members of our community (and not openly gay members who are afraid of coming out) who have devoted their lives to this activity - what does your magnanimous support of Falwell say to those people? Does it liken the two? I can't imagine many members of the GLBT-debate community who want to be remembered WITH JERRY FALWELL for their contributions to debate. What are you saying to those people when we say "Eh, Jer-Jer - not so bad. Liked debate. Didn't like Tinky Winky." And for all of those who cite his wonderful "Q & A" sessions - I remember watching a debate between Jerry Falwell and Barney Frank (for all of you who don't know, Frank is the openly gay House Rep.) and when Frank made legitimate arguments about the status of homosexuals in American culture, Falwell's response was always "But you're a pervert!" Thank GOODNESS Barney Frank is such a great debater though, because the reasoning and persuasion deployed in that debate certainly changed Falwell's mind and made him see that there was a legitimate counter-argument to his advocacy of homophobia...oh wait a minute - no it didn't, because Falwell was hurling non- reasonable insults at Frank and calling them "arguments about the moral fiber of America." Maybe it was noble for Falwell to come to a community that disagreed with his opinions, but his homophobia is not something that was "up for debate" - and him putting it out on the table did not enrich our community in any way, shape, or form. I am a proud supporter of switch-side debate, but even I have limitations. I think "torture good" has more merit than "bigotry based in misinformation." I am not and would never smile for his or anyone's death (that would not make me much better than him - as I'm sure he smiled when HIV/ AIDS ravaged and destroyed the lives of the gay men who "probably deserved it"), but we certainly should not be mourning his loss. If we want to debate Falwell - then we can debate what he did in his life and what he did for debate (I think I've made my position clear), but I'd rather stay neutral about the consequences about his death (for those of you who forget what neutrality is - it means being Switzerland: you're not for his death, and you're not against it - it is simply a fact). Finally - I'll add this in to pre-empt the BS response I'm sure I'll get: YES, WE SHOULD DEBATE CONSERVATIVES AND CONSERVATIVES SHOULD HAVE A ROLE IN OUR COMMUNITY. I purposely watch the GOP debates with an open mind because I should be educated about their positions on abortion, stem cells, the war on terror, the separation of church and state, taxes, immigration, even gay marriage, etc. But I am closing the door on some twisted pseudo-religious bigotry. Adam UMichigan On May 16, 2007, at 1:56 AM, Jason Jarvis wrote: > > ......just got the news about the passing of Falwell. I dont like > to revel in the death of anyone. I am sure his family and his > university is grieving. My regrets and condolences to their pain. > > Jerry wasnt a Nazi.....he was just an ignorant bigot with a very > public platform. Ellis may have gone too far......However, it is > impossible to ignore the fairly terrible things he advocated. I > know people who have died of AIDS, I have gay friends and family > members who suffer from the bigotry and ignorance he so > unapologetically espoused. > > He supported debate. Hurrah! However, it was for a political end > that he felt debate helped him to achieve. His Q and A sessions > were a lovely example of non-sequiters and smoke and mirrors > camouflaged as open discussion. > > Religious zealots that mix politics with god are dangerous, whether > its Osama, Jerry Falwell, Ahmadenijad or George Bush. At the end > of the day I feel sorry for his loved ones, but I wont miss him or > his bigotry one iota. > > I cant remember him ever apologizing to my family or loved > ones....dont know why anyone else ought to be apologetic for > feeling the same way I do. > > > Jason L. Jarvis > > _________________________________________________________________ > Like the way Microsoft Office Outlook works? You?ll love Windows > Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en- > us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_outlook_0507 > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070516/57c4059d/attachment.htm From jonathanrkarlin Wed May 16 02:00:54 2007 From: jonathanrkarlin (Jonathan Karlin) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 03:00:54 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Later Jerry. . . . In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d17a11f0705160000n7bbc70bape4022b746cd7cff4@mail.gmail.com> His comments on 9-11... "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" Falwell, pastor of the 22,000-member Thomas Road Baptist Church, viewed the attacks as God's judgment on America for "throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked." We shouldnt be happy died, but he was in fact a "bigot". On 5/16/07, Adam Farra wrote: > I shudder at the comments of people who defend Falwell because of his > contributions to debate. All of you defenders should retract your comments > immediately and publicly. > > "But he supported debate!" sounds like a collectively selfish standard to > set. Yes, debate can be used for altruistic ends - but to simply turn cheek > when we see someone who throws down cash and support for our activity...that > is sad, especially since there are openly gay members of our community (and > not openly gay members who are afraid of coming out) who have devoted their > lives to this activity - what does your magnanimous support of Falwell say > to those people? Does it liken the two? I can't imagine many members of the > GLBT-debate community who want to be remembered WITH JERRY FALWELL for their > contributions to debate. What are you saying to those people when we say > "Eh, Jer-Jer - not so bad. Liked debate. Didn't like Tinky Winky." > > And for all of those who cite his wonderful "Q & A" sessions - I remember > watching a debate between Jerry Falwell and Barney Frank (for all of you who > don't know, Frank is the openly gay House Rep.) and when Frank made > legitimate arguments about the status of homosexuals in American culture, > Falwell's response was always "But you're a pervert!" Thank GOODNESS Barney > Frank is such a great debater though, because the reasoning and persuasion > deployed in that debate certainly changed Falwell's mind and made him see > that there was a legitimate counter-argument to his advocacy of > homophobia...oh wait a minute - no it didn't, because Falwell was hurling > non-reasonable insults at Frank and calling them "arguments about the moral > fiber of America." Maybe it was noble for Falwell to come to a community > that disagreed with his opinions, but his homophobia is not something that > was "up for debate" - and him putting it out on the table did not enrich our > community in any way, shape, or form. I am a proud supporter of switch-side > debate, but even I have limitations. I think "torture good" has more merit > than "bigotry based in misinformation." > > I am not and would never smile for his or anyone's death (that would not > make me much better than him - as I'm sure he smiled when HIV/AIDS ravaged > and destroyed the lives of the gay men who "probably deserved it"), but we > certainly should not be mourning his loss. If we want to debate Falwell - > then we can debate what he did in his life and what he did for debate (I > think I've made my position clear), but I'd rather stay neutral about the > consequences about his death (for those of you who forget what neutrality is > - it means being Switzerland: you're not for his death, and you're not > against it - it is simply a fact). > > Finally - I'll add this in to pre-empt the BS response I'm sure I'll get: > YES, WE SHOULD DEBATE CONSERVATIVES AND CONSERVATIVES SHOULD HAVE A ROLE IN > OUR COMMUNITY. I purposely watch the GOP debates with an open mind because I > should be educated about their positions on abortion, stem cells, the war on > terror, the separation of church and state, taxes, immigration, even gay > marriage, etc. But I am closing the door on some twisted pseudo-religious > bigotry. > > Adam > UMichigan > > > On May 16, 2007, at 1:56 AM, Jason Jarvis wrote: > > > ......just got the news about the passing of Falwell. I dont like to revel > in the death of anyone. I am sure his family and his university is > grieving. My regrets and condolences to their pain. > > Jerry wasnt a Nazi.....he was just an ignorant bigot with a very public > platform. Ellis may have gone too far......However, it is impossible to > ignore the fairly terrible things he advocated. I know people who have died > of AIDS, I have gay friends and family members who suffer from the bigotry > and ignorance he so unapologetically espoused. > > He supported debate. Hurrah! However, it was for a political end that he > felt debate helped him to achieve. His Q and A sessions were a lovely > example of non-sequiters and smoke and mirrors camouflaged as open > discussion. > > Religious zealots that mix politics with god are dangerous, whether its > Osama, Jerry Falwell, Ahmadenijad or George Bush. At the end of the day I > feel sorry for his loved ones, but I wont miss him or his bigotry one iota. > > I cant remember him ever apologizing to my family or loved ones....dont know > why anyone else ought to be apologetic for feeling the same way I do. > > > Jason L. Jarvis > > _________________________________________________________________ > Like the way Microsoft Office Outlook works? You'll love Windows Live > Hotmail. > http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_outlook_0507 > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > From daisy_verney Wed May 16 05:30:58 2007 From: daisy_verney (Danielle Verney) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 06:30:58 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Later Jerry. . . . In-Reply-To: Message-ID: I think the point that many of us were trying to make was that some of Dr. Falwell's students and friends are on edebate, and that it seems unfair to post nasty comments about someone's mentor/friend/boss/pastor to a listserv that you know that they read for professional or extracurricular reasons. I don't think anyone would be pissed at Andy for putting his comments on his MySpace page, or his blog, or writing them down, or saying them out loud. But I think it shows a remarkable lack of sensitivity for people in our community who are grieving to say them in a way that delivers them to Liberty students' and faculty's inboxes. I can tell you for certain that if, less than a day after my death, someone posted to edebate calling me a dictator and accusing me of committing atrocities, my students would be terribly upset by it. Why? Because in a time of grief, they have nasty messages about a friend and mentor being delivered to their inboxes from a community that perhaps they thought might care about them. No one was asking anyone to trumpet Dr. Falwell as a paragon of virtue and humanity, or to say things that they didn't believe...I think all we were asking for was a little sympathy for our friends. If the best way to manifest that sympathy was through silence, that would have been more than enough. The Liberty debaters and staff have never showed anything but kindness to me and to my students. I have only ever seen them be gracious to others in the community, including those with whose politics they vehemently disagree. I had hoped that the community could muster enough kindness and grace to support them in their grief...I guess that was too much to ask. Danielle Verney O'Gorman _________________________________________________________________ Like the way Microsoft Office Outlook works? You?ll love Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_outlook_0507 From alyse.kraus Wed May 16 07:01:05 2007 From: alyse.kraus (Alyse Kraus) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 08:01:05 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Falwell passes (quick post-script) In-Reply-To: References: <9368bc9b0705152127r7e61c201i9a9c27030ddfebb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: And I'm actually going to forward this to the list because I think it's importantly to publicly answer your biggest arg which is "It shouldn't matter what I say". Yesterday I saw the absolute worst side of the debate community on public display. That is the thing that makes me most sad. AK ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alyse Kraus Date: May 16, 2007 7:57 AM Subject: Re: [eDebate] Falwell passes (quick post-script) To: Andy Ellis I would like to think that if someone I disagreed with politically, but that I knew had done a number of good things for others, passed away that I would at least show the class, decency, and tact to keep my mouth shut and not exult in their death. Especially not a few hours after their passing and especially not on a listserv that is read by many students of the school they founded. I like that you are still incapable of offering a true apology. Rather than saying "I am sorry for having said things that are hurtful to others" you say "Why do you care what I think anyhow?" and try to shift the blame back to those you offended. You simply don't get it Andy. Even if it's from someone who I generally think seeks opportunities to create division and conflict within our community whenever possible, it's still depressing to me to see that a few hours after his death was announced someone in the debate community had the gall to jump on a public listserv and celebrate the death of another human being. Regards, Alyse Kraus Catholic University On 5/16/07, Andy Ellis wrote: > > If you where not surprised that i was the one to make the jackass > comment, then why is it hurtful to you, do you care what i think about > falwell on a day when he died? why? Do you care that christopher hitchens > calls him a toad? why? if all you say is true about him then what exactly is > it that i am doing that is taking something away from you....but really, i > dont know your politics and wont make assumptions, but if che gueverra(im > not calling falwell che as far direct dead bodies go, or whatever, more > making revolutionary comparison across political times and spectrums) had > seriously supported debate at say bard, but had also been instrumental in > the banning of religion and faith in this nation would you really only focus > on his debate work? > > On 5/15/07, Alyse Kraus < alyse.kraus at gmail.com> wrote: > > > I would also like to point out that, as a member of a community where we > > frequently hear about programs fading away, being cut, or having to fight > > for funds, so long as Dr. Falwell was around you would never see that > > scenario at Liberty. Also, as a coach at a school where the administration > > has functionally pulled the rug out from under us and ended what was once a > > successful and vibrant program, I can say that I would have been happy to > > have a Dr. Falwell as Chancellor or President. Too often programs need to > > fight for institutional recognition or support. Dr. Falwell broke the mold > > and fought for debate using his substantial institutional power and > > resources. Many administrators with whom you are probably much more > > politically compatible have never done half as much. Remember that the next > > time you make some comment about schools struggling for funds or how debate > > excludes people. Jerry Falwell loved and supported debate and helped build > > a program where ANYONE who wanted to could learn to debate, get great > > coaching, and travel to a large number of tournaments every year. I can't > > help but wish there were more administrators like him - in that world > > Catholic, Alabama, and countless other schools might still have programs. > > > > Alyse Kraus > > Catholic University > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070516/d8ac66b4/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Wed May 16 07:32:55 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 08:32:55 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Falwell passes (quick post-script) In-Reply-To: References: <9368bc9b0705152127r7e61c201i9a9c27030ddfebb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705160532y3b51006eiea19194fa2a90302@mail.gmail.com> Thank you, I appreciate the forwarding of a backchannel, But my apology is sincere, if my actions increased your suffering, or the suffering of others who feel that Rev. Falwell was an important part of the their life, then i apologize...of course there is probably very little i could do to convince you of the sincerity of my apology, but say again, if my words have genuinely contributed or increased your sorrow and suffering then i apologize. On 5/16/07, Alyse Kraus wrote: > > And I'm actually going to forward this to the list because I think it's > importantly to publicly answer your biggest arg which is "It shouldn't > matter what I say". Yesterday I saw the absolute worst side of the debate > community on public display. That is the thing that makes me most sad. > > AK > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Alyse Kraus > Date: May 16, 2007 7:57 AM > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Falwell passes (quick post-script) > To: Andy Ellis > > I would like to think that if someone I disagreed with politically, but > that I knew had done a number of good things for others, passed away that I > would at least show the class, decency, and tact to keep my mouth shut and > not exult in their death. Especially not a few hours after their passing > and especially not on a listserv that is read by many students of the school > they founded. > > I like that you are still incapable of offering a true apology. Rather > than saying "I am sorry for having said things that are hurtful to others" > you say "Why do you care what I think anyhow?" and try to shift the blame > back to those you offended. > > You simply don't get it Andy. Even if it's from someone who I generally > think seeks opportunities to create division and conflict within our > community whenever possible, it's still depressing to me to see that a few > hours after his death was announced someone in the debate community had the > gall to jump on a public listserv and celebrate the death of another human > being. > > Regards, > > Alyse Kraus > Catholic University > > On 5/16/07, Andy Ellis wrote: > > > > If you where not surprised that i was the one to make the jackass > > comment, then why is it hurtful to you, do you care what i think about > > falwell on a day when he died? why? Do you care that christopher hitchens > > calls him a toad? why? if all you say is true about him then what exactly is > > it that i am doing that is taking something away from you....but really, i > > dont know your politics and wont make assumptions, but if che gueverra(im > > not calling falwell che as far direct dead bodies go, or whatever, more > > making revolutionary comparison across political times and spectrums) had > > seriously supported debate at say bard, but had also been instrumental in > > the banning of religion and faith in this nation would you really only focus > > on his debate work? > > > > On 5/15/07, Alyse Kraus < alyse.kraus at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I would also like to point out that, as a member of a community where > > > we frequently hear about programs fading away, being cut, or having to fight > > > for funds, so long as Dr. Falwell was around you would never see that > > > scenario at Liberty. Also, as a coach at a school where the administration > > > has functionally pulled the rug out from under us and ended what was once a > > > successful and vibrant program, I can say that I would have been happy to > > > have a Dr. Falwell as Chancellor or President. Too often programs need to > > > fight for institutional recognition or support. Dr. Falwell broke the mold > > > and fought for debate using his substantial institutional power and > > > resources. Many administrators with whom you are probably much more > > > politically compatible have never done half as much. Remember that the next > > > time you make some comment about schools struggling for funds or how debate > > > excludes people. Jerry Falwell loved and supported debate and helped build > > > a program where ANYONE who wanted to could learn to debate, get great > > > coaching, and travel to a large number of tournaments every year. I can't > > > help but wish there were more administrators like him - in that world > > > Catholic, Alabama, and countless other schools might still have programs. > > > > > > Alyse Kraus > > > Catholic University > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > eDebate mailing list > > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070516/f44084d9/attachment.htm From alyse.kraus Wed May 16 08:29:58 2007 From: alyse.kraus (Alyse Kraus) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 09:29:58 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Fwd: Falwell passes (quick post-script) In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0705160532y3b51006eiea19194fa2a90302@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0705152127r7e61c201i9a9c27030ddfebb@mail.gmail.com> <9368bc9b0705160532y3b51006eiea19194fa2a90302@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Well, I didn't figure you'd mind the forwarding of a backchannel. You seem to have been rather willing to make your comments, however hurtful, in a pretty public fashion. I would like to answer a couple of arguments that other people have made as well. I don't believe I can ever recall Dr. Falwell smiling at the death of anyone. Not doctors who performed abortions, not homosexuals, not people who hated him and everything he stood for. No I don't think he was happy when people died of AIDS nor was he personally responsible for it. It is truly shocking to me to see this response from our community. I do appreciate the many people who, despite vehemently disagreeing with him politically, have offered their condolences. Alyse On 5/16/07, Andy Ellis wrote: > > Thank you, I appreciate the forwarding of a backchannel, > > But my apology is sincere, if my actions increased your suffering, or the > suffering of others who feel that Rev. Falwell was an important part of the > their life, then i apologize...of course there is probably very little i > could do to convince you of the sincerity of my apology, but say again, if > my words have genuinely contributed or increased your sorrow and suffering > then i apologize. > > > On 5/16/07, Alyse Kraus wrote: > > > > And I'm actually going to forward this to the list because I think it's > > importantly to publicly answer your biggest arg which is "It shouldn't > > matter what I say". Yesterday I saw the absolute worst side of the debate > > community on public display. That is the thing that makes me most sad. > > > > AK > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Alyse Kraus < alyse.kraus at gmail.com> > > Date: May 16, 2007 7:57 AM > > Subject: Re: [eDebate] Falwell passes (quick post-script) > > To: Andy Ellis > > > > I would like to think that if someone I disagreed with politically, but > > that I knew had done a number of good things for others, passed away that I > > would at least show the class, decency, and tact to keep my mouth shut and > > not exult in their death. Especially not a few hours after their passing > > and especially not on a listserv that is read by many students of the school > > they founded. > > > > I like that you are still incapable of offering a true apology. Rather > > than saying "I am sorry for having said things that are hurtful to others" > > you say "Why do you care what I think anyhow?" and try to shift the blame > > back to those you offended. > > > > You simply don't get it Andy. Even if it's from someone who I generally > > think seeks opportunities to create division and conflict within our > > community whenever possible, it's still depressing to me to see that a few > > hours after his death was announced someone in the debate community had the > > gall to jump on a public listserv and celebrate the death of another human > > being. > > > > Regards, > > > > Alyse Kraus > > Catholic University > > > > On 5/16/07, Andy Ellis wrote: > > > > > > If you where not surprised that i was the one to make the jackass > > > comment, then why is it hurtful to you, do you care what i think about > > > falwell on a day when he died? why? Do you care that christopher hitchens > > > calls him a toad? why? if all you say is true about him then what exactly is > > > it that i am doing that is taking something away from you....but really, i > > > dont know your politics and wont make assumptions, but if che gueverra(im > > > not calling falwell che as far direct dead bodies go, or whatever, more > > > making revolutionary comparison across political times and spectrums) had > > > seriously supported debate at say bard, but had also been instrumental in > > > the banning of religion and faith in this nation would you really only focus > > > on his debate work? > > > > > > On 5/15/07, Alyse Kraus < alyse.kraus at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I would also like to point out that, as a member of a community > > > > where we frequently hear about programs fading away, being cut, or having to > > > > fight for funds, so long as Dr. Falwell was around you would never see that > > > > scenario at Liberty. Also, as a coach at a school where the administration > > > > has functionally pulled the rug out from under us and ended what was once a > > > > successful and vibrant program, I can say that I would have been happy to > > > > have a Dr. Falwell as Chancellor or President. Too often programs need to > > > > fight for institutional recognition or support. Dr. Falwell broke the mold > > > > and fought for debate using his substantial institutional power and > > > > resources. Many administrators with whom you are probably much more > > > > politically compatible have never done half as much. Remember that the next > > > > time you make some comment about schools struggling for funds or how debate > > > > excludes people. Jerry Falwell loved and supported debate and helped build > > > > a program where ANYONE who wanted to could learn to debate, get great > > > > coaching, and travel to a large number of tournaments every year. I can't > > > > help but wish there were more administrators like him - in that world > > > > Catholic, Alabama, and countless other schools might still have programs. > > > > > > > > Alyse Kraus > > > > Catholic University > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > eDebate mailing list > > > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070516/66631356/attachment.htm From debate.gsu Wed May 16 09:19:25 2007 From: debate.gsu (Dr. Joe Bellon) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 10:19:25 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Need Contact Info for Evidence Handbooks Message-ID: I'm nearing the end of writing a manual for beginning policy debaters (mostly targeted toward HS kids), and would like to include as much information as possible about how to obtain handbooks and other prepared research. I would ideally like web site addresses. Got planetdebate and evazon already. I'd appreciate anything else y'all can send my way. Thanks, Joe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070516/797c1243/attachment.htm From vegam Wed May 16 10:05:32 2007 From: vegam (Vega, Matthew J.) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 10:05:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Jennifer Harris Contact Help Message-ID: <1C1A133246EC8344B22D2FDFF3D341E6044C0F90@KC-MSX4.kc.umkc.edu> I am trying to get a hold of Jennifer Harris of U of L fame. Anyone with a contact number or email, please let me know. Thanks, Matt Vega -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070516/41691a79/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Wed May 16 13:54:47 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 14:54:47 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] uh oh here i go again Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705161154i1bec6fa2p55327649e623adc1@mail.gmail.com> I can not wait for paul wolfiwitz to lose his job. Granted he will do something else and someone else will take his job, i just wish he lost his job because he is a murderous thug instead of some procedural mumbo jumbo... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070516/81460a38/attachment.htm From andreajterry Wed May 16 14:34:47 2007 From: andreajterry (Andrea Terry) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 12:34:47 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] andy ellis Message-ID: <887e11c60705161234q43111b5dpf1efb27dc5288693@mail.gmail.com> I don't often post things here. The posts are often over the top, and that doesn't surprise me. This is the debate community, after all. However, Andy's comments floored me. It is one thing to celebrate a despot's removal from power, but quite another to rejoice at the death of a human being. For all your talk about body counts, Andy, you seem to lack a basic respect for human life. Who are you to qualify whether someone's death should be celebrated? We should always be striving to uphold human dignity, and your post in no way accomplishes this goal. Given the logical jumps you've been making between Falwell's activity in politics and body counts, maybe you should consider that celebrating the death of one person opens the door to doing the same in terms of other individuals, other groups, and, well, you know the story. What kind of moral framework is that? Here is a thought: perhaps we should lament the fact that Falwell died not only because he contributed to the debate community, but also because he passed before recognizing the error of his ways regarding the manner in which he mixed faith and politics. I would think that as a member of the debate community, you would want people to experience knowledge in a way that allows them to change their mind when confronted with information that proves their point of view wrong. But no one is going to want to listen to your point of view if you would rather see them dead than given the opportunity to change because they don't share your political ideology. So Falwell mixed faith and politics. So he did it in a way that runs contrary to actual Christian theology. So you disagree with him. Does that make his life of less worth than yours? I would hope your answer would be an emphatic 'NO', but at this point, I'm afraid to ask. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070516/ff656c2a/attachment.htm From gregg.hartney Wed May 16 14:36:57 2007 From: gregg.hartney (Gregg Hartney) Date: 16 May 2007 14:36:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Blake Johnson & Conor Cleary Message-ID: <3262171016gregg.hartney@jenksps.org> I know it is fashionable to hack, slash & cut the celebrated debaters on "the list", but I'll leave that to others. I just want to publicly say "Thank you" to two exceptional people, the top team from the University of Oklahoma. These two guys "adopted" my top CXers 2 & 1/2 years ago and were singularly responsible for the TOC bid (the first one for our school in 23 years!) that they earned. They were patient, they were dedicated, and they were professional, and they did it all without ANY pay. So maybe they don't have much of a future in a capitalistic society, but they certainly know the meaning of "give back to the activity." OK, if I believe everyone else, they are sexual deviants with dangerous political leanings, but for my money, they are amazing guys. I thank them form the bottom of my heart. Gregg Hartney Jenks HS (Oklahoma) Debate From sethellsworth Wed May 16 14:46:33 2007 From: sethellsworth (Seth T. Ellsworth) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 13:46:33 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Andy Ellis Message-ID: <412d08cb0705161246h773c5c9an39a0af9e50829059@mail.gmail.com> You for once have made me really mad. Now I must post on edebate to tell the community that I am mad, or else they might not know how mad I am. Also, if I post then it means that I will have gotten a word in. Additionally, maybe if I post my anger, you, Andy Ellis, might finally shut up. Because while I don't post often, I do when I am angry, and maybe you will now know how angry I am. Sincerely, Pinto Also Joe Carver owes me money still. And that one isn't a halfhearted joke. Its like $150 dollars for some handbook work that he never paid me for. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070516/389ede71/attachment.htm From sethellsworth Wed May 16 15:00:59 2007 From: sethellsworth (Seth T. Ellsworth) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 14:00:59 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Andy Ellis Pt 2 Message-ID: <412d08cb0705161300t4ef9b1b5qcf748440cbd2cca1@mail.gmail.com> Oh, and for reference, my post was about Paul Wolfowitz. I don't follow edebate much. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070516/0a7dcc42/attachment.htm From spowers Wed May 16 15:29:52 2007 From: spowers (Shawn Powers) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 13:29:52 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #9: Alex Q Iftimie Message-ID: MESSAGE REMOVED From kevinr33 Wed May 16 15:56:59 2007 From: kevinr33 (Kevin Rabinowitz) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 16:56:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [eDebate] Looking for roomate in NYC Message-ID: <20070516165659.CRB08945@punts1.cc.uga.edu> Yo, I figured I could sneak this in under all of the Falwell complaints. I?m moving to take a job in New York City in the next few months and looking for a roommate that is interested in finding a place in Manhattan (preferably to move in July 1). If anyone is interested or knows someone that might be, please shoot me an e-mail. Thanks, Kevin From stannardmatt Wed May 16 18:45:40 2007 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 17:45:40 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] andy ellis Message-ID: So what, precisely, WOULD make someone's life worth less than Andy's? Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 12:34:47 -0700From: andreajterry at gmail.comTo: edebate at www.ndtceda.comSubject: Re: [eDebate] andy ellis I don't often post things here. The posts are often over the top, and that doesn't surprise me. This is the debate community, after all. However, Andy's comments floored me. It is one thing to celebrate a despot's removal from power, but quite another to rejoice at the death of a human being. For all your talk about body counts, Andy, you seem to lack a basic respect for human life. Who are you to qualify whether someone's death should be celebrated? We should always be striving to uphold human dignity, and your post in no way accomplishes this goal. Given the logical jumps you've been making between Falwell's activity in politics and body counts, maybe you should consider that celebrating the death of one person opens the door to doing the same in terms of other individuals, other groups, and, well, you know the story. What kind of moral framework is that? Here is a thought: perhaps we should lament the fact that Falwell died not only because he contributed to the debate community, but also because he passed before recognizing the error of his ways regarding the manner in which he mixed faith and politics. I would think that as a member of the debate community, you would want people to experience knowledge in a way that allows them to change their mind when confronted with information that proves their point of view wrong. But no one is going to want to listen to your point of view if you would rather see them dead than given the opportunity to change because they don't share your political ideology. So Falwell mixed faith and politics. So he did it in a way that runs contrary to actual Christian theology. So you disagree with him. Does that make his life of less worth than yours? I would hope your answer would be an emphatic 'NO', but at this point, I'm afraid to ask. _________________________________________________________________ Add some color. Personalize your inbox with your favorite colors. www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/personalize.html?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_addcolor_0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070516/cedfba62/attachment.htm From kade.olsen Wed May 16 22:35:46 2007 From: kade.olsen (Kade Olsen) Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 20:35:46 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] DCA Debater #2: Kathryn Clark Message-ID: <38c34f90705162035if424476x16e0e508c5e446db@mail.gmail.com> MESSAGE REMOVED From stables Thu May 17 05:44:00 2007 From: stables (Gordon Stables) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 03:44:00 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Topic Selection Committee Agenda, Schedule and Procedure Message-ID: <011401c79870$47ca7c40$0502a8c0@stables> The CEDA Topic Selection meetings are almost here so I wanted to share our documents and a rough plan for the topic meetings. I am pasting in below my long blog post which has a schedule, agenda, and procedures. If you use the linked version at the blog.cedatopic.com link or directly at http://blog.cedatopic.com/2007/05/17/2007-ceda-topic-selection-committee-mee ting-agenda-schedule-and-procedure.aspx you will see a full linked copy of our reports (and likely a cleaner format for this document). As more items become available I will be adding them to the blog. 2007 CEDA Topic Selection Committee Meeting Agenda, Schedule, and Procedure Current Committee: Gordon Stables, Chair & CEDA EC Rep Darren Elliott, CEDA EC Rep Ryan Galloway, At-Large Rep Steve Mancuso, NDT Rep Candice Moore, Student Rep Joe Patrice, CEDA EC Rep Sue Peterson, At-Large Rep Greta Stahl, At-Large Rep Kelly Young, ADA Rep The Topic Selection Committee will meet according to the following schedule. All sessions are being held at James Madison University and open to the public. The sessions will be webcast (link forthcoming) and the community may leave input on the blog at www.blog.cedatopic.com Please use this site as a way to keep feedback organized during the meetings. This schedule and agenda are the defaults unless adjusted by the committee. The committee may adjust the schedule to meet for longer in a session, but the committee must adjourn no later than 3 pm on Wednesday 5/23. Schedule Monday - May 21 Morning Session CEDA Business Meetings Afternoon session (1 - 5 pm) Topic Selection Committee Tuesday - May 22 Morning Session (9:30 am - noon) Topic Selection Committee Afternoon Session (1:15 pm - 5:00 pm) Topic Selection Committee Wednesday - May 23 Morning Session (9:30 am - noon) Topic Selection Committee Afternoon Session (1:15 pm - 3:00 pm) Topic Selection Committee Agenda I. Commissioning of Problem Areas for 07-08 Controversy Papers Goal: The basic task of the committee is to commission a set of controversy papers for the next topic cycle. These items should reflect potential areas of promising debate and are only intended to provide a minimum number of options for the next topic cycle. A. New Items (New papers needed) 1. Global Infectious Disease a. Potentially international actor 2. Education a. Colleges and universities (admissions, athletics, funding) b. Primary education (access, funding, curriculum) 3. Domestic Aspects of Globalization a. Labor laws b. Environmental regulations c. Zoning laws 4. Urban Policy a. Transportation b. Housing c. Education 5. Others _____________________ B. Controversies from Last Year (Revisions, updating, etc.) Latin America Genetic Engineering US Weapons Posture/Doctrine Military Reforms Genocide II. Developing Resolutions to Engage the Middle East A. Procedural Notes 1. The constitutionally mandated task: ... the committee will report to the Executive Secretary no fewer than three resolutions corresponding to the winning topic area. The resolutions should be phrased so as to affirm the value of future and specific governmental change, and suggesting a broad but predictable array of potential affirmative plans. 2. The Role of The Controversy Paper: The wording that appeared on the first ballot, "Should the US increase constructive engagement in the Middle East?" functions as the parameters for the committee's work in wording a specific topic. This does not mean that these words are locked into a topic, but rather that the following controversies will serve as guiding precedents for our work. The basic topic concept and direction are the types of information you should regard as fixed in this controversy. 3. The procedure for developing the resolutions: The topic selection committee and volunteers were divided into four sub-committees to examine sections of the topic. Each committee will present their findings and consider relevant terms in their area of research. As the committee considers each section of the topic research versions of potential wordings will be developed. This will be a gradual process as the specific controversies are discussed. For a specific resolution to appear on the ballot presented to the Executive Secretary it must be approved by a majority of the committee (There are nine members of the committee). The slate of resolutions approved by the committee at the adjournment of the meeting will be submitted to the executive secretary. B. Elements of a Constructive Engagement to the Middle East Topic 1. Constructive Engagement A. Discussion led by Stables, Elliott, Barnes B. Recommendation (linked) of including the term Constructive Engagement - Stables C. Literature review (linked) of the term Constructive Engagement - Barnes 2. Security Guarantees A. Discussion led by Stahl, Young, Maffie, Watson (All of the following reports are linked in single security document) B. "Security Guarantee" Report-Watson C. "Confidence-Building Measures" report-Young D. "Military Assistance/Mil-to-Mil Cooperation" report-Stahl E. "Security Assistance" report-Stahl F. "Military Commitments" report-Maffie 3. Economic Assistance A. Discussion led by - Galloway, Patrice, Moore, (with thanks to Ed Lee) B. Specific recommendation of use of term 'foreign assistance' 4. Specific Countries A. Discussion led Mancuso, Peterson, Davis, (with thanks to Julian Gagnon) (Specific discussion of countries using the tiers suggested by the controversy paper. The initial recommendations from that paper are in parenthesis.) B. Group One: (Recommended in favor of inclusion) Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and Syria. C. Group Two: (Recommended against inclusion) Egypt, Iraq and Israel. D. Group Three: (No recommendation in original paper) Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Gordon Chair - CEDA Topic Selection Committee 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 10154 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070517/355f8ff3/attachment.bin From tabloidscully Thu May 17 09:19:15 2007 From: tabloidscully (Ashley Michelle Papon) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 07:19:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Later Jerry. . . . In-Reply-To: <5d17a11f0705160000n7bbc70bape4022b746cd7cff4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <246821.90379.qm@web51808.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I think Adam had so many good points, I hope they are not ignored in the fanfare of heated discussion. But I want to go just beyond the schisms created within the gay debate community. Jerry Falwell alienated a lot of people. It's interesting to me, for example, he is called a "friend of debate," a platform that has helped advance the Women's Movement (especially this year, with so many amazing women being honored at both the NDT and CEDA such as Jessica Yeats, Raveena Wilson and Brenda Montes) and yet many of the most profound feminists within the community have remained silent. Coincidentally, feminists were routinely a favored target of Falwell as an example of America's moral decay. Additionally, telling me that I (and the rest of the community) should ignore his actions and only focus on his philanthropy to debate in order to prove my gratitude for what the activity has brought to me personally, to utilize an over-thrown kritik term, is like trying to shape my discourse. It's fundamentally the same thing as a rape survivor saying how much they hate their abuser, and another individual telling them to ignore the rape and instead focus on the good they did in the world. Or telling a family member of one of the funerals that Fred Phelps has picketed that Fred should be appreciated because of the accomplished civil rights attorney he used to be and the lives he changed during those days. It completely invalidates a dissenting opinion and shames the individual for looking--rightfully so--at the bad. Let's be honest: 1. Jerry Falwell never did a damn thing for me, as a woman or as a member of the debate community. In fact, his rhetoric and politics made my existence that much more difficult. Is there really anyone who would argue that being a woman in this community isn't difficult enough already without someone as influential as the deceased arguing we have a share in what happened on 9/11? 2. Is it "bad manners" to discuss him in such a light immediately following his passing? Unquestionably. But in an activity where we pride ourselves on intellectual prowess, why are we allowing any of our minds to be side-tracked by such an arbitrary standard? Unfortunately, Andy already to open that can of worms, and I notice for everybody who has said, "This is such bad manners to discuss right now!" they have likewise engaged in a refutation. That makes us all guilty, and rude, but at least we're discussing. As such an advocate for debate, I can't help but think Dr. Falwell would appreciate this. Also, where was the mourning period for Saddam Hussein's friends and family? Can all of you honestly say on the day of his execution, you exercised such polite caution? 3. Unlike Andy, I don't believe we should reject Dr. Falwell in his entirety. I do not believe we can consider ourselves fair or balanced individuals if we neglect mentioning his success or his own exclusionary politics. This means in addition to acknowledging what he did for Liberty, we recognize what he didn't do for everyone else in the community, the gays, the Feminists, the pro-choice, the genderqueer, the Pagans, the Wiccans, the Pastafarians, the supports of Separation of Church and State, and anyone else who didn't fit into his interpretation of an American. And not only do we recognize it, we figure out a way to bring about an end to such intolerance, to not let it impact our community or spread beyond. --- Jonathan Karlin wrote: > His comments on 9-11... > > "I really believe that the pagans, and the > abortionists, and the > feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are > actively trying to > make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People > For the American > Way, all of them who have tried to secularize > America. I point the > finger in their face and say 'you helped this > happen.'" > > Falwell, pastor of the 22,000-member Thomas Road > Baptist Church, > viewed the attacks as God's judgment on America for > "throwing God out > of the public square, out of the schools. The > abortionists have got to > bear some burden for this because God will not be > mocked." > > We shouldnt be happy died, but he was in fact a > "bigot". > > On 5/16/07, Adam Farra wrote: > > I shudder at the comments of people who defend > Falwell because of his > > contributions to debate. All of you defenders > should retract your comments > > immediately and publicly. > > > > "But he supported debate!" sounds like a > collectively selfish standard to > > set. Yes, debate can be used for altruistic ends - > but to simply turn cheek > > when we see someone who throws down cash and > support for our activity...that > > is sad, especially since there are openly gay > members of our community (and > > not openly gay members who are afraid of coming > out) who have devoted their > > lives to this activity - what does your > magnanimous support of Falwell say > > to those people? Does it liken the two? I can't > imagine many members of the > > GLBT-debate community who want to be remembered > WITH JERRY FALWELL for their > > contributions to debate. What are you saying to > those people when we say > > "Eh, Jer-Jer - not so bad. Liked debate. Didn't > like Tinky Winky." > > > > And for all of those who cite his wonderful "Q & > A" sessions - I remember > > watching a debate between Jerry Falwell and Barney > Frank (for all of you who > > don't know, Frank is the openly gay House Rep.) > and when Frank made > > legitimate arguments about the status of > homosexuals in American culture, > > Falwell's response was always "But you're a > pervert!" Thank GOODNESS Barney > > Frank is such a great debater though, because the > reasoning and persuasion > > deployed in that debate certainly changed > Falwell's mind and made him see > > that there was a legitimate counter-argument to > his advocacy of > > homophobia...oh wait a minute - no it didn't, > because Falwell was hurling > > non-reasonable insults at Frank and calling them > "arguments about the moral > > fiber of America." Maybe it was noble for Falwell > to come to a community > > that disagreed with his opinions, but his > homophobia is not something that > > was "up for debate" - and him putting it out on > the table did not enrich our > > community in any way, shape, or form. I am a proud > supporter of switch-side > > debate, but even I have limitations. I think > "torture good" has more merit > > than "bigotry based in misinformation." > > > > I am not and would never smile for his or anyone's > death (that would not > > make me much better than him - as I'm sure he > smiled when HIV/AIDS ravaged > > and destroyed the lives of the gay men who > "probably deserved it"), but we > > certainly should not be mourning his loss. If we > want to debate Falwell - > > then we can debate what he did in his life and > what he did for debate (I > > think I've made my position clear), but I'd rather > stay neutral about the > > consequences about his death (for those of you who > forget what neutrality is > > - it means being Switzerland: you're not for his > death, and you're not > > against it - it is simply a fact). > > > > Finally - I'll add this in to pre-empt the BS > response I'm sure I'll get: > > YES, WE SHOULD DEBATE CONSERVATIVES AND > CONSERVATIVES SHOULD HAVE A ROLE IN > > OUR COMMUNITY. I purposely watch the GOP debates > with an open mind because I > > should be educated about their positions on > abortion, stem cells, the war on > > terror, the separation of church and state, taxes, > immigration, even gay > > marriage, etc. But I am closing the door on some > twisted pseudo-religious > > bigotry. > > > > Adam > > UMichigan > > > > > > On May 16, 2007, at 1:56 AM, Jason Jarvis wrote: > > > > > > ......just got the news about the passing of > Falwell. I dont like to revel > > in the death of anyone. I am sure his family and > his university is > > grieving. My regrets and condolences to their > pain. > > > > Jerry wasnt a Nazi.....he was just an ignorant > bigot with a very public > > platform. Ellis may have gone too > far......However, it is impossible to > > ignore the fairly terrible things he advocated. I > know people who have died > > of AIDS, I have gay friends and family members who > suffer from the bigotry > > and ignorance he so unapologetically espoused. > > > > He supported debate. Hurrah! However, it was for > a political end that he > > felt debate helped him to achieve. His Q and A > sessions were a lovely > > example of non-sequiters and smoke and mirrors > camouflaged as open > > discussion. > > > > Religious zealots that mix politics with god are > dangerous, whether its > > Osama, Jerry Falwell, Ahmadenijad or George Bush. > At the end of the day I > > feel sorry for his loved ones, but I wont miss him > or his bigotry one iota. > > > > I cant remember him ever apologizing to my family > or loved ones....dont know > > why anyone else ought to be apologetic for feeling > the same way I do. > > > > > > Jason L. Jarvis > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Like the way Microsoft Office Outlook works? > You'll love Windows Live > > Hotmail. > > > http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_outlook_0507 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > "You save yourself or you remain unsaved." -Alice Sebold, Lucky. ____________________________________________________________________________________Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/ From EricMorris Thu May 17 10:03:31 2007 From: EricMorris (Morris, Eric R) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 10:03:31 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Later Jerry. . . . In-Reply-To: <246821.90379.qm@web51808.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899E300AF2@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> Ashley has a number of good points as well, and a lot of my reactions are not about her central thesis, but instead the snippets included below my message. 1. I cringe when people are called out for their silence, particularly by name. Several people involved in college debate consider this forum dysfunctional and do not spend their limited time here. I don't think we should expect them either to monitor it closely, nor to speak in this forum anytime they disagree (particularly if they don't feel that challenging Andy - for example - on each point of difference is productive). When making this argument, I encourage people to think about all the places they are silent - all the online discussions they also ignore or avoid due to lack of time, knowledge, interest, etc. 2. I cringe (a bit less, though) when people make general statements about the community. While there may be many in college debate that feel a certain way, we really don't know each other that well. Think about how many judges get lower MPJ ratings because we don't know them well, or how many people on a tournament invite list you don't know at all. Many of the rest we only know very selectively (which is not always a bad thing - it's great to meet a new person and be able to bond about why consultation CP's are bad). The knowledge that we have of the "community" is either based on a skewed sample or based on the notion that some people count more than others (perhaps because they post frequently, etc.) 3. I have sympathy for both the view that speaking ill of the deceased violates a useful social norm, and also that remembering the negative is useful. Sympathy for Falwell's humanity need not further his political agenda, and neither his death not post-death bashing are sufficient to counter it. I think that negative remembrances which pay appropriate homage to someone's humanity while disagreeing about their legacy are more effective at persuading people than those which fail to respect the virtue of the unshared thought. 4. While Falwell was a public figure, making discussion of his public status appropriate, he was also personally significant to many who read the listserv. I would be entirely unimpressed if people used the forum to bash people who were personally significant to me and have died, but nobody does because those people were not public figures. 5. I'm not a fan of Falwell's agenda - at all - but I think the general norm of viewing the decreased as people (not merely political ogres) is an important constraint on the power to hunt and kill. A society that embraced that norm more fully, instead of selectively contracting it, might be a better society to live in. It has been interesting, though, to read posts that defend other perspectives - discussions about WHY a certain attitude toward the deceased is important are rare. Ermo -----Original Message----- From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of Ashley Michelle Papon Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 9:19 AM To: Jonathan Karlin; EDebate; Adam Farra Subject: Re: [eDebate] Later Jerry. . . . I think Adam had so many good points, I hope they are not ignored in the fanfare of heated discussion. But I want to go just beyond the schisms created within the gay debate community. Jerry Falwell alienated a lot of people. It's interesting to me, for example, he is called a "friend of debate," a platform that has helped advance the Women's Movement (especially this year, with so many amazing women being honored at both the NDT and CEDA such as Jessica Yeats, Raveena Wilson and Brenda Montes) and yet many of the most profound feminists within the community have remained silent. Coincidentally, feminists were routinely a favored target of Falwell as an example of America's moral decay. Additionally, telling me that I (and the rest of the community) should ignore his actions and only focus on his philanthropy to debate in order to prove my gratitude for what the activity has brought to me personally, to utilize an over-thrown kritik term, is like trying to shape my discourse. It's fundamentally the same thing as a rape survivor saying how much they hate their abuser, and another individual telling them to ignore the rape and instead focus on the good they did in the world. Or telling a family member of one of the funerals that Fred Phelps has picketed that Fred should be appreciated because of the accomplished civil rights attorney he used to be and the lives he changed during those days. It completely invalidates a dissenting opinion and shames the individual for looking--rightfully so--at the bad. From ddgfxh Thu May 17 10:10:23 2007 From: ddgfxh (Dan Davis) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 08:10:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Any camp openings available? Message-ID: <450135.91583.qm@web58011.mail.re3.yahoo.com> If so, I'm interested. I am a h.s. program director in metro Atlanta and have extensive coaching and teaching experience. I also coached the CEDA champs and NDT quarterfinalists on the college Africa topic in 2000-2001. Here's some more self-promotion if that kind of thing appeals to you: 2nd place, 1996 Kentucky RR Semis, 1996 Harvard Quarters, 1996 Wake Winner, 1996 Univ. of S. California Top Speaker, 3rd place, 1997 Dartmouth RR Finalist, 1997 NDT Coach, 2001 CEDA National Champs Coach, 2001 NDT quarterfinalists Coach, 2002 NDT semifinalists Instructor, DDI 1997-2002 Instructor, Fellows 1998-1999 Instructor, Michigan 2003-2006 Thanks for your consideration! --------------------------------- Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070517/b0efc152/attachment.htm From alyse.kraus Thu May 17 10:15:59 2007 From: alyse.kraus (Alyse Kraus) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:15:59 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Later Jerry. . re:Papon Message-ID: I just wanted to add my last thoughts to this discussion because I think this post poses a number of interesting questions and reveals a lot of misconceptions about the discussion that has been taking place on edebate. I think this post shows a huge misunderstanding of what people like Danielle, myself, and others who wrote in to criticize the Falwell-bashing were attempting to say. I re-read the posts and I don't see anyone that is saying "You who disagree with Falwell should suddenly ignore those things you disagreed with just because he did good things for debate." The reason I personally pointed out the good things he did for debate was two-fold. First, to add my personal memories of my experience with him to an overwhelmingly negative perception of the man in the debate community. There may have been people who never knew the many different ways he supported debate. I think it's at least important for people to have all of the facts. Secondly, I think it's important for people to realize that there are those in the debate community who Dr. Falwell personally affected in a positive way. Knowing that, it might be a good idea not to call him a bigoted, despotic fascist who rejoices in the death of homosexuals and feminists. For one thing, that's not really true, and for another, it's only hurtful to the Liberty students, alums, and friends of the program who happen to receive these messages in their inboxes at an already difficult time. He may never have done a damn thing for you. But he did a great many things for me, Melissa Hurter, Heather Hall, and a number of other women associated with Liberty Debate. There isn't one homogeneous group of "women debaters" who all have the same experience. During my time at Liberty we had more women than men on the team every year except for one. The top four novice debaters my sophomore year were women. Those four women closed out novice finals of ADA Nats (a tournament they would not have been able to attend if Dr. Falwell hadn't donated his own money to supplement the squad's budget). My junior year, of the four varsity teams we traveled nationally, each team had at least one woman on it and one of those four teams was composed of two women. Countless women debaters got to learn debate, travel to a lot of tournaments, compete nationally, and attend the NDT because of the team at Liberty which was only possible because of the extremely dedicated support of Dr. Falwell. He also made sure that Liberty was able to host the LU tournament and most recently ADA Nationals, two tournaments that were an important part of regional ADA debate which is perhaps one of the best areas in the country for women to debate (not to knock any other district but I have always noticed that the representation of women in debate and elims and speaker awards in the ADA is pretty amazing). As for the bad manners thing: yes, I think it's bad manners to say horrible things about him only a few hours after his passing on a public listserv which Liberty students subscribe to and, no, I don't think it's equally bad manners to attempt to defend him by saying "Well, he affected my life in some positive ways." Usually after a death positive reflection is common. Finally, to the people who say "As an advocate of debate Dr. Falwell would appreciate this 'debate'," I think that maybe you're missing the point. I don't think he would appreciate the insinuation that he rejoiced at the death of homosexuals or feminists or others he disagreed with. Dr. Falwell was friends with a number of people whose lifestyles he disagreed with (i.e. Larry Flynt whom he became friends with after the Supreme Court trial http://cbs5.com/topstories/local_story_135185122.html). He could often times look past his disagreement with someone and see the good in them. He still disagreed with them, but he could recognize the positive. But most importantly, whether or not Dr. Falwell would have appreciated it, I think it's obvious that many left behind who read this list do not appreciate it. And respect for those people should have been enough to prevent some of the things that were said so soon after his death. Hopefully, this discussion can be something that everyone can take something from and learn from. If not, well, in the words of Ron Burgundy, "Agree to disagree." Alyse Kraus Catholic University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070517/b32d3caf/attachment.htm From vikeenan Thu May 17 10:25:52 2007 From: vikeenan (V I Keenan) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:25:52 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] ah, Jerry . . . Message-ID: one quote keeps running through my head for this discussion: "The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones; So let it be with Caesar." - Marc Antony* Act III, Sc. 2, The Tragedy of Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare (1599) Some things don't change - give it 400 to 2000 years, and commenting on the death of controversial public figures doesn't get easier to the mob . . . ------ *But as a note: in that quote Antony was being ironic in his depiction of Caesar to sway the crowd to defend him (the whole oration is a classic example of argument, rhetoric, and persuasion: "Friends, Romans, Countrymen. . . The noble Brutus hath told you Caesar was ambitious . . . And Brutus is an Honourable man"). So perhaps its even more appropriate for a man who understood the power of debate as a tool of politics ... the real question is always the irony of "honourable men", because Caesar was in fact ambitious and guilty of the accusations, and Brutus was in fact honorable, but Brutus' ACTION/RESPONSE was not . . . which is why there is always a question if Brutus was or was not the "hero" in the play. --------------------- yes, this is lit-geeky, but it was either this or comparison of the death of the William Jennings Bryan (Matthew Harrison Brady) figure in Inherit the Wind and the eulogizing over him by the Clarence Darrow (Henry Drummond) figure at the end of the play. In that case, Andy would be Mencken (Hornbeck) - the skeptical reporter. I can just quote the Bard better off the top of my head . . . -VIK (neo-pagan-prochoice-feminist-ally-former(secular)NYC public school teacher-who pretty much likes/respects Liberty debaters) -- Vik Keenan Director - Baruch Debate, CUNY Assoc. Director - New York Coalition of Colleges 212/992-9641 or 347/683-6894 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070517/742a43df/attachment.htm From kenrjohnson Thu May 17 11:14:57 2007 From: kenrjohnson (Ken Johnson) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 10:14:57 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] University of Rochester Job Announcement Message-ID: I got the go ahead from the dean, so here is our official job announcement: The University of Rochester Debate Union is seeking to hire two assistant coaches for the 2007-08. The appointment will begin September 1st and run through May 2008. The modest salary will also include university health benefits. There are no teaching responsibilities with this job, only debate coaching. If you are interested in working with one of the largest policy debate programs in the country, please send me an email with your resume and references. Thanks, Ken Johnson Director of Forensics University of Rochester -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070517/b2129f61/attachment.htm From kenrjohnson Thu May 17 11:15:29 2007 From: kenrjohnson (Ken Johnson) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 10:15:29 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] seeking ADI contact for group payment quesitons Message-ID: please send me an email. thanks, ken rochester -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070517/d397d9df/attachment.htm From jtedebate Thu May 17 11:27:56 2007 From: jtedebate (J T) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 09:27:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Falwell and social norms Message-ID: <903846.57439.qm@web30006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Frankly I'm a little tired of Jerry Falwell discussions in my inbox. Not because Jerry was a devil or a saint (devil), but because people who were offended by negative comments directed at someone just passed. Frankly, I just don't care about Jerry Falwell. I'll remember him fondly as the person in charge of the Moral Majority after Jim Bakker...Jerry's ineptitude drove this right-wing oppressive organization in to bankrupcy. Sweet. Fetishizing the dead: what does it mean to "show respect" for someone who has just passed? does it mean those who vehemently hated Falwell should be silent? how about those of us who just generally had a critical view of him? or is it anything negative? when can we openly express perspectives on his hypocrisy (like rumors of him and Bill O'Reilly sharing a prostitute last September at a Religious convention)... Or how about criticizing how he blamed gay people for AIDS? Some gay activist groups in San Francisco held an "anti-memorial" where they spoke out against his homophobia. Can they post on edebate?What about his denial of a woman's right to choose? What about watching Teletubbies? He was a public figure--not unlike Bush. How many people have bashed our Commander in Chief on edebate? There are die-hard bush supporters that must have been offended...so is someone passing away the difference...? (for the record, Bush is an evil SOB that deserves to be subject to a very public hanging!) Falwell was an influential person in America and his views have helped shape the social and political landscape of the country over the last few decades (but let's not give him too much credit). But the man preached hate and intolerance. Why does he deserve an ounce of respect? Because some people respected him and they look at edebate? In thinking about what type of "community" we want to be (what an illusion), do we want to call out evil people for being evil the same way we praise "saints" for their good work in our community? If people don't feel comfortable expressing negative the ideas people throw around on edebate about "community" are a farce! Yes we should probably all try to be enlightened and altruistic--seriously, the world would be a better place. I'm not sure "community" policing what people say about a public figure, in a public forum, is productive toward that end or an open society. Look, I don't think people should (but their deceision) just say whatever gross or repugnant thing they want on the list. I think people should generally be respectful at all times. However, for me, talking trash about Falwell doesn't compare to things like racist or sexist language and what they say about our so-called "community". Try expressing an honest opinion on edebate without offending at least someone--GOOD LUCK! JT Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University --------------------------------- Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070517/1133265e/attachment.htm From joepatrice Thu May 17 11:31:59 2007 From: joepatrice (Joe Patrice) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 12:31:59 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Summer Meeting Draft Agenda Message-ID: Here is a draft agenda of the Summer Meeting. This year I have reorganized the meeting so discussion of reports, old and new business can take place in thematic blocks rather than being spaced out over the course of the weekend. Joe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070517/a6095c84/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Agenda.doc Type: application/msword Size: 331776 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070517/a6095c84/attachment-0001.doc From berchnorto Thu May 17 11:38:34 2007 From: berchnorto (NEIL BERCH) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 12:38:34 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell and social norms References: <903846.57439.qm@web30006.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I'm not going to get into the substance of the discussion at all, except: 1. JT's memory of Falwell is somewhat incorrect. Jim Bakker had nothing to do with the Moral Majority. Falwell took over Bakker's failing PTI ministry (a huge televangelist enterprise) after Bakker's sex scandal. Falwell was unable to rescue the finances of PTI and resigned a short while later. The Moral Majority, however, was a Falwell creation, long before the takeover of PTI. This was an explicitly political enterprise. Falwell disbanded it in 1989, claiming that it had accomplished its goals. Some said it was because donations were down sharply. Many attributed that to the right-wing success of the Reagan years. 2. I'm someone who has often been critical of the Liberty debate program, but I've noted in the past (and it's worthy of note again) that Liberty has generally done a much better job with respect to gender equity than many "more liberal" debate programs. Not perfect, but none of us are. --Neil Berch West Virginia University ----- Original Message ----- From: J T To: edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:27 PM Subject: [eDebate] Falwell and social norms Frankly I'm a little tired of Jerry Falwell discussions in my inbox. Not because Jerry was a devil or a saint (devil), but because people who were offended by negative comments directed at someone just passed. Frankly, I just don't care about Jerry Falwell. I'll remember him fondly as the person in charge of the Moral Majority after Jim Bakker...Jerry's ineptitude drove this right-wing oppressive organization in to bankrupcy. Sweet. Fetishizing the dead: what does it mean to "show respect" for someone who has just passed? does it mean those who vehemently hated Falwell should be silent? how about those of us who just generally had a critical view of him? or is it anything negative? when can we openly express perspectives on his hypocrisy (like rumors of him and Bill O'Reilly sharing a prostitute last September at a Religious convention)... Or how about criticizing how he blamed gay people for AIDS? Some gay activist groups in San Francisco held an "anti-memorial" where they spoke out against his homophobia. Can they post on edebate?What about his denial of a woman's right to choose? What about watching Teletubbies? He was a public figure--not unlike Bush. How many people have bashed our Commander in Chief on edebate? There are die-hard bush supporters that must have been offended...so is someone passing away the difference...? (for the record, Bush is an evil SOB that deserves to be subject to a very public hanging!) Falwell was an influential person in America and his views have helped shape the social and political landscape of the country over the last few decades (but let's not give him too much credit). But the man preached hate and intolerance. Why does he deserve an ounce of respect? Because some people respected him and they look at edebate? In thinking about what type of "community" we want to be (what an illusion), do we want to call out evil people for being evil the same way we praise "saints" for their good work in our community? If people don't feel comfortable expressing negative the ideas people throw around on edebate about "community" are a farce! Yes we should probably all try to be enlightened and altruistic--seriously, the world would be a better place. I'm not sure "community" policing what people say about a public figure, in a public forum, is productive toward that end or an open society. Look, I don't think people should (but their deceision) just say whatever gross or repugnant thing they want on the list. I think people should generally be respectful at all times. However, for me, talking trash about Falwell doesn't compare to things like racist or sexist language and what they say about our so-called "community". Try expressing an honest opinion on edebate without offending at least someone--GOOD LUCK! JT Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070517/6b65ddd7/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Thu May 17 14:43:12 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 15:43:12 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] And now for something completely different... Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705171243y587c88fbs557cc2f45814083e@mail.gmail.com> Today at 4:30 I will be discussing the BUDL HS-MS Apprenticeship program with several students in the program, and Julia Burke Award Winner, and Apprentice Program Coordinater Shawntia Diggs. This program is really cool, and worth hearing about, we would love to have some listeners and some questions for those involved. You can listen at http://blogtalkradio.com/bmoredb8 Call in questions at 646) 478-4876 or Aim at REDFOXFILES thanks -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070517/6d989fcb/attachment.htm From hansonjb Thu May 17 17:47:56 2007 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 15:47:56 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] re my study (survey you probably took) Message-ID: <61E7668233064E87BF5EEE551F0AD1A3@whitman.edu> this past winter, I asked people to fill out a survey. I want to thank everyone that participated and it was a lot--489 people responded. unfortunately, none of the hypotheses I was testing turned out to be true. my main hypothesis was that policy debaters were overwhelmingly first born or only children. turns out that wasn't true. about 59% of debaters are first born or only children; that is more than the 53% of americans who are first born or only children but not anything dramatic. on our squad, for the past ten years, first borns have made up the vast majority of our policy debaters who have competed for at least a year (loosely around 95%); most of the few exceptions have been students with a 4 year gap from their older sibling (which, the "birth order" literature--kind of a suspect area of research--says is "significant") or whose older sibling(s) were debaters. anyway, I thought I would share the results even if they weren't what I thought they might be. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070517/eb0ac6b2/attachment.htm From kkuswa Fri May 18 06:20:13 2007 From: kkuswa (Kuswa, Kevin) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 07:20:13 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] WDI sholarship Deadline....come to WDI References: <4649DE89.2000000@uvm.edu> Message-ID: <19C985294CCF2F498EEC7FF4A0320EA905140FC4@pollux.richmond.edu> hi all, College debater? Think about WDI. it will be a great place to improve and get a start on the topic. The WDI Scholars have already started some general research and our planning is well underway. We have attached our current schedule and explanations so you know what to expect. Hope to see you in Vermont later this summer. kevin ________________________________ From: edebate-bounces at ndtceda.com on behalf of Alfred Snider Sent: Tue 5/15/2007 12:23 PM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] WDI sholarship Deadline Come be a part of the World Debate Institute's college policy debate program this summer. Apply for a scholarship to make it possible. Jackie Massey, Kevin Kuswa, Sarah Snider, David Register, Gordie Miller and more will work along with our outstanding group of WDI Scholars. You can come for one weekend (topic lectures, evidence set, 4 practice debates, party) or for one week (more, more) or the full two weeks (much more). No hidden costs at WDI - copying, printing, supplies, Lexis-Nexis codes, tshirt, full evidence set, social activities - all included. Information is at http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ The deadline for scholarship applications is the end of May. Please email janet.nunziata at uvm.edu if you have questions, or mikyung.kwon at uvm.edu, or me, although I am currently in Mexico on vacation, but I love to hear from you. Tuna -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Global Debate Blog http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/ Debate Training site http://debate.uvm.edu World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ GATEWAY TO ALL THINGS DEBATE http://debateoneworld.org 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WDI_07_Curriculum_Schedule_MOCK_2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 70144 bytes Desc: WDI_07_Curriculum_Schedule_MOCK_2.doc Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070518/92623a1e/attachment.doc From davismk13 Fri May 18 07:55:56 2007 From: davismk13 (Mike Davis) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 08:55:56 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Some last minute summer meeting items Message-ID: <9a7f6f740705180555gc7254f3u52f1299e43f0d261@mail.gmail.com> 1. The meeting will be in Harrison Hall, Room 1290. 2. I will be at the hotel at 9:30 if people want to meet downstairs they can follow me over. 3. Some people are arriving tonight and are interested in seeing the Harrisonburg nightlife. If you are one of those people let me know. 4. My number is anyone needs to get in touch with me is 540-246-1919. See you all shortly, Mike -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070518/335f1c00/attachment.htm From hansonjb Fri May 18 13:21:13 2007 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 11:21:13 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] someone from denver, please backchannel me Message-ID: subject says it all. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070518/9eb2cf9c/attachment.htm From aq2530 Fri May 18 13:45:39 2007 From: aq2530 (Andrew Joseph Timmons) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 14:45:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [eDebate] DCA BIO #1-GABE MURILLO Message-ID: <20070518144539.ETL23425@mirapointms3.wayne.edu> Gabe was first with a lot of votes Gabe is the best debater I ever met. Not because he won us lots of rounds. But because we still had fun when we lost (even if it was all my fault). He constantly helped everyone on our team, even the novices. I wish you best of luck at MSU. -Timmons From jesse.lewis Fri May 18 13:45:52 2007 From: jesse.lewis (Jesse Lewis) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 13:45:52 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell passes Message-ID: <4e4560b50705181145i2caa3291l7511c9b3a528aa95@mail.gmail.com> On 5/15/07, louden > wrote: >* * >* We recognize he was *human and that he passed*. Political exaltation or * >* fixing blame ought to wait at least a respectful period of time. * Would two days be acceptable? *"The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way?all of them who have tried to secularize America?I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.' " -* Jerry Falwell, September 13, 2001 Falwell certainly had no problem seizing on the deaths of 3,000 people to make a political statement while standing on their burned and mangled bodies. He lived a full life, did what he thought was best, and hurt a lot of people in the process. That he was a supporter of debate does not mean we can in good conscience ignore the evils he spake in the name of Christ. If people wait a "respectful period of time" (again, please let me know when the clock runs out), then it's old news and no one cares. With all the hagiographies the mainstream media is putting out about him, it is required of all people who were disgusted by his demagogery regarding homosexuals, people who supported the right to choose and people who believe that forcing Christianity on citizens through the power of the government is un-American to say "This man spoke hate and intolerance, and he should not be lauded for that." Ignoring the wrongs he did just because he supported something you enjoy is like a battered spouse: "Well, he earns good money, and we have a nice home...I'll just say I ran into the door." Debate is supposed to be a bastion of free thought. To stop the expression of those thoughts because it might not be "respectful" - let's just say you should find another activity more in line with that sentiment, as debate does not seem to be for you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070518/dcf70ebf/attachment.htm From berchnorto Fri May 18 13:52:42 2007 From: berchnorto (NEIL BERCH) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 14:52:42 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell passes References: <4e4560b50705181145i2caa3291l7511c9b3a528aa95@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Yeah, I'm pretty sure that Louden guy isn't going to last in debate. I hope he figures that out soon. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jesse Lewis To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 2:45 PM Subject: [eDebate] Falwell passes On 5/15/07, louden > wrote: > > We recognize he was *human and that he passed*. Political exaltation or > fixing blame ought to wait at least a respectful period of time. Would two days be acceptable? "The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way?all of them who have tried to secularize America?I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.' " - Jerry Falwell, September 13, 2001 Falwell certainly had no problem seizing on the deaths of 3,000 people to make a political statement while standing on their burned and mangled bodies. He lived a full life, did what he thought was best, and hurt a lot of people in the process. That he was a supporter of debate does not mean we can in good conscience ignore the evils he spake in the name of Christ. If people wait a "respectful period of time" (again, please let me know when the clock runs out), then it's old news and no one cares. With all the hagiographies the mainstream media is putting out about him, it is required of all people who were disgusted by his demagogery regarding homosexuals, people who supported the right to choose and people who believe that forcing Christianity on citizens through the power of the government is un-American to say "This man spoke hate and intolerance, and he should not be lauded for that." Ignoring the wrongs he did just because he supported something you enjoy is like a battered spouse: "Well, he earns good money, and we have a nice home...I'll just say I ran into the door." Debate is supposed to be a bastion of free thought. To stop the expression of those thoughts because it might not be "respectful" - let's just say you should find another activity more in line with that sentiment, as debate does not seem to be for you. _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070518/1525c504/attachment.htm From sandyrimmons Fri May 18 13:57:46 2007 From: sandyrimmons (Sandy Rimmons) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 11:57:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] DCA BIO #69-ABU GHRIAB MURRILLLLLO Message-ID: <306186.43607.qm@web57301.mail.re1.yahoo.com> ABU GHRIAB WAS 69TH WITH 420 VOTES IF YOU THINK YOU MIGHT BE OFFENDED, DONT READ --------------------------------- Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070518/9a1b2593/attachment.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Abu Ghraib bio.doc Type: application/msword Size: 62464 bytes Desc: 2150182119-Abu Ghraib bio.doc Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070518/9a1b2593/attachment.doc From generalsarmory Fri May 18 20:07:57 2007 From: generalsarmory (Westmoreland Josh) Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 20:07:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] High School Debate Website Message-ID: <461f7b160705181807q7f198655r308e2dfa72bd3d8b@mail.gmail.com> Hi, I'm working on constructing a blog/website that will act as a resource for folks working on the 2007-2008 high school policy debate topic. Since many of you work with HS teams and at HS institutes, I thought this blog might be of some use. Check it out (http://thegeneralsarmory.blogspot.com/). I'm really new at this; so, any suggestions are appreciated. Josh Westmoreland Kansas State Debate (ret.) -- The General and Co. http://thegeneralsarmory.blogspot.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070518/e25b8451/attachment.htm From generalsarmory Sat May 19 01:12:42 2007 From: generalsarmory (Westmoreland Josh) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 01:12:42 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] One more favor Message-ID: <461f7b160705182312k669f0524v5ccb58e8b895233@mail.gmail.com> If you have a blog dedicated to debate (any type) and are willing to let me post a link to it on mine, please b/c me with the addy. Sorry for the clutter. -- The General and Co. http://thegeneralsarmory.blogspot.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070519/84d1d55e/attachment.htm From davismk13 Sat May 19 08:13:39 2007 From: davismk13 (Mike Davis) Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 09:13:39 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Webcast Message-ID: <9a7f6f740705190613i1fa6234ak711e4772ca5cb97d@mail.gmail.com> The address for the webcast for both the summer meeting and topic meeting is: http://streaming.jmu.edu/ceda/topicmeeting2007.html Please let Evan Levy know if there are any problems levyej at jmu.edu Mike -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070519/03964a91/attachment.htm From gacggc Sat May 19 23:45:56 2007 From: gacggc (David Glass) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 06:45:56 +0200 Subject: [eDebate] Falwell dies Message-ID: <8371758b0705192145u2305de3fu301348f71ad7209@mail.gmail.com> the New York Times seems to think it proper that when one dies, an honest assessment of their impact be made. Here are a few words from Frank Rich, from today: May 20, 2007 Op-Ed Columnist The Reverend Falwell's Heavenly Timing (http://select.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/opinion/20rich.html?hp=&pagewanted=print) By FRANK RICH HARD as it is to believe now, Jerry Falwell came in second only to Ronald Reagan in a 1983 Good Housekeeping poll anointing "the most admired man in America." By September 2001, even the Bush administration was looking for a way to ditch the preacher who had joined Pat Robertson on TV to pin the 9/11 attacks on feminists, abortionists, gays and, implicitly, Teletubbies. As David Kuo, a former Bush official for faith-based initiatives, tells the story in his book "Tempting Faith," the Reverend Falwell was given a ticket to the Washington National Cathedral memorial service that week only on the strict condition that he stay away from reporters and cameras. Mr. Falwell obeyed, though once inside he cracked jokes ("Whoa, does she look frumpy," he said of Barbara Bush) and chortled nonstop. This is the great spiritual leader whom John McCain and Mitt Romney raced to praise when he died on Tuesday, just as the G.O.P. presidential contenders were converging for a debate in South Carolina. The McCain camp's elegiac press release beat out his rival's by a hair. But everyone including Senator McCain knows he got it right back in 2000, when he labeled Mr. Falwell and Mr. Robertson "agents of intolerance." Mr. Falwell was always on the wrong, intolerant side of history. He fought against the civil rights movement and ridiculed Desmond Tutu's battle against apartheid years before calling AIDS the "wrath of a just God against homosexuals" and, in 1999, fingering the Antichrist as an unidentified contemporary Jew. Though Mr. Falwell had long been an embarrassment and laughingstock to many, including a new generation of Christian leaders typified by Mr. Kuo, the timing of his death could not have had grander symbolic import. It happened at the precise moment that the Falwell-Robertson brand of religious politics is being given its walking papers by a large chunk of the political party the Christian right once helped to grow. Hours after Mr. Falwell died, Rudy Giuliani, a candidate he explicitly rejected, won the Republican debate by acclamation. When the marginal candidate Ron Paul handed "America's mayor" an opening to wrap himself grandiloquently in 9/11 once more, not even the most conservative of Deep South audiences could resist cheering him. If Rudy can dress up as Jack Bauer, who cares about his penchant for drag? From EricMorris Sun May 20 10:20:45 2007 From: EricMorris (Morris, Eric R) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 10:20:45 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Please vote for Dr. Diana Carlin for NCA President Message-ID: <1CCBA609217926438CBBCDC5C19F899E62CCEB@blue.EDUBEAR.NET> I'm writing to the college debate community to request you consider voting for Dr. Diana Carlin for NCA 2nd Vice President. If she is selected, forensics (of all stripes) will have a sympatetic ear at the highest levels of NCA. Rarely do you have a chance for the NCA President to have not only a strong interest in debate, but have published a debate textbook. I know Dr. Carlin well - she was my dissertation advisor. She is a well established scholar (particularly in the area of presidential debates), an excellent administrator (during most of my time at KU, she held two Dean positions yet managed to maintain a solid research record and make lots of time to work with advisees), and a very nice person. I think she would be excellent in this role. Although voting is open until June 15, it's easy to forget. Why not vote as soon as possible? If you are an NCA member, you can do so in about 90 seconds by visiting their webcite at www DOT natcom DOT org. p.s. I have no negative impression whatever of Dr. Carlin's opponent, Dawn Braithwaite of UNL. My recommendation is based solely on my positive impression of Dr. Carlin. Like CEDA, the NCA 2nd VP eventually moves up to President. Dr. Eric Morris Asst Prof of Communication & Director of Forensics Craig Hall 366A, Dept of Communication Missouri State University Springfield, MO 65897 (O) 417-836-7636 (H) 417-865-6866 (C) 417-496-7141 AIM: ermocito, ericandtaleyna -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070520/94f77c1a/attachment.htm From delliott Sun May 20 10:46:58 2007 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 10:46:58 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Meeting/Eliminating Regions Message-ID: Perhaps this will generate webcam traffic. The CEDA Summer meeting is in day 2 and right now we are hearing a recommendation from Jeff Jarman to eliminate CEDA's current Regions and replace them with self-selecting Conferences. The meeting can be viewed at http://streaming.jmu.edu/ceda/topicmeeting2007.html We will break for lunch at some point then be back online this afternoon. ML is periodically offering money for webcam viewers who email her!! : ) chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate--KCKCC CEDA 1st VP From dave Sun May 20 11:18:32 2007 From: dave (Steinberg, David L) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 12:18:32 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] new c22007 Ceda nats pics are up Message-ID: New Pictures courtesy of Kelly McDonald. Visit the CEDA Nats 2007 gallery at our website http://debate.miami.edu, specifically, go to: http://debate.miami.edu/gallery/main.php?g2_itemId=22&g2_navId=x64f5b422 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 alfred.snider Sun May 20 13:01:50 2007 From: alfred.snider (Alfred Snider) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 11:01:50 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] International Debate Academy 2007 Message-ID: <46508D0E.8030904@uvm.edu> FIFTH INTERNATIONAL DEBATE ACADEMY SLOVENIA ? IDAS 2007 For university students 17th ? 25th November 2007, Ormoz, Slovenia Organized by: ZIP ? Za in proti (ZIP), Pro et Contra, Institute for the Culture of Dialogue, Slovenia WDI ? World Debate Institute, University of Vermont, USA Webpage, registration form, scholarship form: http://debate.uvm.edu/idas2007.html What is it about? It is the most international British Parliamentary Debate Training in the world with a distinguished training group. Attendees have come from over 26 different debating nations. ?The program involves a rigorous combination of lectures, skill exercise sessions and two practice debates per day. A major tournament will take place at the end. This year the tournament at the end of the Academy is open to all interested university debaters, so everybody who does not have time to come for the whole week, can join us only for the tournament. Trainers: Alfred C. Snider, University of Vermont, USA, head of the training Loke Wing Fatt, SAID, Singapore, WUDC breaking judge Sam Greenland, Sidney University, WUDC semifinalist Jens Fischer, Berlin Debating Union, Germany, Europeans DCA Branka Josimov, ACCD, Serbia Branka Marusic, HDD, Croatia Sam Nelson, Cornell University, USA Steve Llano, St. Johns University, USA Bojana Skrt, Za in proti, zavod za kulturo dialoga, Slovenia More announced later?. Dates for the whole Academy Arrival: Saturday, the 17th, opening of the Academy at 5 p.m. Departure: Sunday, the 25th late afternoon Dates only for the tournament Arrival: Thursday, the 22nd evening Departure: Sunday, the 25th late afternoon Who can apply? Students: For the whole Academy, everybody interested in debating is welcome, and can be beginners or they can be very experienced. The training will be divided into different tracks, based on the participant?s needs and experience, but reflecting realistic pedagogical needs. Others: We will also have a track for trainers, coaches, team organizers and club trainers that will be far more flexible. For the tournament only you apply as a team. One judge per 1 or 2 teams, 2 judges per 3 or 4 teams. Participation fee The whole Academy (it covers 8 days full board ? accommodation/food, training and materials) 200 EURO Tournament only (it covers 3 full board ? accommodation/food, tournament expenses) 100 EURO The payment should be made in cash on arrival. Scholarships There will be some scholarships available. The scholarship application procedure will be announced in the next months. Scholarships will not be available for travel. Application deadline: October, 15th 2007 Spaces are limited. If there is too much demand selection will be made based on regional diversity and experience. Organizing committee: Director of the Academy: Bojana Skrt, ZIP, bojana.skrt at siol.net Head of the Training: Alfred C. Snider, World Debate Institute, University of Vermont, alfred.snider at uvm.edu To Register and For Information: Director of communication and registration: Sintija Dobrotinsek, ZIP, sintijadobrotinsek at yahoo.co.uk --------------- ZA IN PROTI, ZAVOD ZA KULTURO DIALOGA PRO ET CONTRA, INSTITUTE FOR THE CULTURE OF DIALOGUE ADDRESS: Svetosavska 24, 1000 Ljubljana, SLOVENIA Mobile: + 386 (0) 41 42 3377 e-mail:debata at siol.net, bojana.skrt at siol.net www.ljudmila.org/debata -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Global Debate Blog http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/ Debate Training site http://debate.uvm.edu World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ GATEWAY TO ALL THINGS DEBATE http://debateoneworld.org 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From andy.edebate Sun May 20 22:13:34 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Sun, 20 May 2007 23:13:34 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Thanks to the EC and JMU Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705202013t6e5e0b99ve78647bcd118b553@mail.gmail.com> I just got back from the ceda meeting and thourgoly enjoyed the weekend, the discussions and the direction where enjoyable and productive and i appreciate the opportunity to be able to have presented about the Baltimore College Debate Project(specical thanks here for listening to my rather long presentation;)....thanks to all for an enjoyable and inspiring weekend of discussion about the future of the organization. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070520/f45fa1dc/attachment.htm From davismk13 Mon May 21 09:14:51 2007 From: davismk13 (Mike Davis) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 10:14:51 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Tips about the webcam Message-ID: <9a7f6f740705210714qd2a4ad6n510e176e5849e793@mail.gmail.com> Our webcam guy has sent the following tips about the how to make your webcam experience the best. Mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Evan Levy Date: May 21, 2007 10:11 AM Subject: tips To: Mike Davis The webcam is up and running but there seems to have been some complications for a limited number of people. If your computer will not load the webcam, be patient, especially if you are on a slower internet connection. Below are some tips to get you up and running. -Make sure you have the most recent version of quicktime. The latest download can be found at www.apple.com -Empty your cache. The computer may be trying to cache the movie and not have enough room. This can be done in your computer's options/preferences panel. -Try reloading the page. Sometimes it just doesn't work the first time but refreshing the page has worked for some. -Try restarting your computer. Clearing the RAM may help bring your computer up to speed. -If all else fails email me at levyej at jmu.edu and I will try to help. Evan Levy JMU Debate -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070521/0b52d721/attachment.htm From delliott Mon May 21 12:17:38 2007 From: delliott (Darren Elliott) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 12:17:38 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Topic Meeting Online Message-ID: The topic meeting is now up and running on the webcam. chief Darren Elliott Director of Debate--KCKCC CEDA 1st VP From davismk13 Mon May 21 12:26:48 2007 From: davismk13 (Mike Davis) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 13:26:48 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Webcast error message Message-ID: <9a7f6f740705211026k7202c5ddr9acf2a4f049bfa86@mail.gmail.com> If you are getting a 10060 error message it may be related to your firewall settings - if you can reduce your firewall it should help. Mike -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070521/554d2b52/attachment.htm From davismk13 Mon May 21 14:20:12 2007 From: davismk13 (Mike Davis) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 15:20:12 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Webcast issues Message-ID: <9a7f6f740705211220n33c346daybb5ac4325eab8e7a@mail.gmail.com> Apparently the webcast can only handle a certain amount of traffic so if you are not actively watching please sign off. We are working to increase the bandwidth (at the expense of video quality). We are also going to try to post today's discussion as we can and I will send details once I know where it is posted. Mike -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070521/f8d0bda9/attachment.htm From jbhdb8 Mon May 21 16:03:49 2007 From: jbhdb8 (Josh) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 17:03:49 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Sue Stanfield Message-ID: Does anyone have a current email for Sue (former director at KSU). I am putting together an event she needs an invite to, Josh Hoe University of Michigan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070521/68bb3bff/attachment.htm From hansonjb Mon May 21 18:56:16 2007 From: hansonjb (Jim Hanson) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 16:56:16 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] hs debate coach needs help Fw: Mrs. Starke/Mrs. Maguire...how we can help Message-ID: <5C4EC5F02E9046DC988CFEED4A3AD4A4@whitman.edu> I don't know the full details but apparently a debate coach is being forced out for taking her students to disneyland without school permission after a debate tournament. consider writing a positive email to the emails listed below. jim :) hansonjb at whitman.edu -----Original Message----- From: Katie Solomon [mailto:katie_friedman at yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2007 12:26 AM To: Hi there friends, I talked to Mrs. Maguire (Starke) today and she was so touched to hear about all the emails/petitions going around in her support. She said that the kind support and loyalty of her students and public speaking parents was really all that was getting her through this terrible time. (If any of you have not heard the background on this, an overview is included below). I asked what we could do to help and offer support. She said that sending emails to the School Board members (who presided over the hearing on Wednesday), the Superintendent of the school district or the Miramonte Principal would be helpful. Sounds like they respond more favorably to emails that are positive in tone. I know how busy everyone is so of course no obligation at all, but if you would like to write a note on her behalf, I've included some names/email addresses for the right folks to direct something to below. If you hear of others who might want to send a note, would be great if you could forward to them too. If any of you want to reach out to Mrs. Maguire directly... wjm1426 at sbcglobal.net Miramonte Principal: razomara at acalanes.k12.ca.us Superintendent Jim Negri: superintendent at acalanes.k12.ca.us Board Members: President of the Board: Richard Whitmore rwhitmore at acalanes.k12.ca.us Judy Carney jcarney at acalanes.k12.ca.us Vanessa Crews vcrews at acalanes.k12.ca.us Kathy Coppersmith kcoppersmith at acalanes.k12.ca.us Tom Mulvaney tmulvaney at acalanes.k12.ca.us Hope all is well with all of you... Best, Katie ----- End forwarded message ----- From wsu.cook Mon May 21 22:33:10 2007 From: wsu.cook (Matthew Cook) Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 22:33:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Request from host: need help for NFL national tournament Message-ID: anyone in the Wichita area, or will be in the area during the tournament, should lend a helping hand to the tournament process. This tournament dwarfs the logistics of any tournament that NDT/CEDA debaters and coaches go to and run and requires a vast amount of charity and volunteerism in order to run smoothly. Last year's Dallas tournament was a success in part due to the outstanding work of those who did not directly benefit (financially) from their labor. The help required, at this point, is not typical debate or speech work. What is needed are people willing to set up tables and chairs at extemp prep, run ballots during the tournament, and make the act of tabulating the tournament as flawless as possible, as well as other, less glamorous tasks that hold an comparable amount of importance to that of judging or coaching. I know manual labor doesn't necessarily appeal to a huge cross-section of debate-types, but i know that people are willing to work hard to make sure tournament experiences are enjoyable (UTD hospitality anyone?). NFL and the Kansas districts have done as much as possible short of manditory conscription, which is becoming more and more likely the longer people hold out on volunteering. Hell, if you're in town anyway, and you're not busy cutting uniqueness updates, then you might as well make sure the tournament your teams are competing at is as successful as possible. If you're not coaching, then you're bored (its wichita) and it only makes sense to keep your mind occupied on something other than the lack of foliage. Mr. Yager and the South Kansas and Sunflower NFL districts have been working non-stop, tirelessly for 3 years to make this tournament a reality. Encourage your students to commute to wichita, if only for a day, to mingle with the high school community, create ties, build bridges, whatever, with potential recruits and high school coaches. I personally will be there because i owe it to Mr. Yager. You can justify it however you want. if you're feeling charitable at all, please contact Mr. Dalvin Yager (Derby High School Debate and Forensics coach/ tournament host) and offer your services. He can be reached at DYager at usd260.com . Thanks, Cookie -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070521/b6c6a1f0/attachment.htm From davismk13 Tue May 22 09:26:55 2007 From: davismk13 (Mike Davis) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 10:26:55 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Webcast archive Message-ID: <9a7f6f740705220726v502ed60eh5ce340e3c792f4c1@mail.gmail.com> You can now watch all of yesterday's topic committee meeting at: http://streaming.jmu.edu/ceda/Day_one_topic.html Please, download the videos to your computer to help with server speed. We will update with more videos as the day goes on. Mike -- Dr. Michael Davis Director of Debate/Assistant Professor James Madison University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070522/12892f2b/attachment.htm From scottelliott Tue May 22 09:43:59 2007 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 09:43:59 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Topic Papers, and Pigs in a Poke Message-ID: <1179845039.465301af71020@webmail.grandecom.net> I have been checking out the cedablog site concerning the current topic selection and selection process. I think the Mid-East as a problem area is great and timely. My problem is with the current topic paper writing process. Namely, most papers do not focus on resolutions. I posit that anybody can make a case for well over 50 topic areas any given year. Proliferation, genetic engineering, Healthcare in America, Environmental problems, relations with XY and Z countires and/or regions. That is the relatively easy part. What is much tougher is framing resolutions that are debatable and do not suck. Example: Hey, everybody, let's debate the U.S. Supreme Court. YEE HAW!!!! Poorly drafted resolutional choices led to the selection of, in my opinion, a poorly drafted resolution being chosen and debated--a decision everyone is stuck with for an entire year. mmm! mmm! Loved those Planned Parenthood case debates. Now we have a mad dash over literally three or four days to draft resolutions--one of which we will be stuck with for an entire year. I AM NOT KNOCKING the hard work that is going into resolution drafting that is currently going on. Nor am I knocking the topic area. I know exactly how much work is involved in research a topic area (see genetic engineering paper). I am also very much aware of how much thought--reflective thought--is necessary to draft an adequate debate resolution. Proposal: My proposal is quite simple: Next year's topic papers should be required to provide at least 10 draft resolutions and an analysis of those resolutions. Reasons why key terms were chosen and/or not chosen. Then at least three of those resolutions should be included on the topic ballot. Why? Because of this "pig-in-a-poke" syndrome, an unintentional bait-n-switch routine that seems to occur every year when the topic committe meets for three or four days of hasty decisionmaking. Example: This morning I read that ISRAEL is now being considered as a topic country. WTF? So, person A thinks she was voting for a substantial change from the Bush policy of kissing Israeli ass as a topic area. She then wakes up in June or July to find out that we can now increase relations with Israel. Some of the proposals now look like a Pro-Bush extension of foriegn policy will be affirmative gorund. Example 2: Saudi Arabia is now being included on the list of possible countries. Now, if we were to have a "pucker list" of countries the U.S. currently sucks up to, it would have to be #1 Israel and #2 Saudi Arabia. So, my plan to increase the number of desalinization plants in Saudi Arabia is good to go. My plan to have more student exchange programs with Israeli Kibuttzes is good to go. Not a problem. But I don't think this is what people thought they would be debating when they voted for a Mid-East resolution. So, bottom-line this topic selection and topic resolution writing is flawed. We get stuck with inferior and I dare say, ill-considered, resolutions for an entire year. There is a solution--require topic papers that actually propose resolutions and guarantee that at least some of those resolutions will apear on the topic ballot. This will solve for the "rush to write resolutions in just a couple days" problem we see every year and will solve for the "bait-n-switch" resolutionjacking that seems to occur every year. Like I said, I know for a fact how much hard work and dedication is necessary to craft quality resolutions. And, I believe that everone that is working on it right now has the best of intentions. But, as academics we should all recognize the cardinal rule of good writing--edit, reflect, edit again. The current process does not allow for such reflective thought and careful editing. As a result, we keep getting stuck with resolutions that suck. Scott From stables Tue May 22 10:03:22 2007 From: stables (Gordon Stables) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 11:03:22 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Topic Papers, and Pigs in a Poke In-Reply-To: <1179845039.465301af71020@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <1179845039.465301af71020@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <001d01c79c82$5835f080$55347d80@stables> Scott, and all, Thanks for the input. We are a little busy at the moment, but let me make a couple of comments. 1) Any CEDA member may propose changes to the constitution. If the membership doesn't like the two-tiered ballot and role of the committee they may alter or adjust our charge. Our current structure allows the community to submit topics and then the committee finalizes those wordings. 2) There are 'no pigs in the poke.' The Israel debate, like Afghanistan, was a question raised in the original paper. Unlike prior years, every issue raised was part of paper available months ago. The community was then encouraged to provide wording papers, and some, like Hays Watson, did so. Many of our discussions today are based on community feedback (like the merits of including Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan). Thanks for the feedback. The committee is always open to discussion. I will, humbly, and finally add today that this is a very open and predictable process. Thanks to the community for your feedback. 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 -----Original Message----- From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com [mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of scottelliott at grandecom.net Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 10:44 AM To: edebate at ndtceda.com Subject: [eDebate] Topic Papers, and Pigs in a Poke I have been checking out the cedablog site concerning the current topic selection and selection process. I think the Mid-East as a problem area is great and timely. My problem is with the current topic paper writing process. Namely, most papers do not focus on resolutions. I posit that anybody can make a case for well over 50 topic areas any given year. Proliferation, genetic engineering, Healthcare in America, Environmental problems, relations with XY and Z countires and/or regions. That is the relatively easy part. What is much tougher is framing resolutions that are debatable and do not suck. Example: Hey, everybody, let's debate the U.S. Supreme Court. YEE HAW!!!! Poorly drafted resolutional choices led to the selection of, in my opinion, a poorly drafted resolution being chosen and debated--a decision everyone is stuck with for an entire year. mmm! mmm! Loved those Planned Parenthood case debates. Now we have a mad dash over literally three or four days to draft resolutions--one of which we will be stuck with for an entire year. I AM NOT KNOCKING the hard work that is going into resolution drafting that is currently going on. Nor am I knocking the topic area. I know exactly how much work is involved in research a topic area (see genetic engineering paper). I am also very much aware of how much thought--reflective thought--is necessary to draft an adequate debate resolution. Proposal: My proposal is quite simple: Next year's topic papers should be required to provide at least 10 draft resolutions and an analysis of those resolutions. Reasons why key terms were chosen and/or not chosen. Then at least three of those resolutions should be included on the topic ballot. Why? Because of this "pig-in-a-poke" syndrome, an unintentional bait-n-switch routine that seems to occur every year when the topic committe meets for three or four days of hasty decisionmaking. Example: This morning I read that ISRAEL is now being considered as a topic country. WTF? So, person A thinks she was voting for a substantial change from the Bush policy of kissing Israeli ass as a topic area. She then wakes up in June or July to find out that we can now increase relations with Israel. Some of the proposals now look like a Pro-Bush extension of foriegn policy will be affirmative gorund. Example 2: Saudi Arabia is now being included on the list of possible countries. Now, if we were to have a "pucker list" of countries the U.S. currently sucks up to, it would have to be #1 Israel and #2 Saudi Arabia. So, my plan to increase the number of desalinization plants in Saudi Arabia is good to go. My plan to have more student exchange programs with Israeli Kibuttzes is good to go. Not a problem. But I don't think this is what people thought they would be debating when they voted for a Mid-East resolution. So, bottom-line this topic selection and topic resolution writing is flawed. We get stuck with inferior and I dare say, ill-considered, resolutions for an entire year. There is a solution--require topic papers that actually propose resolutions and guarantee that at least some of those resolutions will apear on the topic ballot. This will solve for the "rush to write resolutions in just a couple days" problem we see every year and will solve for the "bait-n-switch" resolutionjacking that seems to occur every year. Like I said, I know for a fact how much hard work and dedication is necessary to craft quality resolutions. And, I believe that everone that is working on it right now has the best of intentions. But, as academics we should all recognize the cardinal rule of good writing--edit, reflect, edit again. The current process does not allow for such reflective thought and careful editing. As a result, we keep getting stuck with resolutions that suck. Scott _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate From andy.edebate Tue May 22 15:49:56 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 16:49:56 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Join Baltimore College Debate Or pre pay some entry fees for next year! Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705221349x6127271r6bb0adbde31badd3@mail.gmail.com> Hello, I am finalizing my website and online store however i thought if there are folks looking to spend some budget money before the end of the month i have a plan ( and its not quite the 2ar yet). Baltimore College Debate will be selling memberships and entry fee credits on line in order to cover our expenses for next years Baltimore College Debate tournaments. Check out more information on the Baltimore Collge Debate project at www.baltimorecollegedebate.org Entry Fee Credits can be pre purchased and are good for any team at any point during the season. You can transfer your entry fee credits, or give them to us to support new programs. If you really liked we will permit trading of them....as i develop the scripts and databases to manange the credits i will give you more information on it.... We are offering Memberships to Baltimore College Debate for Next Year. These will include 8 entry fee credits( a $120 value), a BCD T shirt (to be shipped seperately), access to all BCD evidence and curriculum resources, and our email newsletter, and a 10 per cent discount on summer 2008 Baltimore Debate Cooperative. Your support now helps us to start the season with money we need for our tournaments. We are as of yet not a non profit and the articles of business incorporation are on the way, thus this is not a tax-deductible charitable contribution, it is simply a way to help support a program you know can work. Membership can be purchased on line at https://theyoursstore.com/displayProductDocument.hg?productId=2&categoryId=3 the estore takes credit cards,checks or paypal and if you need a receipt beyond what you are given in the invoice let us know and we will make something for you. Memberships are for the 2007-2008 season, if you have any questions please contact me either here or at andy at baltimorecollegedebate.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070522/f33ef55f/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Tue May 22 16:48:14 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 17:48:14 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] A BUDL team needs a judge for NCFL this weekend Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705221448i17b83304r2a6e6e67dbe00e8@mail.gmail.com> Hello, Baltimore Freedom Academy, a high school member of the Baltimore Urban Debate League, is attending the NCFL tournament in houston this weekend and needs a full commitment of judging. We will pay $25 a round for 5 rounds plus the committed outround. We are looking for someone who will already be at the tournament. please contact me immediately if you are interested. Though it is not required if you wanted to help out with the coaching of the team im sure they and their coach who is travelling with them would appreciate it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070522/9029b51e/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Tue May 22 16:52:27 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Tue, 22 May 2007 17:52:27 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Join Baltimore College Debate Or pre pay some entry fees for next year! In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0705221349x6127271r6bb0adbde31badd3@mail.gmail.com> References: <9368bc9b0705221349x6127271r6bb0adbde31badd3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705221452r43b78780t610f60567d3c1672@mail.gmail.com> Mike Davis made a good point. If you buy a membership it would free up more of that money for programing if we couldd just give you the T shirt next time we see you. Since i already made the offer, please indicate in the special comments part of checkout your willingness to pick up the shirts. Starting June 1st the policy will change and if you want the shirt mailed we will add the cost of shipping to your order, thanks mike and if other people have similar suggestions please let me know. On 5/22/07, Andy Ellis wrote: > > Hello, > > I am finalizing my website and online store however i thought if there are > folks looking to spend some budget money before the end of the month i have > a plan ( and its not quite the 2ar yet). > > Baltimore College Debate will be selling memberships and entry fee credits > on line in order to cover our expenses for next years Baltimore College > Debate tournaments. > > Check out more information on the Baltimore Collge Debate project at > www.baltimorecollegedebate.org > > Entry Fee Credits can be pre purchased and are good for any team at any > point during the season. You can transfer your entry fee credits, or give > them to us to support new programs. If you really liked we will permit > trading of them....as i develop the scripts and databases to manange the > credits i will give you more information on it.... > > We are offering Memberships to Baltimore College Debate for Next Year. > These will include 8 entry fee credits( a $120 value), a BCD T shirt > (to be shipped seperately), access to all BCD evidence and curriculum > resources, and our email newsletter, and a 10 per cent discount on > summer 2008 Baltimore Debate Cooperative. Your support now helps us to > start the season with money we need for our tournaments. > > We are as of yet not a non profit and the articles of business > incorporation are on the way, thus this is not a tax-deductible > charitable contribution, it is simply a way to help support a program > you know can work. > > Membership can be purchased on line at > > https://theyoursstore.com/displayProductDocument.hg?productId=2&categoryId=3 > > the estore takes credit cards,checks or paypal and if you need a > receipt beyond what you are given in the invoice let us know and we > will make something for you. > > Memberships are for the 2007-2008 season, if you have any questions > please contact me either here or at andy at baltimorecollegedebate.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070522/35d8ca26/attachment.htm From dperkins Wed May 23 00:38:46 2007 From: dperkins (Dallas Perkins) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 01:38:46 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [eDebate] Steve D'Amico Message-ID: Please backchannel. Sorry to bother everyone else. dp From jbruschke Wed May 23 10:31:00 2007 From: jbruschke (Bruschke, Jon) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 08:31:00 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] ADI -- June 1 earlybird rate deadline Message-ID: <21E1A1BE7ED80C4287FA47FD8B13A35C040FDBEF@SFEXCH1.AD.FULLERTON.EDU> Just a quick reminder that the last day for the earlybird rate at the ADI is June 1. The website is: http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/adi.htm Hope you can make it! Jon From scottelliott Wed May 23 10:56:44 2007 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 10:56:44 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] A Proposed Mid-East topic resolution Message-ID: <1179935804.4654643ca8207@webmail.grandecom.net> RESOLVED: THE USFG SHOULD IMPLEMENT ONE OR MORE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE IRAQ STUDY GROUP. This is from an excerpt on the ceda topic blog pissing match between me and Kelly on why bilateral and trilateral resolutions suck, assuming anybody will accept brent Scowcroft recommendations from the year 2000 as viable solvency evidence. The are other reasons to reject, but you can read the blog. What I did want to put forward is the following: "To meet your Jack Bauer deadline: here is an resolution from totally left field: RESOLVED: THE USFG SHOULD IMPLEMENT ONE OR MORE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE IRAQ STUDY GROUP. It is sweet, straight forward, downright purty, and provides everyone with clear ground for debate. " Looking closer, this would get Kelly et al where they want to be (i.e solving for the Golan Heights, daling with Israel, etc.), providing the affirmative with flexibility and providing everyone with a very clean starting point for debates. I know many consider me to be an asshole on these issues, but your personal distaste toward me and my views should not dissuade you from closely examining a viable resolutional option that cuts the Gordian knot (no pun intended Gordon). I think this really is a good, if not great way to make a straight forward resolutionals tatement, that has huge affirmative depth, while maintaining clear ground. For community consideration. From kel1773 Wed May 23 11:16:12 2007 From: kel1773 (Kelly Young) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 12:16:12 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] A Proposed Mid-East topic resolution Message-ID: There are 78 recommendations in the ISG, most of which include internal changes to Iraq policy. Some are really hawt for negative ground, like:RECOMMENDATION 32: Minorities. The rights of women and the rights of all minoritycommunities in Iraq, including Turkmen, Chaldeans, Assyrians, Yazidis, Sabeans, andArmenians, must be protected.The topic would be a complete nightmare in scope.Also, your suggested resolution does nothing to improve the Golan/Gaza solvency problems that you think you schooled me on. If you are correct that Israel won't accept the deal--you know, you're answer to that ancient Scowcroft solvency card you mock yet present no evidence whatsoever to counter--then the ISG recommendation of:RECOMMENDATION 16: In exchange for these actions (by Syria) and in the context of a full and securepeace agreement, the Israelis should return the Golan Heights, with a U.S. security guarantee forIsrael that could include an international force on the border, including U.S. troops if requestedby both parties.Is no different than the bilateral/Trilateral resolution. This recommendation is the same thing--offer security guarantees and CE To Syria in a deal with Israel to return Golan with the US negotiating a security guarantee for Israel. KellyKelly M. Young, Ph.D. Director of Forensics/ Assistant Professor Communication Department Wayne State University 585 Manoogian Hall Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 577-2953 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070523/d5ffb7a5/attachment.htm From stables Wed May 23 11:49:02 2007 From: stables (Gordon Stables) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 12:49:02 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Formal list of resolutions from the Topic Committee Message-ID: <002201c79d5a$458303a0$56347d80@stables> We have concluded our work in Harrisonburg and transmitted the official slate to the CEDA Exec Secretary. He will release the formal ballot to the community in due time, but in the interim the community may view the resolutions at http://blog.cedatopic.com/2007/05/23/current-slate-of-resolutions.aspx Thanks to Mike Davis and all of the JMU folk for their hospitality. Thanks as well to Mike Maffie and Steve Mancuso for a great controversy paper. Thanks to Hays Watson and Julian Gagnon for community based recommendations for wording (i.e., wording papers). Thanks to the committee for a great year of work. Finally, thanks to the community for all of your active involvement. We had over 1500 hits on the blog in the last week and think this a tremendous testament to your interest and involvement. Our task is complete - now it is up to you to consider the options. Gordon Chair, CEDA - Topic Selection Committee 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4594 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070523/b60bcfa5/attachment.bin From mmk_savant Wed May 23 16:13:32 2007 From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 14:13:32 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] it's ok to be pissed about the topics Message-ID: Every year someone is pissed off by the list of topics that come out of the topic committee. And every year I defend the topic process and mock the malcontents. I have written 3 posts today only to have Jessica convince me to send each one to the Drafts folder and take a long walk. So tomorrow, or the next day, or whenever, I will express my frustration while still trying to be constructive.This day I will only post that if you are really disturbed with what has come out of the topic committee, you are not alone. Michael KorcokBakersfield College _________________________________________________________________ Add some color. Personalize your inbox with your favorite colors. www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/personalize.html?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_addcolor_0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070523/2995aadd/attachment.htm From scottelliott Wed May 23 17:17:42 2007 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 17:17:42 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] it's ok to be pissed about the topics Message-ID: <1179958662.4654bd8645057@webmail.grandecom.net> Well then, if Mike is pissed off about them, then I have changed my mind. These topic resolutions rock! The are the best worded topics since the Change foriegn policy toward mexico topic came out! From helwich Wed May 23 17:50:01 2007 From: helwich (helwich at macalester.edu) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 17:50:01 -0500 (CDT) Subject: [eDebate] Formal list of resolutions from the Topic Committee Message-ID: <17565098.1179960601118.JavaMail.oracle@ocs-1.macalester.edu> I guess I'll put my foot into it-- None of these topics are *bad* Any of them are debatable. "We" have already found solvency cards for most of the mechs for most of the countries, and Gophers seem to be slow starters on research. The topics also reflect the mandate of the controversy voting process, which seems to solve many of the criticisms leveled last year. If you are worried that the topics are too constraining, "constructive engagement" can be interpreted to cover a lot of potential foreign policy actions--you just have to defend against the exclude SG or FA PIC under all by rez #3. This check worked well in terms of aff flex and neg predictability for the sanctions topic, and my reading so far gives me no reason to believe it will fail this season. My initial reaction is that I prefer #4. best, dch umn -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Gordon Stables Subject: [eDebate] Formal list of resolutions from the Topic Committee Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 12:49:02 -0400 Size: 11385 Url: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070523/9f07a69c/attachment.eml From jmarty Wed May 23 18:21:55 2007 From: jmarty (Jillian A. Marty) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 19:21:55 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Looking for JeMara Atwood Message-ID: <1179962515.4654cc93952df@mail-www.oit.umass.edu> Hey, I'm looking for Jemara. If anyone knows her whereabouts OR her email address please get back to me. Jillian From beth.skinner Wed May 23 18:37:35 2007 From: beth.skinner (Beth Skinner) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 19:37:35 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Plurality and other nonsense Message-ID: <4550c7380705231637wf68b440x256f3cff3a3eb28b@mail.gmail.com> 1) the second and fourth resolutions say 'them' (plural) referring to government (singular). I think usually the pronoun used to refer to a single government is 'its.' Wondering what the rationale for that is. 2) if you offer a security guarantee to, for instance, Iran and the PA, does it have to be the same security guarantee? 3) seems like one way to read the resolutions that include the 'only of offering' wording (#3 for instance) is that your constructive engagement should a) consist only of offering a trilateral SG or b) consist only of a bilateral SG (the difference being that a) is only an offer and b) is the SG itself) 4) if it is only an offer can the plan mandate the US following through on the offer? especially when it must consist "only of" a security guarantee or assistance 5) do you already have to have constructive engagement in order to increase it? do you have to have the particular type of constructive engagement - security guarantees or foreign assistance - that is specified by the rest of the resolution? Beth Skinner Alleged grammar nazi #1 Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of: Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and Syria, and it should include offering them a security guarantee(s) and/or a substantial increase in foreign assistance. #2 Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of: Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and Syria, and it should consist only of offering them a trilateral security guarantee(s) with Israel, and/or a bilateral security guarantee(s), and/or a substantial increase in foreign assistance. #3 Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of: Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, and it should consist only of offering them a trilateral security guarantee(s) with Israel and/or a bilateral security guarantee(s). #4 Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of: Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and Syria, and it should include offering them a trilateral security guarantee(s) with Israel, and/or a bilateral security guarantee(s), and/or a substantial increase in foreign assistance. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070523/594f3cbe/attachment.htm From scottelliott Wed May 23 21:20:28 2007 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 21:20:28 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] eDebate] Plurality and other nonsense Message-ID: <1179973228.4654f66c7334c@webmail.grandecom.net> Too late to complain or add any input now! You will take these resolutions up what ever orfice you choose and you WILL LIKE IT! The Topic committee has spoken and you are all now subject to its edicts! Zieg Heil! the Topic Committe pronouncements! Zieg Heil! A loyal supporter of topic selection via committee, with a 56 hour deadline. LOL From stannardmatt Wed May 23 21:30:34 2007 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 20:30:34 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] wyoming debate cooperative news and forum site Message-ID: There is a forum at debatecooperative.net devoted to the Wyoming Debate Cooperative. There, WDC participants can introduce themselves, ask questions, and get updates from the WDC staff. It's at http://www.debatecooperative.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=78. You have to be registered at debatecooperative.net in order to post, but that's easy, free, and oddly cleansing. mjs _________________________________________________________________ Download Messenger. Start an i?m conversation. Support a cause. Join now. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGWL_MAY07 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070523/957ca72e/attachment.htm From kel1773 Wed May 23 22:39:21 2007 From: kel1773 (Kelly Young) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 23:39:21 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Pluratity and other nonsense Message-ID: Apparently I have become the asshole that represents the topic committee. Scott just called me a Nazi, which is f@#%ing bullshit, but whatever, Scott can say what he wants since he is ignorant that we asked for wording papers and input for a month and he chose to response in the last 24 hours while ignoring the wealth of discussion and papers that we released during the process (well, and he was the first to call me an asshole, numbnutz etc when I responded to unsubstantiated claims). Of course I am waiting for the grant Korcok posts since he offered zero response to the working resolutions while we worked on them (at least Scott offered commentary on them during the process rather than after). Anyway, I feel as though Beth raises some reasonable questions, so I will respond as to how I best remember the committee's discussion, but reserve the right to not speak for the entire committee (if I am incorrect, please any of the other committee members or observers please follow up): 1) the second and fourth resolutions say 'them' (plural) referring to government (singular). I think usually the pronoun used to refer to a single government is 'its.' Wondering what the rationale for that is. Yes, we actually had about a 30 minute to hour conversation about this with both Chairs of English departments and a book editor. All of those sources agreed that "them" is an aesthetically awkward way to refer to either singular or plural. We were trying to avoid saying "its" because we said "one or more of the following". We didnt want the second half of the resolutions to be singular to infer that you could only do CE towards one nation. 2) if you offer a security guarantee to, for instance, Iran and the PA, does it have to be the same security guarantee? No, that is why we worded the resolution to be "guarantees(s). You cyould conceivably offer different CEs to both Syria and Iran. The only place we tried to control some directionality on this issue was in relation to including Israel. The reason for "trilateral" was in hopes that the aff made a proportional s guarantee to Israel and PA/Syria or Iran. 3) seems like one way to read the resolutions that include the 'only of offering' wording (#3 for instance) is that your constructive engagement should a) consist only of offering a trilateral SG or b) consist only of a bilateral SG (the difference being that a) is only an offer and b) is the SG itself) Yes, these resolutions are meant to be only security guarantee affirmatives. Since a trilateral and bilateral offer basically overlaps on this topic, it would allow the aff to offer the s guarantee to Israel and one other nation (read Syria or PA or Iran). As i have posted on the CEDA topic blog, the offer is still a solid commitment from the aff plan---they have to guarantee that the US has made the offer--if not, the nag should be able to school them out of the INC. The wording should not be read as allowing a highly conditional plan. The literature uses the term "offer" a guarantee to ensure that the affirmative doesn't do something like place troops in Golan/Gaza without first receiving agreements from Israel and Syria/PA. 4) if it is only an offer can the plan mandate the US following through on the offer? especially when it must consist "only of" a security guarantee or assistance Yes, the plan must guarantee that it follows through IF the target nation meets the conditions to receive the guarantees. The reason we used the wording "constructive engagement" is because it suggests a diplomatic quid pro quo exchange of offer for demands. If Syria says "hell no", then the affirmative does not have to place troops on Golan. Smart affs will have to include "syria/Israel" whomever will say yes to plan. 5) do you already have to have constructive engagement in order to increase it? do you have to have the particular type of constructive engagement - security guarantees or foreign assistance - that is specified by the rest of the resolution? We discussed this for a while. The age old bad T debate that "increase" means to "build upon". We used the "increase" language because for the majority of the topic nations--e.g., Syria, PA, Iran--we have zero C Engagement now. Thus the easy T answer should be "we are a 100% increase in CE from the SQ". Obviously with Egypt and Afghanistan, we have some level of engagment now, so the increase is even easier to measure. KellyKelly M. Young, Ph.D. Director of Forensics/ Assistant Professor Communication Department Wayne State University 585 Manoogian Hall Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 577-2953 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070523/3d4de465/attachment.htm From carolg Wed May 23 22:59:34 2007 From: carolg (Carol Green) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 20:59:34 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Judge needed this weekend in Houston! Message-ID: Passing this along: The Sacramento diocese needs an LD judge this weekend in Houston. No housing but we'll pay. We need one full commitment. Best offer to stephenegoldberg at comcast.net as soon as possible. Thanks! Carol Carol M. Green Communication Studies Department The Harker School 500 Saratoga Avenue San Jose, CA 95129 408-345-9655 (office) http://faculty.harker.org/carolg carolg at harker.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070523/4d0b5368/attachment.htm From kel1773 Wed May 23 23:14:58 2007 From: kel1773 (Kelly Young) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 00:14:58 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] No, it's not really alright to be pissed off about the topics Message-ID: Korcok says:Every year someone is pissed off by the list of topics that come out of the topic committee. And every year I defend the topic process and mock the malcontents. I have written 3 posts today only to have Jessica convince me to send each one to the Drafts folder and take a long walk. So tomorrow, or the next day, or whenever, I will express my frustration while still trying to be constructive.This day I will only post that if you are really disturbed with what has come out of the topic committee, you are not alone. Michael KorcokBakersfield College Me: No, it's not really acceptable for you to be pissed off about the potential resolutions. Unlike in most years, we posted web broadcasts of the meetings, posted working papers and working resolutions throughout the process and the committee was 100% faithful to the excellent paper written by Mancuso and Maffie and Watson, which the community has had access to for other a week to several months to consider (all three of which were unusually at the meeting to check us to make sure we where faithful to their papers). We watched both EDEBATE and the CEDA TOPIC blog everyday prior to and during our meeting. There were perhaps maybe 6-7 posts at most about the resolutions during all of this. And this is different than the usually bad claim that "well, I cannot afford to attend the meeting this year" nonsense. We posted everything electrically and recorded the meetings and thanks to Gordon Stables, was by far the most transparent and input seeking topic committee arrangement ever. Yet, there was the silence, and silence and even more silence until the resolutions were released. If you want to be pissed, be pissed that you did not: (1) offer a wording paper; (2) offer ANY input to the topic blog; (3) watch the web casts; or (4) sat anything at the NCA meetings, edebate calls for response and the other dozen demands for input on this process. Kelly M. Young, Ph.D. Director of Forensics/ Assistant Professor Communication Department Wayne State University 585 Manoogian Hall Detroit, MI 48201 (313) 577-2953 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070524/e1759021/attachment.htm From scottelliott Thu May 24 00:36:32 2007 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 00:36:32 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Kelly is right about one thing today Message-ID: <1179984992.46552460b945d@webmail.grandecom.net> Kelly is right about one thing today, or yesterday depending on the time zone. Namely, I don't think many people have a legitmate right to say anything about these topics no matter how flawed. Why? because most of you did not do a damn thing during the topic process. Most of you did not bother to suggest or write a topic paper. Few actually contributed wording papers. And suprisingly few people particpated in on-line discussions during the topic meeting. So, I say you should now take what you deserve to get. Apparently, a vast majority of those in the debate community could not give one shit about the wording of the topic--because, they are going to either find a way to run a K or find some link to a politcs disad, no matter what the topic is. Why do I care? because I tend to coach novice and JV debaters, which means I have to do a lot of work explaining topics and researcha ssignments. Bad resolutions make my life more difficult. I and others have offered plenty of ways to fix the topic selection process, but few seem to care. So, I say you get what you deserve. You got it two years ago on CHina and then you got it last year with the Courts topic. It reminds me of people as the gas station driving Seqouia's and Hummers, bitching about the high price of gas and wondering why we don't just leave them there A-Rabs alone. Scott From mmk_savant Thu May 24 01:07:29 2007 From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok) Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 23:07:29 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] ans Young Message-ID: Huh. Nonetheless, I am still pissed at the lousy topics you all put out. First, you are right, I could have had input and did not. None. I am not pissed at Mancuso, or at Young, and certainly not at Stables. Not even at Chief, who I am almost always pissed off at. I am not feeling disenfranchised or silenced or unrepresented or otherwise victimized. I feel fine about life, about the fact that 10% of Americans are now atheists, and even about Jordin winning American Idol this year. I am nonetheless pissed off that you all produced bird crap for topics. Second, you all are the topic committee and you write topics. I am not on the topic committee and I do not write topics. Think of it this way: you are General Motors and you make cars. I am Joe American and I buy one of your cars. If I buy your Pinto and it explodes, I get to complain about what a shitty car you made. And you don't get to respond with "HEY!!! I didn't see you at the engineering meetings!" Third, the meeting was at the end of our finals week and no way was I flying to the Hills Have Eyes Mountains. More importantly, Glen Frappier got married to Cynthia Wells and it was a lovely ceremony. All the best people attended. Didn't see you there, but I ain't sayin that means nuthin. And I did try on 5 separate occasions to get the live webcast. I even downloaded that POS quicktime spamware but NO GO. Tried different security and firewall settings and so on, but I only got that stupid spinning Apple icon. I went to that Topic Blog URL for the first time after Gordon posted the topics - I will never go to that awful place again. EVER! I now refer to that blog as THAT PLACE WITH THOSE HORRIBLE FUCKING TOPICS. Fourth, Jessica just suggested how my dismay could be communicated to you. If every member of the topic committee were required to roleplay a 2 minute explanation of the resolutions to the President of their University, then stuff like this would never get produced. Look, I know most of you. I am pretty sure not one of you could, at this moment, even recite each of the 4 resolutions without at least 5 errors. That's because each one is a twisted wreckage of the english language at least 40 words long. What the hell is wrong with you?!?! Aren't you CERTAIN that every one of the 20 English professors you consulted about the topic wording started laughing out loud as soon as they stopped talking to you? I am. The Cornell English major sitting next to me is still snickering. And yes, she was on the topic committee. Fifth, the resolutions you produced are novice recruiting nightmares. "What is the topic Professor Korcok?" "Unh, well, Promising Bright-Eyed Newbie debater, it's "Resolved: The Us Federal Government should legalize pot!" "GEE! That's great! Sign me up, Professor!" "Well, unh, I was mistaken. It is actually Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of: Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and Syria, and it should consist only of offering them a trilateral security guarantee(s) with Israel, and/or a bilateral security guarantee(s), and/or a substantial increase in foreign assistance." "SCREW YOU OLD MAN!!! I'm gonna join the Chess Team." Thanks Topic Committee. Thanks a lot. WHAT THE HELL WERE YOU THINKING?!? Sixth, aww the hell with it. I am going to spend some time thinking of what we could do to prevent these meltdowns in the future. Things like warning labels at the bottom of every topic paper: "THE COMMUNITY VOTED FOR THIS TOPIC, NOT FOR THIS TOPIC PAPER." (the NO HOLY TEXTS Rule). Or things like changing the system so every topic paper clearly identifies 3 resolutions as those resolutions which will appear on the resolutional ballot along with 3 resolutions which the topic committee crafts (the 3+3 Rule). Or things like a 25 word resolutional limit: because the word RESOLVED should not be the first word of a FRIKKIN INCOHERENT NOVEL. Things like that. Because this is the first time in 15 years that I miss those days of yore when the topic was decided by Michael Bartanen sitting down in his couch 2 days before the topic release date and thinking about what resolution he was going to throw out for us. Gonna go for a long walk now,Michael Korcok Bakersfield College _________________________________________________________________ Download Messenger. Start an i?m conversation. Support a cause. Join now. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGWL_MAY07 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070523/cd98ab9a/attachment.htm From wordsscareme Thu May 24 05:33:17 2007 From: wordsscareme (Scared of Words) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 06:33:17 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Hilarity, and other nonsense Message-ID: Plan texts from the debate future: Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of: Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, and Syria and contain only whatever is behind door #2. Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of: Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, and it should consist only of incomplete, run-on sentences. Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of: Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, and that we offer them things they want upon which they will forget who they were that we were referring to while talking about them. Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of: Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, including or consisting of offering them something. P.S. They won't take it. What's solvency? Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of: Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, and Syria Resolved: that the United States - dude where did you put the res - i can't remember all that. Resolved: that the USFG should increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of: A, E, I, O U. Whatever offering is made may only include consonant letters and must include R,S,T,L, and N. Resolved: that the United State Federal Government should increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of the following: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should increase constructive engagement through bilateral security guarantees or substantially increased foreign assistance with one or more of the following governments: Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Oh wait. That last one is hilarious. Sincerely, One of the Poor Souls Who Will Watch New Novice's Eyes Glaze Over After Psyching Them Up About Debate. From stevendamico Thu May 24 08:12:11 2007 From: stevendamico (Steven D'Amico) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 09:12:11 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] JOB: Coaching GW Debate Team Message-ID: GW is looking for a new debate coach who will report directly to our Director of Forensics, Steven Keller. I am stepping down because I just don't have the time to be in charge of the team. The job is best suited for a GW graduate or law student as the job can grant tuition benefits. The team will be very small next year and doesn't expect a national travel schedule--if you know any friends who attend GW in any capacity and have policy debate experience you should let them now about this opportunity because I doubt the job will require the time commitment I've given it the last few years. Steve Keller is a great, active and well respected director of forensics. Our office is only about five blocks from the Whitehouse, so you won't have to suffer from a slow painful radiation death when next years nuclear war disads become reality. Get in touch with me for more details. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070524/76f47cbf/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Thu May 24 08:31:31 2007 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 07:31:31 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] analogies Message-ID: When I was young I had to take a few religious education classes. One day, the instructor explained how a 16 year-old girl was like a birthday cake, all brand new and frosted. He explained that if she makes out and heavy pets with boys, it's like licking the frosting off a brand new birthday cake. And nobody wants a cake with the frosting licked off. The analogy below, made by Korcok, is quite possibly the SECOND least appropriate and ill-conceived analogy I've ever heard. He should be ashamed for writing it. He should initiate a self-imposed exile from edebate of a period no less than six months for coming up with this horrid analogy. mjs >>>>>>>>>>> Second, you all are the topic committee and you write topics. I am not on the topic committee and I do not write topics. Think of it this way: you are General Motors and you make cars. I am Joe American and I buy one of your cars. If I buy your Pinto and it explodes, I get to complain about what a shitty car you made. And you don't get to respond with "HEY!!! I didn't see you at the engineering meetings!" >>>>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________ Change is good. See what?s different about Windows Live Hotmail. http://www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/default.html?locale=en-us&ocid=RMT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_changegood_0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070524/d5306769/attachment.htm From stevendamico Thu May 24 08:49:08 2007 From: stevendamico (Steven D'Amico) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 09:49:08 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Ans Young. Message-ID: Michael, Your attitude is insulting and condescending. I just wrote an email going point by point on your last email but it doesn't even seem worth it. I will say this. Your GM analogy is silly--GM doesn't invite citizens to design their cars. You could have written a wording paper before hand and didn't. What do you expect your attitude to accomplish strategically? All you have done here is make folks dislike you even more. I don't even know you and I'm bothered. How does it feel to have someone dislike you just for what you typed on a web page? The idea that the TC will get together and do new reses is laughable, so all you have really done is hurt your relationships with other folks. Seriously, have you ever thought about leadership at all and how you should lead with praise before you rip into people? Do you even understand how to get a long with other people or a community you value? Try this next time. "I think the work the topic committee did was really valuable and I'm sorry I couldn't make it there to offer input. I have one slight concern I'd like y'alls input on, are we worried that the non-grammatical nature of these resolutions might hurt novice recruitment? Is there any way to fix it?" You get more flies with honey--oh but wait you don't care about that. Steve D'Amico -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070524/24840dd3/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Thu May 24 09:13:30 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:13:30 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] ans Young In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705240713w1415a5c5q4afbc8af242079e1@mail.gmail.com> Sir, you clearly fail to respect the innovation involved in this resolution. This years process has moved signifignatly past the buffet method of resolutions past. I beleive, though my research on this is not fully developed, the topic committee is using a method known as the double buffet,also know as "the fazzoli method", and a close relative "the restricted fazzoli method". These indicate a signifigant change from a topic in which you simply could choose a country or an unrelated policy, but had to take one line. In the Fazzoli method you have two sets of choices,to use an analogy you choose the pasta, then you choose the sauce...In the restricted fazzoli method your choice of sauces is limited, but you can still choose this pasta(this is usualy reserved for food courts and catering). Does that clear it up? A PS- i left before the topic committe, couldnt watch any thing, but more importantly if i had been at the topic meeting and had argued that to many words and to much research make a bad topic what exactly would have happened? On 5/24/07, Michael Korcok wrote: > > Huh. Nonetheless, I am still pissed at the lousy topics you all put out. > > First, you are right, I could have had input and did not. None. I am not > pissed at Mancuso, or at Young, and certainly not at Stables. Not even at > Chief, who I am almost always pissed off at. I am not feeling > disenfranchised or silenced or unrepresented or otherwise victimized. I > feel fine about life, about the fact that 10% of Americans are now atheists, > and even about Jordin winning American Idol this year. I am nonetheless > pissed off that you all produced bird crap for topics. > > Second, you all are the topic committee and you write topics. I am not on > the topic committee and I do not write topics. Think of it this way: you > are General Motors and you make cars. I am Joe American and I buy one > of your cars. If I buy your Pinto and it explodes, I get to complain about > what a shitty car you made. And you don't get to respond with "HEY!!! I > didn't see you at the engineering meetings!" > > Third, the meeting was at the end of our finals week and no way was I > flying to the Hills Have Eyes Mountains. More importantly, Glen Frappier > got married to Cynthia Wells and it was a lovely ceremony. All the best > people attended. Didn't see you there, but I ain't sayin that means > nuthin. And I did try on 5 separate occasions to get the live webcast. I > even downloaded that POS quicktime spamware but NO GO. Tried different > security and firewall settings and so on, but I only got that stupid > spinning Apple icon. I went to that Topic Blog URL for the first time after > Gordon posted the topics - I will never go to that awful place again. > EVER! I now refer to that blog as THAT PLACE WITH THOSE HORRIBLE FUCKING > TOPICS. > > Fourth, Jessica just suggested how my dismay could be communicated to > you. If every member of the topic committee were required to roleplay a 2 > minute explanation of the resolutions to the President of their University, > then stuff like this would never get produced. Look, I know most of you. I > am pretty sure not one of you could, at this moment, even recite each of the > 4 resolutions without at least 5 errors. That's because each one is a > twisted wreckage of the english language at least 40 words long. What the > hell is wrong with you?!?! Aren't you CERTAIN that every one of the 20 > English professors you consulted about the topic wording started laughing > out loud as soon as they stopped talking to you? I am. The Cornell English > major sitting next to me is still snickering. And yes, she was on the topic > committee. > > Fifth, the resolutions you produced are novice recruiting nightmares. > "What is the topic Professor Korcok?" "Unh, well, Promising Bright-Eyed > Newbie debater, it's "Resolved: The Us Federal Government should legalize > pot!" "GEE! That's great! Sign me up, Professor!" "Well, unh, I was > mistaken. It is actually Resolved: that the United States Federal > Government should increase its constructive engagement with the government > of one or more of: Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, > and Syria, and it should consist only of offering them a trilateral security > guarantee(s) with Israel, and/or a bilateral security guarantee(s), and/or a > substantial increase in foreign assistance." "SCREW YOU OLD MAN!!! I'm gonna > join the Chess Team." Thanks Topic Committee. Thanks a lot. WHAT THE HELL > WERE YOU THINKING?!? > > Sixth, aww the hell with it. I am going to spend some time thinking of > what we could do to prevent these meltdowns in the future. Things like > warning labels at the bottom of every topic paper: "THE COMMUNITY VOTED > FOR THIS TOPIC, NOT FOR THIS TOPIC PAPER." (the NO HOLY TEXTS Rule). Or > things like changing the system so every topic paper clearly identifies 3 > resolutions as those resolutions which will appear on the resolutional > ballot along with 3 resolutions which the topic committee crafts (the 3+3 > Rule). Or things like a 25 word resolutional limit: because the word > RESOLVED should not be the first word of a FRIKKIN INCOHERENT NOVEL. Things > like that. Because this is the first time in 15 years that I miss those > days of yore when the topic was decided by Michael Bartanen sitting down in > his couch 2 days before the topic release date and thinking about what > resolution he was going to throw out for us. > > Gonna go for a long walk now, > Michael Korcok > Bakersfield College > > > > ------------------------------ > Download Messenger. Start an i'm conversation. Support a cause. Join Now! > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070524/a3142981/attachment.htm From glueboy1000 Thu May 24 09:26:42 2007 From: glueboy1000 (jack sprat) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 07:26:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Delicious Topic Controversies Message-ID: <821967.67414.qm@web38214.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Stannard says: "When I was young I had to take a few religious education classes. One day, the instructor explained how a 16 year-old girl was like a birthday cake, all brand new and frosted. He explained that if she makes out and heavy pets with boys, it's like licking the frosting off a brand new birthday cake. And nobody wants a cake with the frosting licked off." I say: Delicious Cake!! D'Amico Says: "You get more flies with honey--oh but wait you don't care about that. " I say: You sure caught this fly! Honey is delicious! Andy says: "I beleive, though my research on this is not fully developed, the topic committee is using a method known as the double buffet,also know as "the fazzoli method", and a close relative "the restricted fazzoli method". " I say: Mmmm. . . .Fazzoli's. Also, Andy, to be fair, Ken Delaughter pioneered the double-buffet method (as well as his vaunted triple buffet and a drive through metric). John --------------------------------- Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070524/ac1795d7/attachment.htm From privethedge Thu May 24 09:37:25 2007 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 07:37:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] ans Young In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <692280.75871.qm@web50908.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I am curious as to why the College Community doesn't require its authors to submit possible topic wordings with their papers, the same way the High School community does. Our topic process is more about the author defending the wording of prospective topics, than it is having the committee actually crafting the wording for the author. H. "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill "Have a Cluckity, Cluck, Cluck Day" --------------------------------- Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070524/eec15caa/attachment.htm From scottelliott Thu May 24 10:08:46 2007 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:08:46 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Please Read. The implications of bad resolutions on debate programs Message-ID: <1180019326.4655aa7e927c9@webmail.grandecom.net> Resolutions matter. I was asked to take over a university debate program this Fall and switch it over from Parlimentary/Public Debate/I.E. to an NDT/CEDA policy debate program. This means I am having to start over from scratch, or having to convice students who have done one form of debate to start doing policy. Or, I have to recruit from either the student body at large or from my argumentation classes. The resolution matters. It matters a lot to a coach of a small or new squad. Looking at this morass, I am seriously considering holding off switching to policy debate for at least a year. There is little chance of me recruiting students if I have to give them one of these resolutions as the starting point of there debate odessey. If this continues, I guess I will just suck it up and keep one less program in the South (and now absolutely NONE in the entire state of Louisiana, and there used to be at least five)from doing policy debate, which many of you may enjoy, but I find rather tragic. Simply put, there is more than one way for people to vote. I think some program directors will simply vote with their feet. I have thought long and hard this week about the logistics of a small program trying to grapple with these resolutions. Other than running the same kritik every round, I just do not see how a small or new program (read one coach, less than 8 debaters) can even begin to compete at the NOVICE level with these resolutions. It would take me an entire year just to get my Israel file together (with all the link stories, c-plans and answers, etc.) and I have been in policy debate for over 20 years! Would the following resolution have been so bad?: "Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should substnatially increase constructive engagement with Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Lebanon, or Egypt." Is this example of a straight forward resolution something I could go to my new department chair, recite from memory and explain? Yes. Is this something I could recite from memory and explain the a freshman college student in Louisiana? Absolutely! Could I build a new program based on it? I believe so. I just do not understand why every year the resolutions get worse and worse. They are all hypertechnical, poorly written, and just plain bad. My conclusions are that either the system of resolution writing is horribly flawed, or the people who write them have a flaw, or both. I think we have too many topic committte members with their "debater" hats on when they write these resolutions, rather than having their "debate coach" and "program director" hats on. Worse, they forget that there are multiple target audiences for each year's debate resolutions. Currently, and rather obviously, the only audience targeted this year was the most elite of the policy debaters, only those who have been steeped in foreign policy debates for the past six years. I think that novices, students who work, students in argumentation classes, new programs, small programs, program directors who are searching for more support from their administration, and former debaters who would like to watch a debate round, have been ignored. It truly breaks my heart to look at these resolutions and to feel totally alienated from an activity I love and believe to be an important teaching tool. When people start commenting, the responses have been basically that no community input will be considered--too late, topic committee has met, you will take these resolutions, whether you like them or not. No, I do not have to take it. We were thinking of hosting a rebirth of the Mardi Gras tournament for policy debate in the Spring. Now, I don't think we will even be in the policy debate form of forensics for at least a year. The only other option I see is to start a new organization, al la CEDA in the 1970's, as an alternative form of policy debate geared toward small programs; teaching college students policy and value debate with a limited, but necessary research focus; and regional debate. Sadly, this is what CEDA used to be. I normally do not put my title or credentials at the bottom of my e-mail posts because I would rather people look at the argument rather than the credentials. But today I will. Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D., J.D. Assistant Professor and Director of Forensics University of Lousiana-Lafayette From adamhfar Thu May 24 11:01:27 2007 From: adamhfar (Adam Farra) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 12:01:27 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Topic Ain't So Bad - Haters Could Not Have Done Better In-Reply-To: <1180019326.4655aa7e927c9@webmail.grandecom.net> References: <1180019326.4655aa7e927c9@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <4EB116FF-EBDB-4AE4-9A11-5A77205A1E93@umich.edu> I think the topic committee did quite well, and the effort put in (especially by Gordon) was inspiring. "Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should substnatially increase constructive engagement with Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Lebanon, or Egypt." This explicitly would not have worked, and the committee discussed why at length (I know because I was watching the broadcast when they were discussing "Constructive Engagement.") Rather than getting into that - I think I'll just address the reality of the situation: debate topics are an unusual phenomenon - to be good they need a large literature base, but they can't be unmanageable. They need a set course of action to be taken, but that course of action can't be exceedingly narrow. They need to be relatively traditional in the framing of issues (so that they still look like policy debate topics), but they need to take into account the mistakes of the topics of yesteryear. All of this makes the process of creating a topic exceedingly difficult (if not impossible), because debate inevitably bastardizes the literature base that it sets out to research - the job of the topic committee is to simply figure out how to minimize that effect and to still have an educational topic. If you don't like the topic, then you're probably of the camp that doesn't like the way debate is now (which is fine, but you have bigger fish to fry than the topic's wording). There is no doubt that the topics produced are a little wordy and somewhat jargonistic - welcome to the world of foreign policy in the Middle East. I don't think there was a way for the topic committee to have made the topic "simpler" to understand while not making it unmanageably large. If you want to debate the Middle East in a sophisticated fashion (i.e. not throw around "Axis of Evil Good/Bad") then you'd better get familiar with an encyclopedia of vocab we don't hear everyday - everything from Strategic Depth to Sykes-Picot to Orientalism to Mahdism to the name of every political organization/ party in the Middle East. It's going to be a jargonistic topic, and if you're not up for expanding your vocabulary then you can be assured that this WILL NOT be an easy topic for you (whether you're a novice or have been debating for 7-8 years). Thanks topic committee! And especially thanks to Gordon! Adam Michigan On May 24, 2007, at 11:08 AM, scottelliott at grandecom.net wrote: > Resolutions matter. I was asked to take over a university debate > program this > Fall and switch it over from Parlimentary/Public Debate/I.E. to an > NDT/CEDA > policy debate program. This means I am having to start over from > scratch, or > having to convice students who have done one form of debate to > start doing > policy. Or, I have to recruit from either the student body at large > or from my > argumentation classes. > > The resolution matters. It matters a lot to a coach of a small or > new squad. > Looking at this morass, I am seriously considering holding off > switching to > policy debate for at least a year. There is little chance of me > recruiting > students if I have to give them one of these resolutions as the > starting point > of there debate odessey. If this continues, I guess I will just > suck it up and > keep one less program in the South (and now absolutely NONE in the > entire state > of Louisiana, and there used to be at least five)from doing policy > debate, which > many of you may enjoy, but I find rather tragic. Simply put, there > is more than > one way for people to vote. I think some program directors will > simply vote > with their feet. > > I have thought long and hard this week about the logistics of a > small program > trying to grapple with these resolutions. Other than running the > same kritik > every round, I just do not see how a small or new program (read one > coach, less > than 8 debaters) can even begin to compete at the NOVICE level with > these > resolutions. It would take me an entire year just to get my Israel > file > together (with all the link stories, c-plans and answers, etc.) and > I have been > in policy debate for over 20 years! > > Would the following resolution have been so bad?: > > "Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should > substnatially > increase constructive engagement with Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, > Lebanon, or > Egypt." > > Is this example of a straight forward resolution something I could > go to my new > department chair, recite from memory and explain? Yes. Is this > something I > could recite from memory and explain the a freshman college student in > Louisiana? Absolutely! Could I build a new program based on it? I > believe so. > > I just do not understand why every year the resolutions get worse > and worse. > They are all hypertechnical, poorly written, and just plain bad. My > conclusions > are that either the system of resolution writing is horribly > flawed, or the > people who write them have a flaw, or both. I think we have too > many topic > committte members with their "debater" hats on when they write these > resolutions, rather than having their "debate coach" and "program > director" > hats on. Worse, they forget that there are multiple target > audiences for each > year's debate resolutions. > > Currently, and rather obviously, the only audience targeted this > year was the > most elite of the policy debaters, only those who have been steeped > in foreign > policy debates for the past six years. I think that novices, > students who work, > students in argumentation classes, new programs, small programs, > program > directors who are searching for more support from their > administration, and > former debaters who would like to watch a debate round, have been > ignored. It > truly breaks my heart to look at these resolutions and to feel totally > alienated from an activity I love and believe to be an important > teaching tool. > > When people start commenting, the responses have been basically > that no > community input will be considered--too late, topic committee has > met, you will > take these resolutions, whether you like them or not. No, I do not > have to take > it. > > We were thinking of hosting a rebirth of the Mardi Gras tournament > for policy > debate in the Spring. Now, I don't think we will even be in the > policy debate > form of forensics for at least a year. The only other option I see > is to start a > new organization, al la CEDA in the 1970's, as an alternative form > of policy > debate geared toward small programs; teaching college students > policy and value > debate with a limited, but necessary research focus; and regional > debate. > Sadly, this is what CEDA used to be. > > I normally do not put my title or credentials at the bottom of my e- > mail posts > because I would rather people look at the argument rather than the > credentials. > But today I will. > > Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D., J.D. > Assistant Professor and Director of Forensics > University of Lousiana-Lafayette > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070524/dc7fedc8/attachment.htm From velcrowe Thu May 24 11:43:27 2007 From: velcrowe (Chris Crowe) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:43:27 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Snakes on a Plane (literally) in the news... Message-ID: <623f2fe20705240943v70c84f3at10d83b0b3bb861c0@mail.gmail.com> Apparently we should have an airline safety topic... http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/24/egypt.snakes.ap/index.html -- Christopher Crowe University of Wyoming -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070524/63a2957e/attachment.htm From daisy_verney Thu May 24 12:06:07 2007 From: daisy_verney (Danielle Verney) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:06:07 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Please Read. The implications of bad resolutions ondebate programs In-Reply-To: <1180019326.4655aa7e927c9@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: This just doesn't make much sense to me. I understand that there is some harm in an aesthetically unpleasing wording of the resolution - and all other things held equal a more elegant wording would be better. BUT all other things aren't held equal - the reason the committee used a legalistic topic wording choice is it creates a more precise resolution - less suscesptible to squirrely affs outside of the controversy and less prone to niggling T debates. Also, I would argue that the harm of imprecise resolutions outweighes the ugliness of wordy resolutions. The resolution is the T limit - so it has to control debates -- BUT the resolution is not how you have to advertise - so you can avoid the ugliness harms by telling people they are going to debate CE to various ME governments; true enough for recruitment purposes - and they are going to have to get into far more gritty specifics when they learn to debate anyways than the wordy topic - so no harm no foul. Line by line below. >Resolutions matter. I was asked to take over a university debate program >this >Fall and switch it over from Parlimentary/Public Debate/I.E. to an NDT/CEDA >policy debate program. This means I am having to start over from scratch, >or >having to convice students who have done one form of debate to start doing >policy. Or, I have to recruit from either the student body at large or from >my >argumentation classes. > >The resolution matters. It matters a lot to a coach of a small or new >squad. >Looking at this morass, I am seriously considering holding off switching to >policy debate for at least a year. There is little chance of me recruiting >students if I have to give them one of these resolutions as the starting >point >of there debate odessey. If this continues, I guess I will just suck it up >and >keep one less program in the South (and now absolutely NONE in the entire >state >of Louisiana, and there used to be at least five)from doing policy debate, >which >many of you may enjoy, but I find rather tragic. Simply put, there is more >than >one way for people to vote. I think some program directors will simply vote >with their feet. So start a little bit vaguer = and then work on the specifics - its not like the proposed resolutions are substantially different than your proposed resolution of increase CE to ME gov't X - they just require security guarantees or foreign assistance - hardly a big difference. >I have thought long and hard this week about the logistics of a small >program >trying to grapple with these resolutions. Other than running the same >kritik >every round, I just do not see how a small or new program (read one coach, >less >than 8 debaters) can even begin to compete at the NOVICE level with these >resolutions. It would take me an entire year just to get my Israel file >together (with all the link stories, c-plans and answers, etc.) and I have >been >in policy debate for over 20 years! And your resolution below would have solved the Israel problem how? (other than Afghanistan affs). The Israel problem is inevitable on this controversy area; anything done in the region impacts Israel - and the Israel debate is complex. You're going to have to deal with it. Nonetheless, I think your substantially overestimating how hard it will be to cope with the Israel debate - AND any good topic is going to have complex areas that you have to get into - the Genetics topic would have avoided thrusting novices into complex debates with TONS of lit and different links, CPs, and answers how? Having debated novice on the sanctions topic which included Syria, Iraq, and Iran I think novices can deal with the Israel debate on this topic. >Would the following resolution have been so bad?: > >"Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should substnatially >increase constructive engagement with Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, Lebanon, or >Egypt." This is dramatically different from topic 1 how? (other than the Egypt for P.A. switch) Rez 1 avoids the stupid reading of "or" as disjunctive - requiring the aff to do only 1 country and not more than 1. Yes that reading is poor, and you should be able to beat it - but not always - and its a dumb T debate to have. And then Rez 1 requires that you include either a security guarantee OR foreign assistance - which seems to be just a check on truly minimal affs that would have a CE of a little bit nicer diplomacy only. These two changes make Rez 1 a little more wordy, but at the gain of some real improvements in precision. Your right lay people - would just say your Rez - but you don't have to jump into specifics at the very beggining. The other rez's make small modifications in topic size/focus - but are other wise the same. >Is this example of a straight forward resolution something I could go to my >new >department chair, recite from memory and explain? Yes. Is this something I >could recite from memory and explain the a freshman college student in >Louisiana? Absolutely! Could I build a new program based on it? I believe >so. Why do you need to explain the entire rez from the start? You can explain the core of the rez from memory - and get into details when necessary -- its not like the details betray the summary - just clarify it. >I just do not understand why every year the resolutions get worse and >worse. >They are all hypertechnical, poorly written, and just plain bad. My >conclusions >are that either the system of resolution writing is horribly flawed, or the >people who write them have a flaw, or both. I think we have too many topic >committte members with their "debater" hats on when they write these >resolutions, rather than having their "debate coach" and "program director" >hats on. Worse, they forget that there are multiple target audiences for >each >year's debate resolutions. How was last years rez hypertechnical? And I admit that the rez is not good creative writting - but I think you need to make a stronger case that it needs to be. What these rez's succeed at it is being pretty precise as to what they would and would not include. This makes it easier for noivces as you have a better idea the actual aff's they will face. >Currently, and rather obviously, the only audience targeted this year was >the >most elite of the policy debaters, only those who have been steeped in >foreign >policy debates for the past six years. I think that novices, students who >work, >students in argumentation classes, new programs, small programs, program >directors who are searching for more support from their administration, and >former debaters who would like to watch a debate round, have been ignored. >It >truly breaks my heart to look at these resolutions and to feel totally >alienated from an activity I love and believe to be an important teaching >tool. This is ridiculous. Former debaters who would like to watch a round are going to be hurt by a legalistic resolution as opposed to a one sentence one? Wow are the former debaters you know fragile people! As to admins and new debaters see above. >When people start commenting, the responses have been basically that no >community input will be considered--too late, topic committee has met, you >will >take these resolutions, whether you like them or not. No, I do not have to >take >it. YES! There is a tight window for when this has to get done. No one has time before the NDT. Students are leaving like right now, and we might want to consult with them before they are out of touch for the whole summer. You can't do it a whole extra year before because its too far out for many people's attention spans, and God only knows what could happen to muck up the topic area in that much time. So in between the NDT and late May we need to pick a slate of topics, give people time to think, vote, and then pick a slate of rezs, and give people time to think and vote - thats necessarily going to be somewhat tigh. Despite these constraints the committee was very open to suggestions - just because people disagreed with you and you lost out doesn't mean you weren't heard! (e.g. I'm still nervous about Afghanistan - but its clear that the committee considered it, did more research on it than I have time to do, and came out the other way, they may be wrong - they are probably right (they are all really smart!) - but they certainly did everything they could). If you bitch now it really is to late. Your concerns aren't necessarily everyone's concerns - and they might be difficult to deal with - so people would have to meet, research, work, and discuss how to meet them. There isn't any more time for that - so yes, your bitching is not constructive, you should probably focus on what resolution of the 4 works best for you and persuading others - or much more politely trying to come up with feasible ways to make the process preferable to you in the future. >We were thinking of hosting a rebirth of the Mardi Gras tournament for >policy >debate in the Spring. Now, I don't think we will even be in the policy >debate >form of forensics for at least a year. The only other option I see is to >start a >new organization, al la CEDA in the 1970's, as an alternative form of >policy >debate geared toward small programs; teaching college students policy and >value >debate with a limited, but necessary research focus; and regional debate. >Sadly, this is what CEDA used to be. This slate of resolutions isn't bad - and hyperbole doesn't make them so. If you really think gramatically simpler resolutions make for easier to research debates I guess you should explain why and try to sell people on it for future topics; but its really unclear how you avoid the Israel debate you complain about here by making the topic less wordy. I don't think the rez is a barrier to regional debate - ADA boy that I am, I think you should have stricter/smaller rezes that are more easily grabbed on to by novices. >I normally do not put my title or credentials at the bottom of my e-mail >posts >because I would rather people look at the argument rather than the >credentials. >But today I will. > >Scott M. Elliott, Ph.D., J.D. >Assistant Professor and Director of Forensics >University of Lousiana-Lafayette > Tom O'Gorman (husband of Danielle), J.D. Volunteer Assistant Coach USNA _________________________________________________________________ Catch suspicious messages before you open them?with Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_protection_0507 From stevendamico Thu May 24 12:24:36 2007 From: stevendamico (Steven D'Amico) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:24:36 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Please Read. The implications of bad resolutions ondebate programs In-Reply-To: References: <1180019326.4655aa7e927c9@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: JUST TELL YOUR DEPARTMENT CHAIR THE ISSUE IS "CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT IN THE MIDDLE EAST" DON'T TELL THEM THE RES. DUH! We choose not to tell department chairs about speed in debate all the time because some folks won't get it. And if they ask the res, explain to the them why it was worded the way it was. This is an ACADEMIC discipline. This ain't no presidential debate where we have 30 second word bytes.Your ACADEMIC chairs might understand there is a method to the madness of more complicated phrasing. Also tell your new novices that the topic is "MIDDLE EAST ENGAGEMENT" and then when you are teaching them, you can explain why it's complicated and why it SHOULD be. Hell the Mid-East isn't an easy issue. Finally, you ask why it couldn't have been shorter and simpler. READ THE BLOG. The fact you are criticizing without understanding the logic is indicative of the condescending and insulting attitude you seem to display. CA my post to Korscock -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070524/efd3fb30/attachment.htm From bk2nocal Thu May 24 12:46:41 2007 From: bk2nocal (Sue Peterson) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:46:41 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Please Read. The implications of bad resolutions ondebate programs In-Reply-To: References: <1180019326.4655aa7e927c9@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: <417507f50705241046t27e6febdu1252cd7a5a9e9bd5@mail.gmail.com> I am attempting to stay out of the fray, but would like to offer a possible solution to some of the problems - in order to make sure that advanced intercollegiate debate does not become too unwieldy (in the interest of providing some aff flex, but not returning to the oft referred to and hated Mexico topic of old), there have to be some additional stipulations on resolutions. Constructive engagement is a huge area encompassing a huge number of actions that can be done - so that reduces your ability to provide specific case debate against affs as well - the knife is double-edged in a lot of these cases - simplicity of resolution sometimes = unpredictability. The age-old debate of broad topics or small topics for novice/small programs will continue ad nausea BUT... For novice debate, I encourage programs to consider limiting the resolution at their tournaments, especially in the fall semester. So, perhaps Scott's topic will work for the first tournament of the year in novice division - or maybe even including foreign assistance or security assistance in there (so the novices get to figure out what that term means). Maybe just one or two of the countries instead of all of them... USC hosted a rookie tournament last year where we ONLY debated Quirin...and the students loved it...and many of them started debating in novice at tournaments after that where all four cases were being debated. I don't know about other areas of the country, but I think that most are receptive to making novice debate meaningful for novice debaters... I'm not going to try to defend our decisions in the TC as it doesn't do any good really, but I do think there are alternatives to the topic for novice-level debate that still allows for interest and engagement, while not creating a world where the varsity debates become free-for-alls for the affirmative teams. --Sue On 5/24/07, Steven D'Amico wrote: > > JUST TELL YOUR DEPARTMENT CHAIR THE ISSUE IS "CONSTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENT IN > THE MIDDLE EAST" DON'T TELL THEM THE RES. DUH! > > We choose not to tell department chairs about speed in debate all the time > because some folks won't get it. And if they ask the res, explain to the > them why it was worded the way it was. > > This is an ACADEMIC discipline. This ain't no presidential debate where we > have 30 second word bytes.Your ACADEMIC chairs might understand there is a > method to the madness of more complicated phrasing. > > Also tell your new novices that the topic is "MIDDLE EAST ENGAGEMENT" and > then when you are teaching them, you can explain why it's complicated and > why it SHOULD be. Hell the Mid-East isn't an easy issue. > > Finally, you ask why it couldn't have been shorter and simpler. READ THE > BLOG. The fact you are criticizing without understanding the logic is > indicative of the condescending and insulting attitude you seem to display. > CA my post to Korscock > > > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -- Sue Peterson "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." Dr Seuss -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070524/3c75d359/attachment.htm From scottelliott Thu May 24 12:52:56 2007 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 12:52:56 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] List of things to prep for on just one Affirmative case. Message-ID: <1180029176.4655d0f86e1da@webmail.grandecom.net> Sitting here thinking about it. Here is one example of what I am going to have to do for just one case. It is really quite manageable now that I have thoguht about it. I am sure you will agree after reading this list. To use Kelly's most middle of the road "Golan Heights" Affirmative case example: C-Plans to prep against: No U.S. troops-just observers. No troops, just survellance flights using predator drones with sweet hellfire missles. No Troops, but promises to keep the 5th or 6th fleet on the doorstep for bombing raids if either one of the countries attacks. No troops, but lots of confidence building measures. Technology-landmines or a big fense, or sensors Technology-work with Israel to create a missle defense shield for small rockets. NATO Troops instead of U.S. Troops EU troops instead of U.S. Troops Russian Troops instead of U.S. Troops Different mechanisms--almost a plan-plan style of debate. Consult Turkey (huge) (all of those bilateral and tri-lateral resolutions make these competitive and non-topical) Consult Turkey and Greece Consult the new government of Iraq Consult Iran Consult Saudi Arabia Consult Oman Consult Jordon Consult with UAE Consult Russia Consult with Afghanstan Consult with Pakistan Consult with India Consult with China Consult with Japan Consult via a Pan-Arabic conference Consult the PLO Consult with Hamas Consult with Hezbollah Consult with the PLA Consult with NATO Consult with the EU Consult with U.S. NGO's Consult with Oil Corporations Consult with any other coutnry--Venezuela and Cuba comes to mind. Agent of Action C-plans: Russia China EU NATO (the resolutions, in my opinion opens the door for multiple agent of action c-plans) Congress enacts Executive Order United Nations with real troops and U.S. logistical support. Disads: Turkey-Water wars Turkey-Invade the Kurds Turkey-Civil War Turkey-Shift to radical Islam Turkish Elections Turkey EU Relations Collapse of Turkey's secular government Turkey wars with Syria Turkey wars with Israel Syrian civil war Syria reinvades Lebanon Syrian government collapse Syrian government bolsterd witha shunning impact Syrian proliferation of the CBW's is is holding over from the Iraq regime change Syrian water conflicts Syrian Encirclement (damn! U.S. Troops to the west of Syria and now U.S. troops to the South of Syria. Better reinvade Lebanon so we can have a bigger power base. Strengthen Hamas Strengthen Hezbollah Strengthen the PLO Strengthen the PLA Strengthen Al Queda Weaken Hamas Weaken Hezbollah (weakness will cause them to want to do a spectacular terror strike) Weaken the PLO Weaken the PLA Weaken Al Queda Weaken/Strengthen the Pan-Islamic movements Israel: Israeli Elections Israeli Civil War (I guess there are at least five different link stories to have to work through) Israeli hard-liner coup Isreali crackdown on the PLA Isreali crackdown on Hezbollah Israeli crackdown on Hamas Isreali crackdown on the PLO Israeli Proliferation--vertical and horizontal, including CBW's and new generation nukes. Undermine negotiations with Hezbollah Undermine negotiations with the PLA Undermine engotiations with the PLO Messiahism Iran: Iranian Elections Iran hardliner crack down Iran civl war Iran links up with Al Queda even more Iran and Hezbollah relations--Al Queda Destruction of the Iranian Green/Environmental movement (oops! Meant to save that one for myself) Crush Pro-Democracy movement in Iran. Iranian Proliferation with a nice Israeli First strike scenario Iranian interference in Iraq Iraq Iraq elections Iraq overstretch Iraq Civil War Iranian take over of Iraq Shiite take over of Iraq Shia take over of Iraq Jordan: Jordanian transition to democracy crushed Overthrow of the King Palestian revolt within Jordon Saudi Arabia Saudi democracy effort crushed Saudi Credibility in the Arab world UAE problems with a natural gas cut off scenario. United States: Presidential Elections Congressional Elections Military overstretch No such thing as a fair broker Hegemony Soft power Hard power Midle East Overpopulation/Water scarcity/ and environmental problems Oil shocks Caucus Region Oil shocks Bosphorus region oil shock Russian Encirclement (link U.S. influence greater in the Arab world) China Encirclement (link U.S. influence greater in the Arab world) Russia and China alliance Russian oil interests CHinese Oil Interests Kritiks; Feminism and IR Realism bad Relaims good Socialism Marxism Pan-Arabism Pan-Islamism Solvency: Syria will nevers agree Israel will never agree because of all the stuff that would happen if it did (Which is why if I ran the Gloan as a case, i would never claim to solve, I would only claim advanatges from the "offer" to negotiate) Mere existence of the infidel Israel in Islamic lands of Palestine guarantee global conflict inevitable. Makes U.S troops an easy target for terroists. Hatred of U.S. occupiers in Iran will translate over to presence on Syrian border. In other words, all of the Islamic hatred toward the U.S. occupying Arab lands will only get worse because now the U.S, troops will be in Iraq. That's all my feeble, uninformed on the subject area, mind can generate as research assignments in one hour for just the Golan Hieghts case. From daisy_verney Thu May 24 13:01:46 2007 From: daisy_verney (Danielle Verney) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:01:46 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] List of things to prep for on just one Affirmative case. In-Reply-To: <1180029176.4655d0f86e1da@webmail.grandecom.net> Message-ID: Golan Heights is a pretty core aff for any conceivable ME engagement topic - so you have to be able to do it - did you want a ME engagement topic that didn't let you work on the peace process? All of the problems you list (which are minimal) are functions of the topic, not the rez. How would you write a rez that lets the U.S. engage and avoid these arguments? These are not serious problems; yes you have to get cards that say target nations accept (or as you pointed out claim advantages off the offer), yes you have to get cards that say the U.S. is key, and cards that say your mechanism is key. This is true of any aff any year. Consult CPs are around any Foreign Policy year, etc., etc. Tom O'Gorman tomogorman at gmail.com Pre-empt - there is nothing wrong with the Aff flex to claim advantages off the offer and claim the target nation doesn't accept. Those advantages are going to be weaker and less direct than the core case --- and they will be more easily CPed and o/wed by the neg. Also the neg could argue target accepts and screw you that way. >From: scottelliott at grandecom.net >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: [eDebate] List of things to prep for on just one Affirmative case. >Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 12:52:56 -0500 > >Sitting here thinking about it. Here is one example of what I am going to >have >to do for just one case. It is really quite manageable now that I have >thoguht >about it. I am sure you will agree after reading this list. > >To use Kelly's most middle of the road "Golan Heights" Affirmative case >example: > >C-Plans to prep against: > >No U.S. troops-just observers. >No troops, just survellance flights using predator drones with sweet >hellfire >missles. >No Troops, but promises to keep the 5th or 6th fleet on the doorstep for >bombing >raids if either one of the countries attacks. >No troops, but lots of confidence building measures. >Technology-landmines or a big fense, or sensors >Technology-work with Israel to create a missle defense shield for small >rockets. > >NATO Troops instead of U.S. Troops >EU troops instead of U.S. Troops >Russian Troops instead of U.S. Troops > >Different mechanisms--almost a plan-plan style of debate. > >Consult Turkey (huge) (all of those bilateral and tri-lateral resolutions >make >these competitive and non-topical) >Consult Turkey and Greece >Consult the new government of Iraq >Consult Iran >Consult Saudi Arabia >Consult Oman >Consult Jordon >Consult with UAE >Consult Russia >Consult with Afghanstan >Consult with Pakistan >Consult with India >Consult with China >Consult with Japan >Consult via a Pan-Arabic conference >Consult the PLO >Consult with Hamas >Consult with Hezbollah >Consult with the PLA >Consult with NATO >Consult with the EU >Consult with U.S. NGO's >Consult with Oil Corporations >Consult with any other coutnry--Venezuela and Cuba comes to mind. > >Agent of Action C-plans: > >Russia >China >EU >NATO (the resolutions, in my opinion opens the door for multiple agent of >action c-plans) >Congress enacts >Executive Order >United Nations with real troops and U.S. logistical support. > > >Disads: > >Turkey-Water wars >Turkey-Invade the Kurds >Turkey-Civil War >Turkey-Shift to radical Islam >Turkish Elections >Turkey EU Relations >Collapse of Turkey's secular government >Turkey wars with Syria >Turkey wars with Israel > >Syrian civil war >Syria reinvades Lebanon >Syrian government collapse >Syrian government bolsterd witha shunning impact >Syrian proliferation of the CBW's is is holding over from the Iraq regime >change >Syrian water conflicts >Syrian Encirclement (damn! U.S. Troops to the west of Syria and now U.S. >troops >to the South of Syria. Better reinvade Lebanon so we can have a bigger >power >base. > > >Strengthen Hamas >Strengthen Hezbollah >Strengthen the PLO >Strengthen the PLA >Strengthen Al Queda > >Weaken Hamas >Weaken Hezbollah (weakness will cause them to want to do a spectacular >terror >strike) >Weaken the PLO >Weaken the PLA >Weaken Al Queda > >Weaken/Strengthen the Pan-Islamic movements > >Israel: > >Israeli Elections >Israeli Civil War (I guess there are at least five different link stories >to >have to work through) >Israeli hard-liner coup >Isreali crackdown on the PLA >Isreali crackdown on Hezbollah >Israeli crackdown on Hamas >Isreali crackdown on the PLO >Israeli Proliferation--vertical and horizontal, including CBW's and new >generation nukes. >Undermine negotiations with Hezbollah >Undermine negotiations with the PLA >Undermine engotiations with the PLO >Messiahism > >Iran: >Iranian Elections >Iran hardliner crack down >Iran civl war >Iran links up with Al Queda even more >Iran and Hezbollah relations--Al Queda >Destruction of the Iranian Green/Environmental movement (oops! Meant to >save >that one for myself) >Crush Pro-Democracy movement in Iran. >Iranian Proliferation with a nice Israeli First strike scenario >Iranian interference in Iraq > >Iraq > >Iraq elections >Iraq overstretch >Iraq Civil War >Iranian take over of Iraq >Shiite take over of Iraq >Shia take over of Iraq > >Jordan: > >Jordanian transition to democracy crushed >Overthrow of the King >Palestian revolt within Jordon > >Saudi Arabia > >Saudi democracy effort crushed >Saudi Credibility in the Arab world > >UAE problems with a natural gas cut off scenario. > >United States: > >Presidential Elections >Congressional Elections >Military overstretch >No such thing as a fair broker >Hegemony >Soft power >Hard power > > >Midle East Overpopulation/Water scarcity/ and environmental problems > >Oil shocks >Caucus Region Oil shocks >Bosphorus region oil shock > >Russian Encirclement (link U.S. influence greater in the Arab world) >China Encirclement (link U.S. influence greater in the Arab world) >Russia and China alliance >Russian oil interests >CHinese Oil Interests > > >Kritiks; > >Feminism and IR >Realism bad >Relaims good >Socialism >Marxism >Pan-Arabism >Pan-Islamism > > >Solvency: > >Syria will nevers agree >Israel will never agree because of all the stuff that would happen if it >did >(Which is why if I ran the Gloan as a case, i would never claim to solve, I >would only claim advanatges from the "offer" to negotiate) > >Mere existence of the infidel Israel in Islamic lands of Palestine >guarantee >global conflict inevitable. > >Makes U.S troops an easy target for terroists. >Hatred of U.S. occupiers in Iran will translate over to presence on Syrian >border. In other words, all of the Islamic hatred toward the U.S. occupying >Arab lands will only get worse because now the U.S, troops will be in Iraq. > > > > > >That's all my feeble, uninformed on the subject area, mind can generate as >research assignments in one hour for just the Golan Hieghts case. > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ More photos, more messages, more storage?get 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507 From mmk_savant Thu May 24 13:09:08 2007 From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 11:09:08 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] ans D'Amico and Farra Message-ID: Look, I compliment Gordon's shapely buttocks each time I see him. I still don't get no sugar for it, though. Well, he winks back occasionally... No, I think GM is an apt analogy for the topic committee. I think a big part of the problem is that people are working too hard, putting too much effort, and committing way too many resources into crafting resolutions. Bureaucratic expansion has developed for topic selection and the product reflects that. The topic committee, after the huge effort put into resolution crafting, would never produce something like "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize marijuana." That just seems too simple and straightforward, hardly justifying the institutional and personal resources devoted to resolutions. So we get "Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of: Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, and it should consist only of offering them a trilateral security guarantee(s) with Israel and/or a bilateral security guarantee(s)." now, THAT is a Chevy Avalanche of a resolution, a fazzoli-style pickup/suv/atv worthy of GM!!! And just like GM will have its fanbois even while the Federal Government is putting together the bail-out package, the topic process too, has fanbois writing things like: "There is no doubt that the topics produced are a little wordy and somewhat jargonistic" Yes, a little. And because the Middle East is... wordy and jargonistic or something... Good point. I will not cheap-shot by pointing out that if the resolutional wording reflects the realities of the Middle East, then the Dixie might consider security against resolutional suicide-bombers. "Seriously, have you ever thought about leadership at all and how you should lead with praise before you rip into people?" Great advice, Dale... but... but... didn't you BEGIN your post with "Michael, Your attitude is insulting and condescending... I don't even know you and I'm bothered. How does it feel to have someone dislike you just for what you typed on a web page?" I am not tasting the honey there, Dale... Where's MY sugar, bitch? "Your ACADEMIC chairs might understand there is a method to the madness of more complicated phrasing." No... they aren't posers, either. They would see it for what it is. "the reason the committee used a legalistic topic wording choice is it creates a more precise resolution - less suscesptible to squirrely affs outside of the controversy and less prone to niggling T debates." Yeah, I had to look up "niggling" to make sure it wasn't related by blood to... that other word... you know... that one of which Akon sings. Yes, these resolutions are "precise". They are "precise" in the same way as the steering of the Chevy Suburban is "precise". Okay, gotta run to the grocery store and get her some cream for her coffee... Michael Korcok _________________________________________________________________ Change is good. See what?s different about Windows Live Hotmail. www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/default.html?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_changegood_0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070524/414ed669/attachment.htm From privethedge Thu May 24 13:18:39 2007 From: privethedge (Duane Hyland) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 11:18:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Thanks for the Replies Message-ID: <693941.11953.qm@web50910.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi ,Thanks to everyone who helped me out with my random question about the topic process. I appreciated the correction of my mistaken belief on your topic process, and I now understand it much better, and will be able to explain it to my debaters when they ask how their college teams pick the topics they will debate when they enter the college ranks. Duane "You may be whatever you resolve to be." Thomas J. Jackson" "If all mankind minus one were of one opinion and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that person that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error." John S. Mill "Have a Cluckity, Cluck, Cluck Day" --------------------------------- Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070524/f1be5bfa/attachment.htm From stevendamico Thu May 24 13:28:07 2007 From: stevendamico (Steven D'Amico) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:28:07 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] ans D'Amico and Farra In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Michael, you don't get sugar when you disrespect others. That's the exception to the rule. I think your reply just proves my point about your attitude of negativity. But regardless, the resolutions are what they are. Now adapt. Steve On 5/24/07, Michael Korcok wrote: > > > Look, I compliment Gordon's shapely buttocks each time I see him. I still > don't get no sugar for it, though. Well, he winks back occasionally... > > No, I think GM is an apt analogy for the topic committee. I think a big > part of the problem is that people are working too hard, putting too much > effort, and committing way too many resources into crafting resolutions. > Bureaucratic expansion has developed for topic selection and the product > reflects that. The topic committee, after the huge effort put into > resolution crafting, would never produce something like "Resolved: The > United States Federal Government should legalize marijuana." That just > seems too simple and straightforward, hardly justifying the institutional > and personal resources devoted to resolutions. > > So we get "Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should > increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of: > Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, > and Syria, and it should consist only of offering them a trilateral security > guarantee(s) with Israel and/or a bilateral security guarantee(s)." now, > THAT is a Chevy Avalanche of a resolution, a fazzoli-style pickup/suv/atv > worthy of GM!!! > > And just like GM will have its fanbois even while the Federal Government > is putting together the bail-out package, the topic process too, has fanbois > writing things like: > > "There is no doubt that the topics produced are a little wordy and > somewhat jargonistic" Yes, a little. And because the Middle East is... > wordy and jargonistic or something... Good point. I will not cheap-shot by > pointing out that if the resolutional wording reflects the realities of the > Middle East, then the Dixie might consider security against resolutional > suicide-bombers. > > "Seriously, have you ever thought about leadership at all and how you > should lead with praise before you rip into people?" Great advice, Dale... > but... but... didn't you BEGIN your post with "Michael, Your attitude is > insulting and condescending... I don't even know you and I'm bothered. > How does it feel to have someone dislike you just for what you typed on a > web page?" I am not tasting the honey there, Dale... Where's MY sugar, > bitch? > > "Your ACADEMIC chairs might understand there is a method to the madness of > more complicated phrasing." No... they aren't posers, either. They would > see it for what it is. > > "the reason the committee used a legalistic topic wording choice is it > creates a more precise resolution - less suscesptible to squirrely affs > outside of the controversy and less prone to niggling T debates." Yeah, I > had to look up "niggling" to make sure it wasn't related by blood to... that > other word... you know... that one of which Akon sings. Yes, these > resolutions are "precise". They are "precise" in the same way as the > steering of the Chevy Suburban is "precise". > > Okay, gotta run to the grocery store and get her some cream for her > coffee... > > Michael Korcok > > > ------------------------------ > Create the ultimate e-mail address book. Import your contacts to Windows > Live Hotmail. Try it! > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070524/e89f0d29/attachment.htm From daisy_verney Thu May 24 13:31:19 2007 From: daisy_verney (Danielle Verney) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:31:19 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] ans D'Amico and Farra In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Maybe because "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize marijuana" would be a bad rez. Primarily its way too small, and being small makes it less bad that its vague. But even as small as it is still vague. Does the Federal Government just have to get rid of its own criminal sanctions dealing with marijuana - leaving state laws in place, or does it have to prempt state laws as well. Do you have to legalize the sale, distribution, and production of marijuana, or only possession and use? Do you have to make it legal for all ages, or is over 18 fine? Do you have to make it legal for all uses - or could I have a restricted medical marijuana aff? What about making it legal for domestic growth but still keeping out those treacherous Mexican and Canadian buds? Some of these are silly, but many are serious - and crafting a resolution that answers some of these questions is worth the cost of some elegance. It really ain't that hard - and the resolutions just ain't that ugly. Tom O'Gorman tomogorman at gmail.com >From: Michael Korcok >To: >Subject: [eDebate] ans D'Amico and Farra >Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 11:09:08 -0700 > > > >Look, I compliment Gordon's shapely buttocks each time I see him. I still >don't get no sugar for it, though. Well, he winks back occasionally... > >No, I think GM is an apt analogy for the topic committee. I think a big >part of the problem is that people are working too hard, putting too much >effort, and committing way too many resources into crafting resolutions. >Bureaucratic expansion has developed for topic selection and the product >reflects that. The topic committee, after the huge effort put into >resolution crafting, would never produce something like "Resolved: The >United States Federal Government should legalize marijuana." That just >seems too simple and straightforward, hardly justifying the institutional >and personal resources devoted to resolutions. > >So we get "Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should >increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of: >Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, >and Syria, and it should consist only of offering them a trilateral >security guarantee(s) with Israel and/or a bilateral security >guarantee(s)." now, THAT is a Chevy Avalanche of a resolution, a >fazzoli-style pickup/suv/atv worthy of GM!!! > >And just like GM will have its fanbois even while the Federal Government is >putting together the bail-out package, the topic process too, has fanbois >writing things like: > >"There is no doubt that the topics produced are a little wordy and somewhat >jargonistic" Yes, a little. And because the Middle East is... wordy and >jargonistic or something... Good point. I will not cheap-shot by pointing >out that if the resolutional wording reflects the realities of the Middle >East, then the Dixie might consider security against resolutional >suicide-bombers. > >"Seriously, have you ever thought about leadership at all and how you >should lead with praise before you rip into people?" Great advice, Dale... >but... but... didn't you BEGIN your post with "Michael, Your attitude is >insulting and condescending... I don't even know you and I'm bothered. How >does it feel to have someone dislike you just for what you typed on a web >page?" I am not tasting the honey there, Dale... Where's MY sugar, bitch? > >"Your ACADEMIC chairs might understand there is a method to the madness of >more complicated phrasing." No... they aren't posers, either. They would >see it for what it is. >"the reason the committee used a legalistic topic wording choice is it >creates a more precise resolution - less suscesptible to squirrely affs >outside of the controversy and less prone to niggling T debates." Yeah, I >had to look up "niggling" to make sure it wasn't related by blood to... >that other word... you know... that one of which Akon sings. Yes, these >resolutions are "precise". They are "precise" in the same way as the >steering of the Chevy Suburban is "precise". > >Okay, gotta run to the grocery store and get her some cream for her >coffee... > >Michael Korcok >_________________________________________________________________ >Change is good. See what?s different about Windows Live Hotmail. >www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/default.html?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_changegood_0507 >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ More photos, more messages, more storage?get 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507 From andy.edebate Thu May 24 13:35:05 2007 From: andy.edebate (andy ellis) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:35:05 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] ans D'Amico and Farra Message-ID: <4655daca.36fbf7b3.6a79.1fcc@mx.google.com> Doesnt all this prove its not small -----Original Message----- From: "Danielle Verney" To: edebate at ndtceda.com Sent: 5/24/2007 2:31 PM Subject: Re: [eDebate] ans D'Amico and Farra Maybe because "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should legalize marijuana" would be a bad rez. Primarily its way too small, and being small makes it less bad that its vague. But even as small as it is still vague. Does the Federal Government just have to get rid of its own criminal sanctions dealing with marijuana - leaving state laws in place, or does it have to prempt state laws as well. Do you have to legalize the sale, distribution, and production of marijuana, or only possession and use? Do you have to make it legal for all ages, or is over 18 fine? Do you have to make it legal for all uses - or could I have a restricted medical marijuana aff? What about making it legal for domestic growth but still keeping out those treacherous Mexican and Canadian buds? Some of these are silly, but many are serious - and crafting a resolution that answers some of these questions is worth the cost of some elegance. It really ain't that hard - and the resolutions just ain't that ugly. Tom O'Gorman tomogorman at gmail.com >From: Michael Korcok >To: >Subject: [eDebate] ans D'Amico and Farra >Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 11:09:08 -0700 > > > >Look, I compliment Gordon's shapely buttocks each time I see him. I still >don't get no sugar for it, though. Well, he winks back occasionally... > >No, I think GM is an apt analogy for the topic committee. I think a big >part of the problem is that people are working too hard, putting too much >effort, and committing way too many resources into crafting resolutions. >Bureaucratic expansion has developed for topic selection and the product >reflects that. The topic committee, after the huge effort put into >resolution crafting, would never produce something like "Resolved: The >United States Federal Government should legalize marijuana." That just >seems too simple and straightforward, hardly justifying the institutional >and personal resources devoted to resolutions. > >So we get "Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should >increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more of: >Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, >and Syria, and it should consist only of offering them a trilateral >security guarantee(s) with Israel and/or a bilateral security >guarantee(s)." now, THAT is a Chevy Avalanche of a resolution, a >fazzoli-style pickup/suv/atv worthy of GM!!! > >And just like GM will have its fanbois even while the Federal Government is >putting together the bail-out package, the topic process too, has fanbois >writing things like: > >"There is no doubt that the topics produced are a little wordy and somewhat >jargonistic" Yes, a little. And because the Middle East is... wordy and >jargonistic or something... Good point. I will not cheap-shot by pointing >out that if the resolutional wording reflects the realities of the Middle >East, then the Dixie might consider security against resolutional >suicide-bombers. > >"Seriously, have you ever thought about leadership at all and how you >should lead with praise before you rip into people?" Great advice, Dale... >but... but... didn't you BEGIN your post with "Michael, Your attitude is >insulting and condescending... I don't even know you and I'm bothered. How >does it feel to have someone dislike you just for what you typed on a web >page?" I am not tasting the honey there, Dale... Where's MY sugar, bitch? > >"Your ACADEMIC chairs might understand there is a method to the madness of >more complicated phrasing." No... they aren't posers, either. They would >see it for what it is. >"the reason the committee used a legalistic topic wording choice is it >creates a more precise resolution - less suscesptible to squirrely affs >outside of the controversy and less prone to niggling T debates." Yeah, I >had to look up "niggling" to make sure it wasn't related by blood to... >that other word... you know... that one of which Akon sings. Yes, these >resolutions are "precise". They are "precise" in the same way as the >steering of the Chevy Suburban is "precise". > >Okay, gotta run to the grocery store and get her some cream for her >coffee... > >Michael Korcok >_________________________________________________________________ >Change is good. See whats different about Windows Live Hotmail. >www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/default.html?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_changegood_0507 >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ More photos, more messages, more storageget 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507 From daisy_verney Thu May 24 13:44:20 2007 From: daisy_verney (Danielle Verney) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:44:20 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] ans D'Amico and Farra In-Reply-To: <4655daca.36fbf7b3.6a79.1fcc@mx.google.com> Message-ID: No, its still pretty dang small. And I like my aff flex to be clear in the resolution - not negotiated over umpteen T debates every tournament. Hence if you thought the aff should be able to do any one of the plan options listed you should write that clearly into the rez. But it would still be too small :). Tom O'Gorman tomogorman at gmail.com >From: andy ellis >To: Danielle Verney , >Subject: RE: [eDebate] ans D'Amico and Farra >Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:35:05 -0400 > >Doesnt all this prove its not small > >-----Original Message----- >From: "Danielle Verney" >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Sent: 5/24/2007 2:31 PM >Subject: Re: [eDebate] ans D'Amico and Farra > >Maybe because "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should >legalize marijuana" would be a bad rez. Primarily its way too small, and >being small makes it less bad that its vague. But even as small as it is >still vague. >Does the Federal Government just have to get rid of its own criminal >sanctions dealing with marijuana - leaving state laws in place, or does it >have to prempt state laws as well. >Do you have to legalize the sale, distribution, and production of >marijuana, >or only possession and use? >Do you have to make it legal for all ages, or is over 18 fine? >Do you have to make it legal for all uses - or could I have a restricted >medical marijuana aff? >What about making it legal for domestic growth but still keeping out those >treacherous Mexican and Canadian buds? >Some of these are silly, but many are serious - and crafting a resolution >that answers some of these questions is worth the cost of some elegance. > >It really ain't that hard - and the resolutions just ain't that ugly. > >Tom O'Gorman >tomogorman at gmail.com > > >From: Michael Korcok > >To: > >Subject: [eDebate] ans D'Amico and Farra > >Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 11:09:08 -0700 > > > > > > > >Look, I compliment Gordon's shapely buttocks each time I see him. I >still > >don't get no sugar for it, though. Well, he winks back occasionally... > > > >No, I think GM is an apt analogy for the topic committee. I think a big > >part of the problem is that people are working too hard, putting too much > >effort, and committing way too many resources into crafting resolutions. > >Bureaucratic expansion has developed for topic selection and the product > >reflects that. The topic committee, after the huge effort put into > >resolution crafting, would never produce something like "Resolved: The > >United States Federal Government should legalize marijuana." That just > >seems too simple and straightforward, hardly justifying the institutional > >and personal resources devoted to resolutions. > > > >So we get "Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should > >increase its constructive engagement with the government of one or more >of: > >Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi >Arabia, > >and Syria, and it should consist only of offering them a trilateral > >security guarantee(s) with Israel and/or a bilateral security > >guarantee(s)." now, THAT is a Chevy Avalanche of a resolution, a > >fazzoli-style pickup/suv/atv worthy of GM!!! > > > >And just like GM will have its fanbois even while the Federal Government >is > >putting together the bail-out package, the topic process too, has fanbois > >writing things like: > > > >"There is no doubt that the topics produced are a little wordy and >somewhat > >jargonistic" Yes, a little. And because the Middle East is... wordy and > >jargonistic or something... Good point. I will not cheap-shot by >pointing > >out that if the resolutional wording reflects the realities of the Middle > >East, then the Dixie might consider security against resolutional > >suicide-bombers. > > > >"Seriously, have you ever thought about leadership at all and how you > >should lead with praise before you rip into people?" Great advice, >Dale... > >but... but... didn't you BEGIN your post with "Michael, Your attitude is > >insulting and condescending... I don't even know you and I'm bothered. >How > >does it feel to have someone dislike you just for what you typed on a web > >page?" I am not tasting the honey there, Dale... Where's MY sugar, >bitch? > > > >"Your ACADEMIC chairs might understand there is a method to the madness >of > >more complicated phrasing." No... they aren't posers, either. They >would > >see it for what it is. > >"the reason the committee used a legalistic topic wording choice is it > >creates a more precise resolution - less suscesptible to squirrely affs > >outside of the controversy and less prone to niggling T debates." Yeah, >I > >had to look up "niggling" to make sure it wasn't related by blood to... > >that other word... you know... that one of which Akon sings. Yes, these > >resolutions are "precise". They are "precise" in the same way as the > >steering of the Chevy Suburban is "precise". > > > >Okay, gotta run to the grocery store and get her some cream for her > >coffee... > > > >Michael Korcok > >_________________________________________________________________ > >Change is good. See whats different about Windows Live Hotmail. > >www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/default.html?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_changegood_0507 > > > >_______________________________________________ > >eDebate mailing list > >eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > >_________________________________________________________________ >More photos, more messages, more storageget 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail. >http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507 > > _________________________________________________________________ More photos, more messages, more storage?get 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507 From dbuescher Thu May 24 14:02:28 2007 From: dbuescher (Derek T Buescher) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 12:02:28 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Western Forensics Association of WSCA CFP Message-ID: Western Forensics Association Call for Papers Western States Communication Association Annual Convention Denver/Boulder, CO, February 15-19, 2008 The Western Forensic Association is accepting papers for the Western States Communication Association Annual Convention to be held in Denver/Boulder, Colorado, February 15-29, 2008. The deadline, procedures, and formal elements of the submission process can be found online at: http://www.westcomm.org/conventions/WSCA-2008-Denver/call2008.pdf . The theme for the 2007 conference is "Engaging Through Service." In addition to our traditional call for competitive papers the Western Forensic Association will be expanding to include performance panels that highlight both debate and individual events. As a result, WFA will accept three (3) types of competitive submissions for the 2008 WSCA conference: Competitive Papers, Program Proposals, and Performance Proposals. Competitive Papers WFA encourages two specific types of traditional scholarship. Authors are invited to submit completed papers addressing the theory and practice of argumentation in the public sphere and/ or papers dedicated to forensics pedagogy. All submissions will be blind peer reviewed. Competitive papers should not have been presented previously at another convention/conference, be accepted for publication, or have been published. Competitive paper submissions should include: 1. A detachable title page with the title of the paper, names of all authors, their institutional affiliations, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses. Audio-visual requests should also be listed on the detachable title page, but please note that equipment availability is extremely limited (see the WSCA policy on Audio-Visual Equipment at Conventions in the Policies and Procedures Manual on the web site: http://www.westcomm.org/); 2. A 100-150 word abstract of the paper (with title appearing on this page); 3. A maximum of 25 pages of text (excluding title page and notes/references). Longer papers may be denied review; 4. No information in the paper that identifies the author(s) (beyond that which appears on the title page); 5. Authors "who have not presented a paper at a state, regional, national or international convention, or published in any academic journal" should include the word "DEBUT" in the upper right-hand corner of the title page. Papers authored by students should include the word "STUDENT" in the upper right-hand corner of the title page. All authors must meet debut or student criteria for the paper to be so designated. Panel/Performance Program Proposals Panel program proposals should focus on a unifying theme relevant to research, theory, or practice of argumentation and forensics. Programs may consist of a chair, individual paper presenters, and a critic/respondent. WFA strongly encourages round-table discussions, performance, or other unique formats are encouraged. WFA would like to encourage performance panels that both offer an important commentary on the theme of the convention and forensics community but also performances that will showcase our activity to a non-forensics audience. We imagine proposals for debates between rival institutions on the best way for the forensics community to engage (through) service, a showcase of inventive POI's, and/or a showcase of rhetorical criticism as practiced in Communication Analysis. We encourage you to be creative and to celebrate what makes our community unique. In alternative program formats, respondents may be included or omitted as appropriate. Innovative program proposals, especially those that provide opportunities for engaged interaction among participants and attendees, are encouraged Panel program proposals should include: 1. Title and rationale for the thematic panel/program; 2. Title and 100 word abstract/description of each presentation; 3. Names, affiliations, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of all participants; 4. Expected size of audience; 5. Equipment needed (please note that equipment availability is extremely limited). Paper/Program Submission Process Submit competitive paper and program proposals to Derek Buescher, President, Western Forensics Association and WSCA Speech Activities Coordinator, via email at dbuescher at ups.edu. Papers and program proposals must be submitted in Microsoft Word or Rich Text Format. Only electronic submissions will be accepted. All submissions must be received by Saturday, September 1, 2007. If you have any questions please contact Derek Buescher at dbuescher at ups.edu . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070524/609a8ffa/attachment.htm From dbuescher Thu May 24 14:29:56 2007 From: dbuescher (Derek T Buescher) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 12:29:56 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] WFA/WSCA 2008 Tournament February 14-17, Boulder CO Message-ID: Western States Communication Association Forensic Tournament Boulder, Colorado February 14-17, 2008 The Western Forensics Association is pleased to invite you to the Western States Communication Association Annual Forensic Tournament to be held in Boulder, Colorado February, 14-17, 2008. Many forensic directors attend the WSCA conference following the tournament and some even provide an opportunity for some of their students to do the same. The WSCA tournament is designed to provide excellent competition for your students as well as academic enrichment for yourself, other members of your forensic staff, and students. We hope you will be able to take advantage of this excellent opportunity. This year's WSCA forensic tournament will be at the Millennium Harvest House Hotel in downtown Boulder, Colorado. The hotel location, across the street from the CU Boulder campus, provides an ideal venue for our tournament. A short distance from the Convention hotel in Broomfield, the location also enables faculty and student integration between the tournament and the conference. We will continue to work with the WSCA Executive Council to enable you and your students opportunities to participate in both the tournament and the conference. The 2008 Tournament will feature CEDA/NDT, NPDA style parliamentary, and Worlds Style debate. Tournament Hotel The tournament hotel is the Millennium Harvest House Hotel in Boulder. We have negotiated a range of room rates from $99.00 per room (plus tax) single/double occupancy, $109.00 per room (plus tax) triple occupancy and $119.00 per room (plus tax) for quadruple occupancy. "Superior level" rooms are an additional $30.00/night and a rollaway charge is $15.00/night. Group rates are available three days prior to and three days post the actual meeting dates. You may wish to take advantage of the Millennium rates (less than the conference hotel) if you plan to stay in the Boulder/Broomfield area for the WSCA conference. Because competition takes place in the hotel, all schools are required to stay at the Millennium Harvest Hotel and provide rooms for competition use. You must supply one room for every grouping of 1-2 debate teams and 1-6 individual event entries. Rooms to be used for competition must be available from 8:00 am on Friday, February 15 through the end of the tournament. Accordingly, the room must be reserved starting no later than Thursday, February 14, 2007 if you are competing in IEs. Schools competing in debate only may arrive on Friday. Each school is responsible to make their own reservations at the hotel. The reservation deadline is January 24, 2008. Our block of room will be released after this date and the rates will become more expensive. Individual reservations must be made by 5:00 p.m. Mountain Standard Time on the cut off date. The hotel is going to create a forthcoming URL to expedite the reservation process. Guests may call 1(800) 545-6285 or 1(303) 443-3850 and ask for the Reservations Department. Guests may be also send e-mail reservations directly to the Hotel at millboulderres at mill-usa.com. When making your reservations indicate you are with the "College Forensics Speech & Debate Tournament." A valid major credit card or other satisfactory deposit must secure reservations. Each reservation for which the required deposit or guarantee has been received is guaranteed for arrival until 6:00am the day following the scheduled arrival date. Deposits are refundable to the guest if the Hotel receives notice of cancellation no later than 24 hours before the scheduled arrival date. Entries The entry deadline is 5:00 p.m. Monday, February 11, 2008. Entries should be emailed to dbuescher at ups.edu or faxed to 253-879-6111. Any changes after Tuesday, February 12 should be e-mailed to the above address or faxed to Derek Buescher at the Millennium Harvest Hotel-303-442-3821. Eligibility and Divisions Any regularly enrolled undergraduate college student may represent the school at which they are pursuing a degree. In individual events, students may participate in open division, but only those students with less than four semesters of collegiate competition in individual events may participate in junior division. Similarly, all debaters may compete in open division. Only those students with less than four full semesters of college debate experience may participate in junior division. Individual Events: The WSCA tournament follows the rules of the AFA NIET. Students may enter a maximum of three individual events per pattern, and only two if one of the events is extemp. Students with multiple entries in a pattern are responsible for getting to their competition rooms on time. The tabulation staff will make every effort to localize competition rooms, but this may be out of our control. It is the student's responsibility to make it within the allotted time to their events. Pattern A: Extemp, Informative, CA, DI, POI, Poetry Pattern B: Impromptu, Persuasive, ADS, Prose, Duo Debate We will offer the standard NPDA and CEDA debate along with 4-team debate (also called World Universities Debate or British Parliamentary Debate). Only four total teams, designated at registration, may earn sweepstakes points. NPDA Debate will follow the rules of the National Parliamentary Debate Association. World's Style debate is contingent upon sufficient entries. Judges Finding qualified judges is frequently a problem at the WSCA tournament. We will gladly hire you if you can judge beyond your commitment. If you know of qualified individuals who would like to be hired, please have them contact the Speech Activities Coordinator. Each institution must provide at least one qualified judge. Judges must possess a BA or equivalent degree, or obtain Speech Activities Coordinator's prior approval. One judge covers two debate teams and six IE slots. Each school must provide a judge to cover the first two debate teams and the first four IE slots. A judge may be hired through the tournament to cover an institution's additional entries. In the event the tournament is unable to provide judging to cover a school's entries, the school may be required to withdraw students from competition. If you have a particular problem meeting your institution's judging requirements contact the Speech Activities Coordinator. Fees We are trying to keep fees low, but hired judges are very expensive. In addition, we were unable to negotiate free access to the tab room and meeting rooms in the hotel. For this reason, we have a facilities fee to cover this expense. School fee $50.00 per school Facility fee $50.00 per school Debate entry fee $50.00 per team Individual event entry fee $ 7.00 per contestant per event Hired debate judges $75.00 per uncovered debate team (one judge covers two teams) Hired events judges $15.00 per uncovered IE slot (one judge covers 6 slots) Fees will be assessed as of 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 Please make checks payable to University of Puget Sound. Awards Awards will be presented to finalists in all events. Sweepstakes awards will be presented for debate, individual events, and overall excellence. Sweepstakes awards will be based on the following point system: 1st place IE 9 points 2nd place IE 7 points 3rd place IE 4 points Finalists IE 2 points Worlds First Place 12 points World Second Place 10 points Worlds Third Place 8 points Worlds Fourth Place 6 points Policy, or Parli debate First Place 20 points Policy, or Parli debate Second Place 16 points Policy, or Parli debate semi-finalist 10 points Policy, or Parli debate quarter-finalist 6 points Policy, or Parli debate octa-finalist 2 points Tournament Schedule Friday, February 15, 2007 8:30 Pattern A, Round 1 10:00 Pattern A, Round 2 11:30 Pattern A, Round 3 1:00 Lunch 2:00 Parli and Worlds Round 1 3:30 Pattern B, Round 1 5:00 Parli and Worlds Round 2 6:30 Pattern B, Round 2 Saturday, February 16, 2008 8:30 Parli and Worlds Round 3 and Policy 1 10:00 Pattern B, Round 3 11:30 Parli and Worlds Round 4 and Policy 2 1:00 Lunch 2:00 IE Finals 2:30 Policy Round 3 3:30 Parli Round 5 and Worlds Round 4 5:30 Parli and Worlds Round 5 Policy Round 4 Sunday, February 17, 2006 8:30 First Debate Elim 10:00 Parli and Worlds 2nd Elim 11:30 Awards (IE Awards may occur on Saturday evening prior to Round 6) 12:15 Policy 2nd Elim, Parli and Worlds 3rd Elim 2:00 Parli and Worlds 4th Elim (continue Elim debates as necessary) 3:00 Policy 3rd Elim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070524/4b8a80e1/attachment.htm From scottelliott Thu May 24 14:38:37 2007 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:38:37 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] What is wrong with giving the aff room to breath under a "clean" topic? Message-ID: <1180035517.4655e9bd6dada@webmail.grandecom.net> I heard this on the g--ddamn Courts topic and now I am hearing it again on this one. Why are all of you hacks so worried that a school may bust out a new and creative affirmative on your ass in Quarters at Wake? You seem to want to resolution to write the exact affirmative plan text. Why not add next to security guarantees that each guarante must be supported by at least 10,000 u.S. troops to guarantee you your overstretch links. Why not add in, "must be adopted over the objectionss of House republicans" to make sure you have a crappy politics link. If I want to run constructive engagement as sending lollipops to Assad's kids, you on the negative have literally a thousand ways to beat the shit out of it. How would I get out of the Golan Heights, etc.? For what it is worth, which is not squat, since is does not matter what anybody says now, these are the topics you are stuck with, I would have written the following: "Resolved: the USFG should constructively engage Iran." or "Resolved: the USFG should adopt a policy of constructive engagement with Iran." That's it. I guarantee you there is an entire year of VARSITY, ELITE school debate in this one simple declarative statement. Entire academic careers of hundreds of professors have been and are being devoted to this single and clearly written resolution. At the same time, there is room for the middle and room for novice and jv debate. There is room for the creative case and room for a middle of a road case. But, there is also two core areas that everyone knows they are going to debate: 1) the U.S. has a major foriegn policy shift with one of the Axis of Evil Countries and 2) it is Iran. But, that is all water under the bridge now. And, to answer back some of the shit of, "thats a ME topic, deal with it," I have two responses: 1) It is easier to deal with 180 consultation c-plans and a million negative arguments when one country is at issue. Under the current topics, everything I have listed is multiplied automatically by a factor of at least five, and six when Israel is added. 2) I did not vote for the ME topic, nor would I have voted for it. Just because 20, yes, I estimate actually only 20, (maybe 30 tops), schools actually voted for the ME topic area means I have to like it or accept it. From db8coach Fri May 25 17:13:33 2007 From: db8coach (Bob) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 15:13:33 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] analogies References: Message-ID: <006f01c79f19$eef6f7f0$6701a8c0@bobsputer> Wow, I can't believe I am reading this. >>>>>>>>>> The analogy below, made by Korcok, is quite possibly the SECOND least appropriate and ill-conceived analogy I've ever heard. He should be ashamed for writing it. He should initiate a self-imposed exile from edebate of a period no less than six months for coming up with this horrid analogy. mjs >>>>>>>>>> Isn't this from the guy who defended Andy's right to free speech when he applauded the death of a human being??? Now he wants Mike to self impose an exile for saying some topics were shitty? Not the topic committee personally (I happen to know he has much respect for many of them), just the topics mind you. Matt, your head is in the WRONG place when you defend the right to say a human death is good but condemn citicizing topics as bad. Remember folks, even terrific hard working people can produce shitty results. I think the world of those topic committee members that I know. I also think that these resolutions are quite possibly the worst I have ever seen. It happens. And no, I was nowhere near a computer this past few days when the wordings were being discussed. Had I seen these resolutions (before they were finalized) I would have said that they are wordy, convoluted, difficult to comprehend, and are going to create nightmarish T debates. Oh you can pose and tell me that I am wrong, but I will expect an apology after the tournaments begin. Bob Lechtreck -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070525/6f6c8c97/attachment.htm From daisy_verney Thu May 24 15:41:50 2007 From: daisy_verney (Danielle Verney) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 16:41:50 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] What is wrong with giving the aff room to breath under a"clean" topic? Message-ID: Now your complaints are just getting sloppy. First of all you are mixing up criticisms of the topic, the rez, topic writing elegance, and the room the topic gives for aff flex. This constant shifting makes your criticisms annoying and unconstructive. As to aff room to breathe... No, I am not worried about a creative aff in quarters Wake - I am worried about JV/Novice rounds at ADA tournaments. My fear about too much aff flex is that the topic allows so many disjointed affs and small affs that there is no way to keep up with case negs given a small research staff and you have no choice but to rely on Consult CPs, Generic Ks, and Generic Politics all year. I see this as shallow debate, and it sucks. If you run the send lollipops plan - you are right I can engage with these generics; woohoo! - but they suck compared to your specific lolipops are awesome (which they are) and kids are awesome (also true) advantages they suck - and more importantly generics onlys is bad education. A good rez, for me, has to lock the aff in to the one controversial thing - but flex as to other things the aff can do. E.g. sanctions topic - have to lift all or nearly all sanctions - but can do a bunch of different things under CE. Most of these resolutions are not all that aff restrictive, # 3 is, but the 1 and 4 let you do anything you would do under your "clean" topic as long as you include either a security guarantee or an increase in foreign assistance. Foreign assistance is a particularly broad category that would seem to include almost anything - except diplomatic moves, which you can do - you just also have to do foreign assistance. Thus 1 and 4 let you do essentially anything non-squirrelly - what is the problem with them? 2 lets you do foreign assistance or security guarantees only - which is still a lot given the breadth of the term foreign assistance. Locking the aff into a security guarantee or foreign assistance is nothing like locking in troops or political opposition. Your complaint about aff lacking room to breathe here is sillier than your complaint about clunky wording. Seriously what is your big deal about CE must include security guarantee or foreign assistance as opposed to unmoddified CE? Your solution to how to word a rez so we can have a Golan Heights debate is to not have it! Wonderful! I am sure no one wanted to debate the peace process when we picked the middle east! And you eliminated 4 of the 5 presumptively included countries in the topic paper! How faithful to your criticism that the community should have a clearer idea of the rez from that paper! Excellent solution! Also you have just traded country flex for mechanism flex (and not much mechanism flex) - so you are more restrictive to the aff now than the committee. WTF? The only benefit to this rez is your much vaunted "clarity". You really think its more important to get the rez down utter simplicity than to follow the topic paper and let people who are interested in other parts of the ME debate them? You didn't make it easier on yourself research wise. The plans on the Iran topic are going to be subject to the same change the plan mechanism slightly CPs, the consult CPs, Israel, other relations, generic Ks and other actor COs. You say you only have to deal with 1 country now, but thats true for the broader ME topic as well -- you only need answers to the CPs for the country your Aff deals with! You don't need to come up with a million different negative strats when you are neg - you can focus on the ones you like. Finally, while you don't have to like the ME topic - if its the topic you don't like then cop to that and stop pretending that the committe is ramming something down your throat. We voted on the topic, you lost, blame the community's love of Foreign Policy topics, but don't blame the rez process (btw of the 70 schools that voted on the topic ME got 31 first ballot votes - and 43 votes by final round). Summary: 1. USFG should adopt a policy of CE to Iran which must include SG or an increase of FA NOT big difference from USFG should adopt a policy of CE to Iran -- so aff is not being unduly restricted! 2. No good reason not to include other countires than Iran in a ME topic - and even if there was, YES YOU SHOULD HAVE RAISED IT EARLIER 3. "Clean" wordings are something of not too much value which you are fetishizing for no good reason. Tom O'Gorman tomogorman at gmail.com >From: scottelliott at grandecom.net >To: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: [eDebate] What is wrong with giving the aff room to breath under >a"clean" topic? >Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:38:37 -0500 > > >I heard this on the g--ddamn Courts topic and now I am hearing it again on >this >one. Why are all of you hacks so worried that a school may bust out a new >and >creative affirmative on your ass in Quarters at Wake? You seem to want to >resolution to write the exact affirmative plan text. Why not add next to >security guarantees that each guarante must be supported by at least 10,000 >u.S. troops to guarantee you your overstretch links. Why not add in, "must >be >adopted over the objectionss of House republicans" to make sure you have a >crappy politics link. > >If I want to run constructive engagement as sending lollipops to Assad's >kids, >you on the negative have literally a thousand ways to beat the shit out of >it. > >How would I get out of the Golan Heights, etc.? For what it is worth, which >is >not squat, since is does not matter what anybody says now, these are the >topics >you are stuck with, I would have written the following: > >"Resolved: the USFG should constructively engage Iran." or "Resolved: the >USFG >should adopt a policy of constructive engagement with Iran." > >That's it. I guarantee you there is an entire year of VARSITY, ELITE school >debate in this one simple declarative statement. Entire academic careers of >hundreds of professors have been and are being devoted to this single and >clearly written resolution. At the same time, there is room for the middle >and >room for novice and jv debate. There is room for the creative case and room >for >a middle of a road case. But, there is also two core areas that everyone >knows >they are going to debate: 1) the U.S. has a major foriegn policy shift with >one >of the Axis of Evil Countries and 2) it is Iran. > >But, that is all water under the bridge now. > >And, to answer back some of the shit of, "thats a ME topic, deal with it," >I >have two responses: > >1) It is easier to deal with 180 consultation c-plans and a million >negative >arguments when one country is at issue. Under the current topics, >everything I >have listed is multiplied automatically by a factor of at least five, and >six >when Israel is added. > >2) I did not vote for the ME topic, nor would I have voted for it. Just >because >20, yes, I estimate actually only 20, (maybe 30 tops), schools actually >voted >for the ME topic area means I have to like it or accept it. > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >eDebate mailing list >eDebate at www.ndtceda.com >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate _________________________________________________________________ PC Magazine?s 2007 editors? choice for best Web mail?award-winning Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507 From andy.edebate Thu May 24 15:49:43 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 16:49:43 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] What is wrong with giving the aff room to breath under a"clean" topic? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705241349y3295b00cv272851f517eab1b8@mail.gmail.com> tom what you are forgetting is that the more the res locks the aff in, the more grammatical uncomfortability, the more well justified problems like those articulated by small novice and jv program coaches, the more arguments there are to get out of the res entirely...as a towson coach im not complaining too much because i know that our pref sheet wont be too constrained when we criticize people who follow a bad topic, or the topic in its entirety...the sad part about this whole process is that you only make more convoluted debates for the poor folks who choose to follow the topic, the more you try to engineer to create good debates the more those opposed to the direction thee topic committe takes are going to sucide bomb it as scott says... On 5/24/07, Danielle Verney wrote: > > Now your complaints are just getting sloppy. First of all you are mixing > up > criticisms of the topic, the rez, topic writing elegance, and the room the > topic gives for aff flex. This constant shifting makes your criticisms > annoying and unconstructive. > As to aff room to breathe... No, I am not worried about a creative aff in > quarters Wake - I am worried about JV/Novice rounds at ADA > tournaments. My > fear about too much aff flex is that the topic allows so many disjointed > affs and small affs that there is no way to keep up with case negs given a > small research staff and you have no choice but to rely on Consult CPs, > Generic Ks, and Generic Politics all year. I see this as shallow debate, > and it sucks. If you run the send lollipops plan - you are right I can > engage with these generics; woohoo! - but they suck compared to your > specific lolipops are awesome (which they are) and kids are awesome (also > true) advantages they suck - and more importantly generics onlys is bad > education. > A good rez, for me, has to lock the aff in to the one controversial thing > - > but flex as to other things the aff can do. E.g. sanctions topic - have > to > lift all or nearly all sanctions - but can do a bunch of different things > under CE. > Most of these resolutions are not all that aff restrictive, # 3 is, but > the > 1 and 4 let you do anything you would do under your "clean" topic as long > as > you include either a security guarantee or an increase in foreign > assistance. Foreign assistance is a particularly broad category that > would > seem to include almost anything - except diplomatic moves, which you can > do > - you just also have to do foreign assistance. Thus 1 and 4 let you do > essentially anything non-squirrelly - what is the problem with them? 2 > lets > you do foreign assistance or security guarantees only - which is still a > lot > given the breadth of the term foreign assistance. Locking the aff into a > security guarantee or foreign assistance is nothing like locking in troops > or political opposition. Your complaint about aff lacking room to breathe > here is sillier than your complaint about clunky wording. Seriously what > is > your big deal about CE must include security guarantee or foreign > assistance > as opposed to unmoddified CE? > Your solution to how to word a rez so we can have a Golan Heights debate > is > to not have it! Wonderful! I am sure no one wanted to debate the peace > process when we picked the middle east! And you eliminated 4 of the 5 > presumptively included countries in the topic paper! How faithful to your > criticism that the community should have a clearer idea of the rez from > that > paper! Excellent solution! > Also you have just traded country flex for mechanism flex (and not much > mechanism flex) - so you are more restrictive to the aff now than the > committee. WTF? The only benefit to this rez is your much vaunted > "clarity". You really think its more important to get the rez down utter > simplicity than to follow the topic paper and let people who are > interested > in other parts of the ME debate them? > You didn't make it easier on yourself research wise. The plans on the > Iran > topic are going to be subject to the same change the plan mechanism > slightly > CPs, the consult CPs, Israel, other relations, generic Ks and other actor > COs. You say you only have to deal with 1 country now, but thats true for > the broader ME topic as well -- you only need answers to the CPs for the > country your Aff deals with! You don't need to come up with a million > different negative strats when you are neg - you can focus on the ones you > like. > Finally, while you don't have to like the ME topic - if its the topic you > don't like then cop to that and stop pretending that the committe is > ramming > something down your throat. We voted on the topic, you lost, blame the > community's love of Foreign Policy topics, but don't blame the rez process > (btw of the 70 schools that voted on the topic ME got 31 first ballot > votes > - and 43 votes by final round). > Summary: > 1. USFG should adopt a policy of CE to Iran which must include SG or an > increase of FA NOT big difference from USFG should adopt a policy of CE to > Iran -- so aff is not being unduly restricted! > 2. No good reason not to include other countires than Iran in a ME topic - > and even if there was, YES YOU SHOULD HAVE RAISED IT EARLIER > 3. "Clean" wordings are something of not too much value which you are > fetishizing for no good reason. > > Tom O'Gorman > tomogorman at gmail.com > > >From: scottelliott at grandecom.net > >To: edebate at ndtceda.com > >Subject: [eDebate] What is wrong with giving the aff room to breath under > >a"clean" topic? > >Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 14:38:37 -0500 > > > > > >I heard this on the g--ddamn Courts topic and now I am hearing it again > on > >this > >one. Why are all of you hacks so worried that a school may bust out a new > >and > >creative affirmative on your ass in Quarters at Wake? You seem to want to > >resolution to write the exact affirmative plan text. Why not add next to > >security guarantees that each guarante must be supported by at least > 10,000 > >u.S. troops to guarantee you your overstretch links. Why not add in, > "must > >be > >adopted over the objectionss of House republicans" to make sure you have > a > >crappy politics link. > > > >If I want to run constructive engagement as sending lollipops to Assad's > >kids, > >you on the negative have literally a thousand ways to beat the shit out > of > >it. > > > >How would I get out of the Golan Heights, etc.? For what it is worth, > which > >is > >not squat, since is does not matter what anybody says now, these are the > >topics > >you are stuck with, I would have written the following: > > > >"Resolved: the USFG should constructively engage Iran." or "Resolved: the > >USFG > >should adopt a policy of constructive engagement with Iran." > > > >That's it. I guarantee you there is an entire year of VARSITY, ELITE > school > >debate in this one simple declarative statement. Entire academic careers > of > >hundreds of professors have been and are being devoted to this single and > >clearly written resolution. At the same time, there is room for the > middle > >and > >room for novice and jv debate. There is room for the creative case and > room > >for > >a middle of a road case. But, there is also two core areas that everyone > >knows > >they are going to debate: 1) the U.S. has a major foriegn policy shift > with > >one > >of the Axis of Evil Countries and 2) it is Iran. > > > >But, that is all water under the bridge now. > > > >And, to answer back some of the shit of, "thats a ME topic, deal with > it," > >I > >have two responses: > > > >1) It is easier to deal with 180 consultation c-plans and a million > >negative > >arguments when one country is at issue. Under the current topics, > >everything I > >have listed is multiplied automatically by a factor of at least five, and > >six > >when Israel is added. > > > >2) I did not vote for the ME topic, nor would I have voted for it. Just > >because > >20, yes, I estimate actually only 20, (maybe 30 tops), schools actually > >voted > >for the ME topic area means I have to like it or accept it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >eDebate mailing list > >eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > >http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > > _________________________________________________________________ > PC Magazine's 2007 editors' choice for best Web mail?award-winning Windows > Live Hotmail. > > http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507 > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070524/953f7904/attachment.htm From daisy_verney Thu May 24 16:28:09 2007 From: daisy_verney (Danielle Verney) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 17:28:09 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] What is wrong with giving the aff room to breath under a"clean" topic? In-Reply-To: <9368bc9b0705241349y3295b00cv272851f517eab1b8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Andy, I guess we have to disagree. I only know my own little ADA world, but at Navy we are a pretty small research school with a jv/novice focus (some few mids with debate experience who have intense time commitments, my wife as the 1 full time coach on top of teaching classes, me for free when I can on top of my real job, and Lt. Sullivan when he can, for free, on top of his other responsibilities) and we like these topics. The other people who do policy in ADA land that talk to me like these topics. Everyone policy person I know thinks sanctions and treaties rocked on toast. I agree there has to be some balance between aff lock in and aff flex, but I don't see how y'all aren't finding it with this list. Most of these topics only require you to include security guarantees or foreign assistance -- thats a lot of room. As to elegant writting - I think its overrated. You can simplify when explaining to people who would appreciate it, and technical wording prevents some untopical affs and some silly T debates. I don't see it seriously hurting. The wording certainly doesn't make it harder for us to debate the topic. In my admittedly limited ADA land experience I don't know people who are leaping to support untopical affs because of it. And I don't really know how people as divided as you and I are going to agree on fair limits when I like the treaties topic - and Towson was getting rid of prisons on the overrule topic. Finally, I just don't believe that if we changed the wording to the simpler unmodified USFG should CE X list that Towson and others like it wouldn't continue to be untopical/find creative interpretations of the topic, so I'd rather keep good limits so that those of us who do debate more traditional policy can have case debates. Tom O'Gorman tomogorman at gmail.com >From: "Andy Ellis" >To: "Danielle Verney" >CC: edebate at ndtceda.com >Subject: Re: [eDebate] What is wrong with giving the aff room to breath >under a"clean" topic? >Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 16:49:43 -0400 > >tom what you are forgetting is that the more the res locks the aff in, the >more grammatical uncomfortability, the more well justified problems like >those articulated by small novice and jv program coaches, the more >arguments >there are to get out of the res entirely...as a towson coach im not >complaining too much because i know that our pref sheet wont be too >constrained when we criticize people who follow a bad topic, or the topic >in >its entirety...the sad part about this whole process is that you only make >more convoluted debates for the poor folks who choose to follow the topic, >the more you try to engineer to create good debates the more those opposed >to the direction thee topic committe takes are going to sucide bomb it as _________________________________________________________________ More photos, more messages, more storage?get 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507 From andy.edebate Thu May 24 16:38:59 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 17:38:59 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Help out new programs. Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705241438n49a6c119r552a15b4cc344fe9@mail.gmail.com> Despite what some people see as the difficulty in having new people approach this topic next year, we are gonna try anyway.... To that end, between now and July 1st we are trying to get a pool of entry fees to use for new and emerging programs attending baltimore college debate tournaments. We also will use this pool to offer waived entry fees to programs who are having budgetary struggles. The purpose behind these credits is to be able to cover the costs of new programs when they debate at our tournaments, last year all food and judge payments basically came out of pocket, and fees become a minor reimbursement for that, this prevented us from directing the money generated from fees into more programming, hired judging, and better tournaments. this is a pilot for a project by a Baltimore Youth Non Profit(Y.O.U.R.S.) to create a social investment portfolio(SIP), in which a series of very specific projects are submitted for collective funding to a community of people who have an interest in seeing them succeed. Please help us demonstrate that such projects can in fact achieve their goals, and i will keep you posted on further additions to the SIP. Each entry fee credit is $15 and will cover one team at one tournament. We aim to collect 50 credits by July 1st. Credits can be purchased here https://www.theyoursstore.com/displayProductDocument.hg?productId=21&categoryId=8 You can use pay pal or credit card (do this by clicking on the pay pal icon) Thank you and please ask me if you have any questions. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070524/33034055/attachment.htm From andyliudebate Thu May 24 17:11:27 2007 From: andyliudebate (andy liu) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 22:11:27 +0000 Subject: [eDebate] Secret Topic Committee insight Message-ID: I had the following conversation with CEDA First Vice President and Topic Committee member Joseph Patrice yesterday. Me: Joe, what was the rationale for you all to write [boring detail about the resolution]? Joe: I don't know, I was reading about Oden. I think it's safe to assume that all longtime Sonics and Blazers but especially Sonics fans in the debate community (all threehahaha) deserve undeserving amounts of praise and congratulations from everyone else right now, especially Doc Rivers. Right now I feel like there is a party occurring both in my mouth and pants simultaneously. We will be celebrating our fortunes all summer by partying underneath Interstate 5, which will be weird because it's not a bridge. _________________________________________________________________ More photos, more messages, more storage?get 2GB with Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_2G_0507 From joepatrice Thu May 24 18:14:54 2007 From: joepatrice (Joe Patrice) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 19:14:54 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Secret Topic Committee insight Message-ID: To be fair, the discussion Andy was asking about in our conversation yesterday was why the resolution eschewed "including" for "and it should include" which is the kind of hypertechnicalization of the topic writing where I had little constructive to add. But it's a good segue to my general rant, which is that our topic process is a representative democratic process -- everyone on the committee did a great deal of work and strived to create the best possible topics from their point of view. They were elected because the community (either polled as a whole or within constituencies) wanted them to exercise their judgment (either as committed topic drafters or in my case as a CEDA administrator). Personally, I share the opinion of some of those complaining that topics are increasingly, unnecessarily complex and had I wrote the topics myself they would have been different, but that's not how a deliberative democratic process works. In the meeting, I raised various issues, the other members of the committee listened intently, we engaged in a fair debate on each subject, and if an idea of mine was accepted, it was accepted and if it was not, I did not stand in the way of the process, rather I respected that, after fully airing my objections, the other members of the committee did not share my opinion. My point is, if a healthy group of the community shares a view (such as the one that apparently makes Korcok, Elliott, and myself unlikely bedfellows), then find people with that opinion to run for the topic committee because the committee will listen and if enough members share an opinion then it will be represented on the ballot. At the end of the day though, I don't believe there is any crisis. Every one of these topics will provide for a year of good debates. And Oden is going to be awesome even if Durant may, at first glance, fit the system better. He was only in the Big 10 for a year -- playing unbelievably boring basketball didn't have a chance to totally sink in. Joe -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070524/53f76c37/attachment.htm From stables Thu May 24 20:40:41 2007 From: stables (Gordon Stables) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 21:40:41 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Topic Wordings In-Reply-To: <000801c79e05$c4147a90$2e6afd82@D8296H51> References: <000801c79e05$c4147a90$2e6afd82@D8296H51> Message-ID: <000001c79e6d$b4a6e990$0502a8c0@stables> Logan, Thanks for the question. You will notice that the phrase "substantial increase in foreign assistance" was retained because there is a reasonable defense of quantitative approaches to making an item like foreign assistance larger. The nature of fiscal matters lends itself well to such comparisons. At the same time this was not true for the relatively few and discrete items known as security guarantees. They tend to be much fewer thus making the scale of increase less significant because each one is important. It was also less relevant for constructive engagement because the scope of the increase was provided elsewhere (with assistance or guarantees) and also because the term substantially might imply without condition or qualification. It was our impression that constructive engagement was very much a negotiated (conditioned, tied, bargained, etc) term and adding any phrase that would provide no unique limiting role and also weaken the basic meaning of the term was not advisable. Thanks. Let me know if that makes sense. 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: Logan Martin [mailto:lmarti24 at du.edu] Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:17 AM To: stables at usc.edu Subject: [eDebate] Topic Wordings Dear Dr. Stables: I'm sure this was discussed at the topic meeting, but what was the rationale for the omission of "substantially" from the resolution choices? Not making any judgements on this one way or the other, just thought it was notable. Thanks, Logan Martin University of Denver logan.martin at du.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070524/d8eb9f28/attachment.htm From stables Thu May 24 20:40:41 2007 From: stables (Gordon Stables) Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 21:40:41 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Open Letter to the CEDA Community Message-ID: <000601c79e6d$b6f175d0$0502a8c0@stables> Dear Community, I would like to file a brief report with the membership at the conclusion of my first term as the Chair of Topic Selection Committee. At the conclusion of last year's summer meetings I was elected by the committee to oversee the development of this year's topic wordings. As someone who had witnessed the last fifteen years of college debate topics I tried to draw upon my best and worst experiences with past topics to improve our process and product. Please indulge several of my observations from the past year's cycle. Reviewing the Process from July 06-May 07 It was, and remains my firm conviction, that one of our greatest challenges in recent years was to move beyond the broad problem area that attracted us to a topic and toward the specific type of policy we wanted to contest. I drafted language and policies that would narrow our problem area stage to one that asked authors to refine the central controversy that gave rise to that policy literature. On such topics as Europe, I emphasized with both the Herculean task faced by the committee (to draft a coherent set of resolutions) and the confusion by the community (regarding the central rationale for our interest in the subject matter). I have felt that if we pushed authors and then the community to vote for a narrower controversy would both limit the task of the committee in our meetings and clarify what the membership should expect to see on the second (wording ) ballot. I was encouraged when we received several good controversy papers this year. I felt as though the tremendous reservoir of community input could be productively channeled to clarify expectations without unduly constraining authors. I would be remiss if I didn't offer thanks to Steve Mancuso for many years of service to the topic committee in general and for specifically raising the standard for topic writing. The move to controversy papers could not have been possible without his effort to encourage the community to write both problem area and wording papers. Steve and Michael Maffie provided another fine service when they submitted their paper on March 1 of this year. This 100+ page document provided a through rationale for the controversy of increasing constructive engagement Middle East. Interestingly, the paper included only one wording recommendation, which I have pasted below. Resolved: the United States Federal Government should substantially increase its constructive engagement, including economic assistance and/or security guarantees, with the government of one or more of: Afghanistan, Iran, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Syria. I worked to provide a representative sample of this paper and all of the controversy papers for the problem area ballot. Members likely noticed how we, for the first time, added a direction and nuance to this vote. Schools knew that they were voting for an increase in constructive engagement, democracy promotion, nonproliferation norm compliance, and regulation and control of genetic engineering. This ballot included every controversy paper submitted by an author who recommended their inclusion. We did not exclude a single paper from an author who asked for its inclusion. Schools also knew that these were firm precedents that could not be reversed at the wording meetings. I revisit this process to remind the community that the basic topic stem has been available now for several months. Once the Middle East controversy was selected the community now had the opportunity to examine this singular resolution recommendation and to provide their own suggestions. This year we also built the topic blog as part of the new CEDA topic site to allow a year-round, easily organized, means of community feedback to the topic community. I am fully aware that not ever member of the community has the time or ability to write entire controversy or wording papers. In addition to the traditional means of public meetings and communication with members of the topic committee, this new form provided a very accessible means of providing input. Despite my general dislike of elists, I posted regular reminders of this process on both edebate and ceda-l. One of the most important deadlines was the period roughly a week before the topic meetings. This was the deadline for submission of a wording paper by any member of the community. This was, for me, an important way to ensure that the community could review the controversy paper and determine that perhaps some of the specific dimensions of the controversy could be better explored. Hays Watson and Julian Gagnon both took up the challenge of providing research and recommendations to the committee. Hays argued for the subtraction of economic assistance in some wording options and Julian argued in favor of adding Saudi Arabia to the topic. In both cases we added their work to the topic blog. Both items were added to our agenda and both produced changes to our wording. As with the controversy papers, each one of the substantive contributions produced changes in the process. At the topic meetings we continued the recent trend of web-casting the proceedings, albeit with some technical difficulties. We did regularly update the blog and provided real-time updates on the topic wordings. I view both the controversy and wording stages as successes. The community gained new forums for input and in each case this input was directly responsible for improvements in the final options. At the same time the membership enjoyed perhaps its greatest transparency and predictability with the process. Reviewing the Slate of Topics for 07-08 I am very pleased by the possibilities for the 07-08 debate season under any of the four options. They each reflect sometimes subtle, but in all cases meaningful, choices for the membership. After five days of meetings (between the business meetings and the topic meetings) and a cross-country flight I have neither the energy nor time to engage each of the individual emails, but let me discuss a few prominent features from the slate. We recognize that the challenge of writing a topic that will govern several thousand debates is more strenuous than writing a simple act of prose. We worked hard to consult several independent professionals with extensive in the discipline of grammar and devoted most of our third day's session to grammatical issues. We vetted issues of capitalization, punctuation, the use of hybrid singular and plural terms and many other items. What we found is that every one of our phrases is consistent, if not preferred by grammatical rules. There may be other ways that would be preferred by a strict grammatical design, but those perspectives would hamper our competing goal of designing a statement to guide intercollegiate debates. It was repeatedly considered, for example, that the listing of nations after the colon would be cleaner from a grammatical sense if the sentence ended with that list. The reason that each topic interrupts the sentence with the list and then returns to the types of engagement is specifically designed to encourage argument practice directed only at those countries. We also considered and received support for the use of the singular 'a' and the (s). We felt the flexibility to be both potentially singular and plural was necessary to allow debaters to pick the number of guarantees they wanted to discuss. These are moments where our sentence use is the optimal mix of grammar and argumentative practice. For those who have found a 'better' grammatical interpretation I would only ask that they also consider the unique agenda setting role of this sentence. We also recognize that topic should be as simple as possible to express the type of ideas that would like to see debated. Brevity is preferred over length of sentence, all things being equal. There was early discussion of reducing the sentence to only the specific acts of constructive engagement (i.e., economic assistance or security guarantees). Those topics would more closely resemble past foreign assistance topics (i.e., the USFG should substantially increase economic assistance to one or more of the following: ....). Hays provided the agenda item in favor of a security alone topic. I asked the assistance group to consider an assistance only topic and they did not recommend such an approach. I was one of the many voices opposing the change to simplify by removing constructive engagement because it fails to grasp the essence of this controversy. This controversy is not about the bilateral and unconditional provision of American economic or security cooperation. Constructive Engagement is a profoundly diplomatic term designed to produce certain outcomes by leveraging the tools of statecraft. This foreign approach, despite favor in several recent administrations (Regan with South Africa, Clinton with China and Carter with Syria) is antithetical to much of the current administration's foreign policy. I have seen concern about embracing the diplomatic dimensions of this topic. The prospect of nations refusing our assistance or offers may be unsettling to some, even though many of our recent aid or trade topics have struggled with this dilemma. I am very, very excited that our students will be encouraged to consider the tools of American foreign policy not as universal and all-powerful. There is ample discussion of the term 'offer' in foreign policy literature and, in fact, is often the most used phrase. I would contend that many of the proposed affirmatives would be very significant the moment they are offered. This is a tremendous moment for our students, and our country, to consider if diplomacy might produce a more peaceful and less violent world. I view that the educational benefit is sufficient to move away from our comfort zone of simply providing some product or funds to another nation. The other primary 'complication' that our wording efforts produced was the decision to fragment the term security guarantees. I know that the phrase 'a trilateral security guarantee(s) with Israel and/or a bilateral security guarantee(s)' has a certain inelegance at first glance, but forgive my indulgence to explain why this is a very important phrase. Beginning with the Manuso/Maffie paper there was some unease about how much to separate affirmative and negative ground through the US relationship with Israel. The controversy paper acknowledges the solvency benefits from allowing the affirmative to directly act with Israel and Hays' paper made such a recommendation. At the same time, the original paper recommended against including Israel as on the nations explicitly included in the topic because it might provided a tremendous advantage to the affirmative (at the expense of central negative ground) and also make the topic potentially bi-directional (because the US could negotiate a security guarantee with Israel to protect Israel against Iran or strike an opposite deal directly with Iran). Part of the value of a central controversy is to allow certain conceptual questions to organize debate for the year. A topic where most affirmatives would attempt to enhance American negotiations with a number of states potentially hostile to Israel does carve out a way for negatives to always view the debate through the lens of American-Israeli relations or politics. This concern was ultimately balanced against the need to include some of the most sophisticated and articulate solvency literature. There are many discussions of negotiations involving Israel, the US and another Middle Eastern state. I know I appreciated the input from Heather Walters on this question when she forced us to confront the reality that in much of the Israel-Syria literature regarding the return of the Golan Heights it was ultimately Israel who would need security grantees. If the nation that ceded territory was not also provided additional assurances for its safety it seems like a potentially fatal flaw in this central element of the topic. To bridge this divide we borrowed the trilateral language from the diplomatic history of American relations with Israel and the Palestinian people to provide this compromise. The affirmative could act directly with a nation beside Israel, but if it wanted to directly negotiate with Israel it would be required to include another state. This compromise does sacrifice the brevity of the phrase, but it does so to not fundamentally alter the literature base on either side. It allows debaters to mirror the incredibly significant trilateral Camp David and Oslo accords which changed the political landscape in the Middle East so much that it consumed two the architects in political violence form their own people. No one is operating under any illusions that these types of affirmatives are easy to defend, but they seem too important to ignore. I also wanted to speak to the sensitive question of the public relations and recruiting role of our topic. It should be a source of pride for our members to recruit new students and appeal for greater administrative support by reference to the significance of our topics. This was one of the primary reasons I wanted to move to controversies. Every single CEDA school has been able, and will be able, to point alumni, administrators and potential students to the www.cedatopic.com website which has, for the last few months, prominently featured the controversy phase and paper. I realize the resolutions now modify this approach, but for administrators, I would hope that we explain that we have both a short title and a more nuanced approach. I enjoy the analogy of the basic course title listed in a university catalog and the more detailed element found in a course syllabus. The university could not function without a short-form and a longer-version and I am not sure if we can either. If anyone has interaction with their administrators who are not satisfied by an explanation of the controversy area and resolution as a collective effort I would be more than happy to provide a version of this letter to any such officials. We also have the question of new student recruitment. After many years in this community I fully appreciate the role that new student development plays in our community and also appreciate that I would not pretend to be an expert on such matters. I am sure there a number of factors that go into retention and recruitment including topic complexity, argument practice diversity, economics, and the foundation of the subject matter. I can only provide two ways that I recognize that we are providing an open door via the topic. First, the representation of the committee must be broad enough to reflect a variety of viewpoints. I am very satisfied that our committee has many different types of programs and regions represented by the faculty and student representatives. Second, as Sue Peterson has explained more effectively, member institutions may earn CEDA points and fully work within our organizational structure by hosting events with modified topics. She mentions the California rookie debates comprised mostly of students from argument classes with no prior forensics experience. These tournaments have used only certain portions of the topic at a time to allow students to ease into a new topic. I firmly believe this is consistent with our education mission to tailor educational programs to the needs of our students. I will also extend an offer here to help any program or tournament help craft such a specific approach. Conclusion With the support of the topic committee, I have agreed to serve another term as the chair. I announced the end of our role in this process because after months of community and committee work it is now time for member schools to make their decisions. As we begin looking toward the slate of controversies for 08-09 I once again invite anyone to provide input about ideas for those topics or means of furthering community input. I am deeply committed to a process that helps manage the tremendous diversity that our community reflects when it approaches a topic. My final thought is that in many comments, and in recent reform proposals, I have seen discussion of moving away from a committee model and toward greater centralization of authority in the power of authors. This approach believes a single author (or authors) is best in a position to get the topic 'right.' I will admit this approach seems to have intuitive appeal. Can't someone just get it right and let the rest of 'us' enjoy the rewards? When I discuss this process with folks it is amazing how often we place ourselves in the role of 'someone' who will have all of the answers. The process seems to break down when you consider that our community has very different views when we aren't the ones approaching a topic. It is very comforting to be in the 'someone' role and very disturbing to be in the larger 'us' when you don't agree with the ideological or pragmatic expressions. In many ways our current binding controversy process provides a great deal of author input and still provides a democratically elected committee of eight faculty and one student the ultimate responsibility This year's authors were very cooperative and they might even suggest that despite their extensive paper the committee process, however unsightly to some at home, improved their product. Anyone who has ever served on a committee realizes they aren't often fun to watch. What they do uniquely providing is a means of keeping something as important to this community as our topic in the hands of accountable officers. I close in that fashion because ultimately all of our efforts come from elections. If have read the above commentary and still feel disempowered I encourage you to chat with me about reforms. I hope between the blog, the two stage process and the open meetings we can be responsive to anything offered before and up to the meetings. If that doesn't resolve your concerns you should consider running for topic committee. I know first-hand how much of time commitment this process is away from other professional and familial responsibilities so I don't harbor any illusions that the only means of participation is holding office. In the end we need your input and we owe many thanks to the members of the community for their service. Thanks for reading. Gordon Stables, Chair - CEDA Topic Selection Committee 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 14338 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070524/67ee74bf/attachment.bin From db8coach Sat May 26 03:06:57 2007 From: db8coach (Bob) Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 01:06:57 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] ans D'Amico and Farra References: Message-ID: <00cc01c79f6c$d4c76470$6701a8c0@bobsputer> >>>>>>>>>> Michael, you don't get sugar when you disrespect others. That's the exception to the rule. I think your reply just proves my point about your attitude of negativity. But regardless, the resolutions are what they are. Now adapt. >>>>>>>>>> Ok, maybe I am a bit dense, but why does he need to use honey again??? You say yourself that the resolutions are what they are. So why the honey? Sure, if there was a chance of his getting the committee to change something I could see him using the honey rather than vinegar. But that isn't the case is it? So the bottom line is that Mike was just sharing his opinion. He does that. Everyone should just adapt. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070526/157505df/attachment.htm From andy.edebate Fri May 25 03:19:03 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 04:19:03 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] question about the topic-especialy for d'amico Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705250119h26fe3be6gc6b3402e3c9d5334@mail.gmail.com> how shall we handle the apostate? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070525/3b5b5a1c/attachment.htm From mike_girouard Fri May 25 06:29:50 2007 From: mike_girouard (Mike Girouard) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 04:29:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Pardon My Interuption Message-ID: <262050.27196.qm@web32914.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I know that we are in the midst of topic discussions, but I have a unique problem that I need some help with. I am currently working at a hotel that is refusing to pay overtime to it's employees and from what I can gather is guilty of other infractions of federal and state law. I have done all the preliminary research and know all the laws that they are violating, but still have some unanswered questions. I have tried to get some answers out of the local Texas Workforce Commission office, but never get a strait answer and tend to just get the run around. I was hoping that someone might have the contact info for a past debater who has moved on and is now specializing in employment/labor laws that might be able to answer some questions. If you know anyone who might be able to help I would appreciate a back channel with contact info. This is not an isolated occurrence where they are refusing to pay just me, this is affecting all of the employees currently working and who knows how many other previous employees. Thanks In Advance, Mike Girouard --------------------------------- Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070525/874d941f/attachment.htm From stevendamico Fri May 25 07:04:04 2007 From: stevendamico (Steven D'Amico) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 08:04:04 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] ans D'Amico and Farra In-Reply-To: <00cc01c79f6c$d4c76470$6701a8c0@bobsputer> References: <00cc01c79f6c$d4c76470$6701a8c0@bobsputer> Message-ID: Bob, You make a good point but here's where I disagree. This is a question of tactics and the way we teach our students to be respectful and useful members of society. If there is an outside chance the resolution will change the only way he can get that done is by persuading the topic committee that it should be done. It is much more likely that he would have been able to do that, had his attitude been different. I also don't think these rants help anyone lead by example very well. Sure, Mike can say whatever the heck he wants, and of course he was sharing his opinion (one that is probably valid) but he wasn't "just" doing that. He was acting like a jerk. The way that he expressed his opinion was not productive at all. We are an activity which teaches students persuasion, and we all know berating someone till they give in doesn't work. Debate helped teach me not to be a jerk anymore, or at least try harder not to be one (we all slip up sometimes). I just wish more people learned that lesson. Steve D'Amico On 5/26/07, Bob wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> > Michael, you don't get sugar when you disrespect others. That's the > exception to the rule. > > I think your reply just proves my point about your attitude of negativity. > But regardless, the resolutions are what they are. Now adapt. > >>>>>>>>>> > > Ok, maybe I am a bit dense, but why does he need to use honey again??? You > say yourself that the resolutions are what they are. So why the honey? Sure, > if there was a chance of his getting the committee to change something I > could see him using the honey rather than vinegar. But that isn't the case > is it? > > So the bottom line is that Mike was just sharing his opinion. He does > that. Everyone should just adapt. > > Bob > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070525/899f645f/attachment.htm From dave Fri May 25 09:08:51 2007 From: dave (Steinberg, David L) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 10:08:51 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] unofficial calendar Message-ID: Please send more information about your tournaments or ones you know about, even tentative.... The calendar is posted at our website http://debate.miami.edu You have to click on Calendar, and then scroll down dave at miami.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070525/563d6a9a/attachment.htm From Bill_Southworth Fri May 25 11:12:30 2007 From: Bill_Southworth (Southworth, Bill) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 09:12:30 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Debate Position Message-ID: The University of Redlands has a debate coaching position available. The salary is $18,000 and there are no classroom teaching responsibilities. Please contact me if you are interested. Bill Southworth From stannardmatt Fri May 25 16:13:37 2007 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 15:13:37 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] analogies Message-ID: Bob, you are missing my point entirely. I am not objecting to Mike's hating on the resolutions. I am not defending the resolutions. I am charging Mike with a class A analogy felony. It was a bad, inexcusable analogy and he should be punished SIMPLY FOR MAKING THE ANALOGY, not for his position on the resolutions. I'm not sure of your position on exclusion counterplans, but I would favor a "print Mike's post without the analogy" counterplan, the net benefit being that it's the second worst analogy ever, and might sicken those who read it. Also, the only thing I ever said publicly about the Andy/Fallwell thing was to ask a question about the value of life. When you lost all that weight, did you also lose your sense of humor and nuance? Or am I just not that funny? Don't answer that. In my most private, reflective moments, I know the answer all too well. mjs From: db8coach at cox.netTo: stannardmatt at hotmail.com; mmk_savant at hotmail.com; edebate at ndtceda.comSubject: Re: [eDebate] analogiesDate: Fri, 25 May 2007 15:13:33 -0700 Wow, I can't believe I am reading this. >>>>>>>>>> The analogy below, made by Korcok, is quite possibly the SECOND least appropriate and ill-conceived analogy I've ever heard. He should be ashamed for writing it. He should initiate a self-imposed exile from edebate of a period no less than six months for coming up with this horrid analogy. mjs >>>>>>>>>> Isn't this from the guy who defended Andy's right to free speech when he applauded the death of a human being??? Now he wants Mike to self impose an exile for saying some topics were shitty? Not the topic committee personally (I happen to know he has much respect for many of them), just the topics mind you. Matt, your head is in the WRONG place when you defend the right to say a human death is good but condemn citicizing topics as bad. Remember folks, even terrific hard working people can produce shitty results. I think the world of those topic committee members that I know. I also think that these resolutions are quite possibly the worst I have ever seen. It happens. And no, I was nowhere near a computer this past few days when the wordings were being discussed. Had I seen these resolutions (before they were finalized) I would have said that they are wordy, convoluted, difficult to comprehend, and are going to create nightmarish T debates. Oh you can pose and tell me that I am wrong, but I will expect an apology after the tournaments begin. Bob Lechtreck _________________________________________________________________ Create the ultimate e-mail address book. Import your contacts to Windows Live Hotmail. www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/managemail2.html?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_impcont_0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070525/ae054ce9/attachment.htm From repkowil Fri May 25 16:28:30 2007 From: repkowil (William J Repko) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 17:28:30 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Read about the Outreach Workshop Message-ID: Last Wednesday, MSU Debate put on a free debate workshop. Details of the workshop are contained in the attachment. The workshop was targeted at every program in the State of Michigan that did *not* presently have a debate program/course. I am posting for 4 reasons: First ? I'm hoping to encourage more college programs to try outreach projects of this sort. I was inspired by Ross Smith when he once told me, ?not enough of us are creating new debaters ? we can essentially create demand?. Ross, I think, is right ? and his visions to create demand through Debate Scoop and through Open Source are designed to convince the public at-large that debaters have something to offer. Ask him about it some time ? he?s simply on to something. The MSU project described below may be better viewed as a way to ?create supply?. We need to get kids to try *some* kind of debate (and enjoy it) so that parents can begin to pressure High School Administrations. Second ? it?s simple and inexpensive to run. We pulled this off for under 100 total dollars (on our end). For that expense, roughly 80 kids got to participate in their first debate. Think about it -- If a dozen other college programs had analogous draws, we?d expose nearly 1000 new students to the activity per year. Over time, I could imagine significant dividends (new programs, ripple effects, media, camp participation, etc). A breakdown of costs is included in the attachment. Third ? I think now is our time We exist in what may be a unique political moment ? where many parents (I think) are looking for something that teaches students ?to read beyond the headlines?, ?to not accept an argument without verifying that it has sound reasoning/proof?. However, most parents don?t know to even consider ?debating? as an option. Ross is right, at some level, we need to get ourselves out there. We need to milk our moment. We need to outreach. I view small workshops as more than a selfless gesture to the community. I don?t pretend to know all of the obstacles that every college program confronts, but ? in general ? ?outreach? and ?reading beyond the headlines? doesn?t solely play with parents. As more debate programs are seen as an asset to the local community, I suspect (and hope) our place would grow a little more secure. Finally ? I am willing to share the entire lesson plan with anyone that asks. Just backchannel me. It is 100% fine with me if you are just curious ? but have no intention (in the short-term) of setting-up a workshop. Undergrads -- this means you. If you are bored enough to be reading edebate in the middle of the summer, you are likely bored-enough to read through the lesson plan. I welcome your thoughts. The rest is attached. -- Will -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: outreach_--_edebate_post_2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 37888 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070525/02e9f6b6/attachment.doc From gacggc Fri May 25 16:58:35 2007 From: gacggc (David Glass) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 17:58:35 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Stratford Debate Listing Message-ID: <8371758b0705251458s22f2f4d1p252fa442b4ee5b71@mail.gmail.com> Stratford Academy has the following position open for the 2007 - 2008 academic year. Debate Coach/World History Teacher The position will include coaching policy debate and traveling to local and national tournaments. Stratford is committed to maintaining a nationally-competitive policy debate program. Budgetary allotments to support this commitment are generous. Additionally, three world history classes (10th grade) will be part of the job requirement. There are no further teaching responsibilities. This is a full-time job with benefits. A teaching certificate is not required. The current debate coach will continue to be available to assist with the program. There is also a separate middle school debate program. Stratford is a non-sectarian independent school of 930 students in grades Pre-K - 12. It is located in Macon, Georgia (Population 101,000--Metro Population 260,000) which is 65 miles south of the Atlanta airport. There are approximately 300 students in the high school. If you or anyone you know is interested in this job, please have them contact me at the email or cell phone number below. Thanks, Mike Michael Kelley Chair, History Department Stratford Academy 6010 Peake Road Macon, GA 31220 mkelley at stratford.org Cell 478-714-0895 > From alfred.snider Fri May 25 17:31:03 2007 From: alfred.snider (Alfred Snider) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 17:31:03 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Congratulations to John Hines Message-ID: <465763A7.9030400@uvm.edu> I want to congratulate John Hines, who has just accepted a coaching position at the Cal Poly SLO. I am so happy to have had a chance to work with John this last year. David Register and I encouraged him to leave the dry (but well funded life) of IBM corporate finance in Arizona and return to debate, for which he has an amazing talent. We were unable to offer John a full-time job, but only two half-time jobs, and I am so pleased that he has found a position that begins to remunerate him at a level that is better suited to his worth (and has benefits). I wish John the best and know that he will do very well in his new home. Tuna -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Global Debate Blog http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/ Debate Training site http://debate.uvm.edu World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ GATEWAY TO ALL THINGS DEBATE http://debateoneworld.org 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax From basaindon Fri May 25 22:15:47 2007 From: basaindon (Brent Saindon) Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 20:15:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] Congratulations to John Hines In-Reply-To: <465763A7.9030400@uvm.edu> Message-ID: <523775.8432.qm@web60721.mail.yahoo.com> Congrats John! That's a big move (it would have been easier to go directly from Phoenix). Brent Saindon Alfred Snider wrote: I want to congratulate John Hines, who has just accepted a coaching position at the Cal Poly SLO. I am so happy to have had a chance to work with John this last year. David Register and I encouraged him to leave the dry (but well funded life) of IBM corporate finance in Arizona and return to debate, for which he has an amazing talent. We were unable to offer John a full-time job, but only two half-time jobs, and I am so pleased that he has found a position that begins to remunerate him at a level that is better suited to his worth (and has benefits). I wish John the best and know that he will do very well in his new home. Tuna -- Alfred C. Snider aka Tuna Edwin Lawrence Professor of Forensics University of Vermont Huber House, 475 Main Street, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405 USA Global Debate Blog http://debate.uvm.edu/debateblog/ Debate Training site http://debate.uvm.edu World Debate Institute http://debate.uvm.edu/wdi/ GATEWAY TO ALL THINGS DEBATE http://debateoneworld.org 802-656-0097 office telephone 802-656-4275 office fax _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate --------------------------------- Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070525/ab955c3e/attachment.htm From forensics Sun May 27 19:21:42 2007 From: forensics (LACC Forensics) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 17:21:42 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Topic wording Message-ID: How about some constructive alternatives? I haven't been on the topic committee (nor do I think I will ever want to put myself in that situation considering how they are treated by the community) but I think there is plenty of evidence that they take their job seriously and make every significant effort to develop a resolution that will provide ground and ample opportunity for education. And for many, many years now, their efforts are wasted because, as Scott rightly points out, a significant portion of the community (almost all of California for example) aren't going to bother to answer the resolutional question. It would be one thing to complain if any of you could substantiate your insinuations that the members of the topic committee are idiots, but they are not. They are our colleagues and they make a genuine effort at doing a good job and though I won't claim that I think they are always 100% successful, having watched literally thousands of debates over the last 26 years, I have to put more blame on poor coaching and lazy researching for the poor arguments (that get worse each year) I hear in so many of those rounds. I spend much of my time recruiting students and defending my funding by pointing out the by and large the members of the debate community are some of the smartest people in the world. How about we all get together to prove that claim by using our vast knowledge, experience, intelligence and talent to actually be creative and teach debate this season by recognizing that good research and application of logic can make any decent resolution work for the educational benefit of our students. If you are having trouble finding links to your lame politics disad or your generic K, try this - do some research and write some good topic-specific args this year. Let the flames begin. Ken From forensics Sun May 27 19:22:02 2007 From: forensics (LACC Forensics) Date: Sun, 27 May 2007 17:22:02 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] An open Letter to Dr Warner Message-ID: While I too am eager to hear Ede's suggestions for how to approach this issue, I am also curious about how Andy thinks this problem can and/or should be addressed. In fact, I am interested in suggestions from anyone in our community who agrees that this is a significant problem in our activity. For years, I have been banging my head against the proverbial brick wall of the debate community trying to find a way to break down the barriers to participation that clearly exist. But it seems that no matter which way I turn, there is a significant portion of the debate community that stands against me. I too am disgusted that once again, a topic that contained so much promise for education as well as inclusion, was derailed by competitive practice. Now, let me say upfront, that I largely disagree with Andy as to the reasons this failure occurred. I do not accept for one moment that the structure of the debate activity has anything to do with the missed opportunity of this year's resolution. I do agree, however, with his argument that the topic was colonized. However, I do not think it was colonized by the US legal system. I think it was colonized by the overwhelming desire to win that drives current debate practice. This is where I get rebuffed on both sides. I receive public support from those who, like me, support the structure of debate when I disagree with people like Andy and Ede who support rejection of the structure of our activity. But, I get attacked by those same people when I dare to say that the problem lies in the ethics of those who participate in the activity. I recently had a terrible experience at the Novice/JV national tournament at WVU - not because of WVU, whose hosting was wonderful - but because of the incorrect assumptions about my judging philosophy that I believe are caused by the current polarization of our activity. As usual, I was not highly preferred by those schools who identify as critical/performance in their strategic approach to debate. I was, however, highly preferred by schools who identify as "straight-up policy". The problem is that my definition of "straight-up policy" is more theoretical than practical. I DO NOT think that a negative strategy consisting of a 99% PIC with a politics net benefit is straight-up policy. It is just another example of bad debate perpetuated by bad coaching. The current polarized distinction between policy and critical debate is ridiculous and is simply making the quality of debates worse as each year and topic passes. We honestly have become no better than the archetypal definitions of republicans and democrats within the larger society. The critical/performance approach in debate has been co-opted by programs/debaters who don't really care about social issues but simply want to win and are going with what will enable them to do so. My debaters were told repeatedly this year that they should switch to a performance strategy because they would be more likely to win. By the end of the season the only message they received from the debate community (specifically judges) was that they (as racial minorities in the activity) are only likely to win if they take the performance approach and abandon straight-up policy. I find it interesting that the performance/policy dichotomy has reached such a point of polarization that the only way to be black and win in debate is to adopt a performance strategy. I think it's time to reflect on our efforts at inclusion in recent years and recognize that the experiment has largely failed. While certainly some teams have found competitive success by trying to buck the system, it has apparently created a new racial divide - one in which you are expected to debate a certain way if you want to win and happen to belong to a marginalized group within society based on the color of your skin. Now, I know this was not Ede or Andy or Jon or anyone else's intent when the performance turn began in our activity. But it is the result. So, my question is, what do we do now? How do we achieve true inclusion in the activity without pigeon-holing students and telling them that they must debate a certain way to win if they belong to a certain demographic? From mmk_savant Mon May 28 02:03:48 2007 From: mmk_savant (Michael Korcok) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 00:03:48 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] ans Ken Message-ID: swinging wildly, Ken writes... "if any of you could substantiate your insinuations that the members of the topic committee are idiots..." no one made such insinuations. your strawperson is stupid. in fact, I took pains to not blame anyone. that's because I think this year's meltdown is structural: the topic committee invested so much effort in the wording that they didn't consider leaving well enough alone. in fact, the topic selection process has become so elaborated that simple, straightforward, decent resolutions have been replaced by twisty, bureaucratic-speak, too many cooks in the kitchen, each one adding more ingredients, messes. no individuals are at fault, much less idiots, for it. lots of smart people, crappy result. "having watched literally thousands of debates over the last 26 years, I have to put more blame on poor coaching and lazy researching for the poor arguments (that get worse each year) I hear in so many of those rounds." but... but... the topic committee members are really smart and hard-working, it's just that all us coaches are "poor" and "lazy"? how the hell does that work, Ken? and if debate arguments have been getting worse each year for the past 26 years because we coaches have been getting worse and lazier, then 26 years ago the coaches and arguments must have been FRIKKIN AMAZING!!! assuming just a 5% decline per year in lousier-coaching induced argumentative quality, what I would take to be at the limits of discernible quality reduction year-over-year, debate arguments today are only 1/4 as good as they were back in the day. (.95**26= .26). yeah, uhmmm, no. I remember coaches and arguments 26 years ago. neither better nor harder-working than today. "How about some constructive alternatives?" i thought i would leave it alone for a couple weeks and think of some. how about something more constructive from you than calling for others to come up with some constructive alternatives? in any case, I am warming to one idea: the 3+3 rule. Each topic paper designates 3 Resolutions that will appear on the resolutional ballot, without modification, if that topic gets the most votes. The topic committee crafts 3 additional resolutions for a total of 6 on the resolutional ballot. This way the topic paper author gets their resolutions on the ballot without embellishment and the community is guaranteed 3 resolutions they voted for will appear on the ballot without topic committee intervention. This gives authors a bit more work but their reward is they get to craft 3 resolutions for the ballot. Nothing prevents topic paper authors from consulting and getting assistance from seasoned resolution drafters. This also takes some pressure off the topic committee from trying to remain true to the topic paper: they can and ought to explore different aspects of the topic area, offer choices not considered by the authors, and be responsive to community input. "How about we all get together to ... can make any decent resolution work for the educational benefit of our students." absolutely. I have for a long time believed that when life gives you lemons, you pick them up and throw them at Ken. Michael Korcok _________________________________________________________________ Download Messenger. Start an i?m conversation. Support a cause. Join now. http://im.live.com/messenger/im/home/?source=TAGWL_MAY07 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070528/39077852/attachment.htm From SHarris Mon May 28 16:35:44 2007 From: SHarris (Sean Harris) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 14:35:44 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] HS Assistant Position -- Holy Names Academy Message-ID: <4B42879AE12F43448A8B7FD5EF40DEFD03BAAC65@cougar.holynames-sea.org> Hello all, We're looking to hire an assistant debate coach at Holy Names Academy this next year. If you know of anyone in the Seattle area who would be interested, please forward this to them. The official job posting is below. If you have any questions, email me at sharris at holynames-sea.org. Thanks, Sean Harris-Campf Holy Names Academy www.holynames-sea.org -------- Assistant Debate Coach Assistant needed for one/two days after school and approx. ten tournaments from Oct. 2007 through March 2008. Desired: competitive debate experience. Non-smoker. Send letter of inquiry and resume to Elizabeth Swift, Holy Names Academy, 728 21st Ave. East, Seattle, WA 98112. FAX: (206) 323-5254. EMAIL: resumes at holynames-sea.org . Holy Names Academy, founded in 1880 by the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, is an independent Catholic school for girls grades 9-12 with an enrollment of 645. The Academy has been recognized four times by the U.S. Department of Education as a Blue Ribbon School. It offers a strong college preparatory curriculum and serves young women of diverse ethnic, economic, and religious backgrounds. From nicole.colston Mon May 28 19:06:37 2007 From: nicole.colston (Nicole) Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 20:06:37 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] words compiled in a list of possiblly funny and maybe serious thoughts with little to no support and lots of opinion, aka my bullshit Message-ID: I had some thoughts about all the words in the potential resolution, but I forgot them before I could finish reading that "tightrope of death" sentence. I got this creepy feeling (chills) that someone somewhere was trying to revive/justify Topicality as a good argument. The topic meetings sound really really fun, but my lease always ends June 1st, so I end up moving all my hippie possessions around instead. I used to feel guilty, now I just try to pretend like I don't care until it is too late to change anything. It helps, really. Debate should include the potential for DISCOVERY, that's uh like uh ideas and word combinations for actions that humanity hasn't prescribed/transcribed/imbibed in its literature-base yet. Or maybe just some that we hadn't found yet. Sometimes, normally during the 2NC/1NR, I flashback to this politician I heard upchucking in a bathroom stall once. I could tell he had fast food that day, but I couldn't tell which side of the invisible line he was on, oh well. Predictability is not a standard in life, most of us end up learning the hard way, going the long way around. Everyone else is just hiding, sittin' on the dock of the bay. Poor Otis. Seriously though, the key to life might just be style. It's not what you do, but rather HOW you do the damn thing. I think thats what Ken was saying. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070528/00934ca7/attachment.htm From baltimoredebate Mon May 28 23:42:34 2007 From: baltimoredebate (Adam Jackson) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 00:42:34 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] How do we achieve full inclusion?...Hmmm Message-ID: <722d7390705282142k5853d4dk9ae2d9fbba98730f@mail.gmail.com> Well...in my humble opinion...any decent academic activity has politics like exclusion and labels because it's inevitable. Let's face the facts, the "debate community" was "founded" an exclusive activity preserved for the elites, and has evolved to a somewhat inclusive activity for everybody. The problem is that we waste so much precious learning time trying to figure our how to solve those "problems", that we forget that it has nothing to do with what we love about debate. Stuff like that will always exist, unless there is a majority that is willing to stop it, but that won't happens because we're that damn D-word...debaters. I find it funny that people that have been in the activity for years often ponder this question and never find an answer. The answer is always gonna be the same. We all perpetuating the same things because its an extremely primal (almost feral) part of human nature...the drive to compete, and the drive to win. Straight up and Alternative have nothing to do with the problem, those are just two names of strategies idiots like us use in debate to get that damn W-word. Bottom line...nothing changes, it only morphs and evolves, the basics (and the bullshit) remain the same, year year after year. Don't bother worrying about the topic, it's pretty much chosen. Pick a side, and debate it. That's what we're good at. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070529/d3b37545/attachment.htm From spring.sarah Tue May 29 00:16:57 2007 From: spring.sarah (Sarah Spring) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 01:16:57 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Dan Fitzmier Message-ID: <2e91215b0705282216y2d4e2701r642b856559702a6f@mail.gmail.com> Get back to me, Thanks, Sarah -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070529/382ff2d3/attachment.htm From ewarner Tue May 29 07:25:14 2007 From: ewarner (Ede Warner) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 08:25:14 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] An open Letter to Dr Warner In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <465BE353.5E00.0007.0@gwise.louisville.edu> Dear Andy, Ken, Adam, and the debate community, Got a lot of thoughts about all of us. But more importantly, I suggest a simple approach. Use the wonderful skills we've accrued through our participation in policy debate to create the changes you wish to see in the debate community. Criticism is a starting point, but certainly not an end. For me, the question isn't whether competition is good or bad, but whether it can be harnessed and directed to dualistically serve a societal purpose in addition to competition for it's own sake. If it can't, then the game is futile. But if it can, then the possibilities of reclaiming debate as having more educational value and more of a relevance to the world we live in and that is a worthy "lifelong" mission for me. I won't for a second suggest how Andy or Ken should create the worlds of policy debate that they are looking for, but I am certainly willing to share my experiences in hopes that others can find a productive route towards the changes they are looking for. The process for finding solutions to a problem--whether finding a proper framework and structure in our activity for debating race or whether competitive practices are destroying the educational value of the activity-- is the same. At the end of the day, our community must persuade one another to move in a particular direction. While we can find competitive success by persuading a smaller percentage of folks on an idea, the types of structural changes being called for by both Andy and Ken and others, requires persuasion of the majority that a particular course of action will lead to the most effective outcomes for our community. Absent that persuasion, we end up with schisms of difference and no clear sense of direction as a community, the status quo. And I'll readily concede, our participation at Louisville has helped create this community division, so I have some sense of responsibility to address it. The question remains: can something come out of our divisions which makes us as a community stronger? Of course it can, but it won't occur without a social movement towards some particular educational endpoint. For me, my process of discovery has taken over a decade. And Adam is right, it can take a lifetime without ever finding the answer. However, making debate as a game more relevant to the society in which it exists is important in finding the answers to many societal issues of the day. Debate is a microcosm of society and an important one, given what the structure teaches us about policy making in a multi-cultural society is exactly the evolution from an "elite" game for a mono-cultural that the larger society we live in struggles with. Over the last fifteen years at Louisville, I have used my personal and institutional agency to influence students to partake in an evolution of policy making to attempt to address what started with a very narrow goal of increasing "African American participation" but has become a much broader and politically more significant mission of "increasing effective policy making in a multi-cultural society". I believe the goal is worthy whether or not anyone has found the "answer", nor will I "give up" because some else hasn't succeeded. To me, those are short-sighted cop-outs of convenience which only serve to protect unjust and bad ideas under the guise of, "no one else has fixed it, so why try?" Policy debate teaches me to research and investigate problems, understanding their history and origin, then look for potential solutions, act on them and finally assess whether they are actually solving the problem. By attempting to be different, I embarked on a journey which required all of those skills to achieve a particular outcome. The recent movie "Happy Feet" speaks so eloquently to many of the feelings I have about my personal journey to understand difference at first in debate, and now in all societal policy-making. Prior to beginning of what the community calls, the Louisville Project, I re-entered debate because I wanted to coach and I wanted to give back opportunities to Black students in the hopes of using debate as a tool of empowerment and becoming competitive in intercollegiate debate. After almost a decade of trying, my success with was limited. I thought about quitting, never even considering the possibility of attempting something different. I didn't think I had the power to try anything that others weren't already doing. But after experimenting at CEDA nationals in spring 2000, I made a decision to try something different. We found a new population of students (not trained in debate) and subscribed to a new set of conventions (not speed reading, talking about the topic as it related to race) as a different entry point for a group of African American students. Some of our assumptions were right, some were wrong, but the data from judge's discussions, the student's perceptions, and yes, competitive success, drove our policy decisions as we moved forward. We learned that my simplistic view of the problem (speed) was but a smaller part of a set of larger issues that dealt with cultural differences between how the game was played and the perceptions of what "good debate" was for outsiders. I believe this was phase one of our journey as we began to define and identify the problems of cultural difference in intercollegiate debate. In phase 2, we spent most of our time criticizing the community for the problem. We at points, abandoned debating the topic to highlight cultural differences in how debate was played relative to our student population. Our mission was more direct than before, now calling for "increasing meaningful Black participation". Again, while we did in fact, persuade a slice of the judging community to be influenced by our message, our actions were very polarizing and divisive. Eventually, the competitive success waned, the backlash turned into adapation strategies to competitively defeat our strategy, and the "criticism alone" era came to an end for us, although many still hang on to this model of participation. However, beginning last year, we took the criticisms of the community and in spite of the hostility it created internally on my squad, we went back to the drawing board, in an effort to reconstruct our purpose and the mission of the program. Starting with what we believe to be the essence of effective debate in society, persuasion, we reinvented a new model grounded in "a mission of increasing effective policy-making in a multi-cultural society." Again taking from earlier criticisms of our efforts, as well as identifying the constructive thoughts about what we do, we slowly evolved this third phase of debate, incorporating some of the old, infused with some different thoughts about inclusion and diversity. We started with the topic again, relating our topic arguments to our concerns about the evaluation of stylistic and cultural differences in debate. We stopped preferring judges in traditional ways, but aligned our preference system with a coalitional politics geared towards identifying others who understand difference as it relates to their lives in some ways, making an attempt at building persuasive bridges with other minority communities in debate. We for the first time, identified ourselves as the MPOWER (Multi-cultural policy organizing with emancipatory rhetoric) movement, as opposed to labels of projects or performance which often mis-characterize our methods and goals. For the first time, we are beginning to see positive responses from both ends of the debate ideological spectrum, in addition to a general excitement from our students about what we are doing. In my mind, while we have yet to find an "answer", I see progress. And that progress has been worth the tears, the struggles, and the mis-steps of the past in moving towards some final destination, as of yet to be determined. Critical thinking when making policy decisions. Investigating problems and finding effective solutions. Then assessing those solutions and starting over again. Persuading others that you have something worth following. Isn't that what our activity is all about? And if we can do, can not others as well? But it starts with a commitment: to a purpose and to a method of creating change. And it requires some level of flexibility to the possibility that where you start won't necessarily be where you will end up. I wish Andy, Ken, and Adam all the best on finding a journey that works for them. We have the power to make debate whatever we want it to be, fix any problems that we see, and a better world if we start by believing we have the power to achieve change. With love and admiration for those who care about what we do, Ede Ede Warner, Jr. Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication University of Louisville 308E Strickler Hall 502-852-3522 e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu http://comm.louisville.edu/~debate >>> LACC Forensics 5/27/2007 8:22 PM >>> While I too am eager to hear Ede's suggestions for how to approach this issue, I am also curious about how Andy thinks this problem can and/or should be addressed. In fact, I am interested in suggestions from anyone in our community who agrees that this is a significant problem in our activity. For years, I have been banging my head against the proverbial brick wall of the debate community trying to find a way to break down the barriers to participation that clearly exist. But it seems that no matter which way I turn, there is a significant portion of the debate community that stands against me. I too am disgusted that once again, a topic that contained so much promise for education as well as inclusion, was derailed by competitive practice. Now, let me say upfront, that I largely disagree with Andy as to the reasons this failure occurred. I do not accept for one moment that the structure of the debate activity has anything to do with the missed opportunity of this year's resolution. I do agree, however, with his argument that the topic was colonized. However, I do not think it was colonized by the US legal system. I think it was colonized by the overwhelming desire to win that drives current debate practice. This is where I get rebuffed on both sides. I receive public support from those who, like me, support the structure of debate when I disagree with people like Andy and Ede who support rejection of the structure of our activity. But, I get attacked by those same people when I dare to say that the problem lies in the ethics of those who participate in the activity. I recently had a terrible experience at the Novice/JV national tournament at WVU - not because of WVU, whose hosting was wonderful - but because of the incorrect assumptions about my judging philosophy that I believe are caused by the current polarization of our activity. As usual, I was not highly preferred by those schools who identify as critical/performance in their strategic approach to debate. I was, however, highly preferred by schools who identify as "straight-up policy". The problem is that my definition of "straight-up policy" is more theoretical than practical. I DO NOT think that a negative strategy consisting of a 99% PIC with a politics net benefit is straight-up policy. It is just another example of bad debate perpetuated by bad coaching. The current polarized distinction between policy and critical debate is ridiculous and is simply making the quality of debates worse as each year and topic passes. We honestly have become no better than the archetypal definitions of republicans and democrats within the larger society. The critical/performance approach in debate has been co-opted by programs/debaters who don't really care about social issues but simply want to win and are going with what will enable them to do so. My debaters were told repeatedly this year that they should switch to a performance strategy because they would be more likely to win. By the end of the season the only message they received from the debate community (specifically judges) was that they (as racial minorities in the activity) are only likely to win if they take the performance approach and abandon straight-up policy. I find it interesting that the performance/policy dichotomy has reached such a point of polarization that the only way to be black and win in debate is to adopt a performance strategy. I think it's time to reflect on our efforts at inclusion in recent years and recognize that the experiment has largely failed. While certainly some teams have found competitive success by trying to buck the system, it has apparently created a new racial divide - one in which you are expected to debate a certain way if you want to win and happen to belong to a marginalized group within society based on the color of your skin. Now, I know this was not Ede or Andy or Jon or anyone else's intent when the performance turn began in our activity. But it is the result. So, my question is, what do we do now? How do we achieve true inclusion in the activity without pigeon-holing students and telling them that they must debate a certain way to win if they belong to a certain demographic? _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070529/8b1166b3/attachment.htm From matt_gerber27 Tue May 29 14:13:57 2007 From: matt_gerber27 (Matt Gerber) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 14:13:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Baylor/Emporia Switcheroo Message-ID: Hi folks! Baylor and Emporia have decided to swap our tournament dates for the upcoming 2007-2008 season. The Glenn R. Capp Debates at Baylor will be held October 20-22, 2007 and the Pflaum Debates at Emporia will be held on January 20-22, 2008. We believe this will change the complexion of the travel schedule in multiple positive ways. First, it creates a first-semester travel option in the state of Texas, and in the southern half of District 3, something that hasn?t existed in a long time. Second, it allows Emporia to continue hosting a tournament, as their traditional weekend was unavailable to them for the upcoming season. We hope you all will continue to support both tournaments! ~Matt Gerber and Sam Maurer _________________________________________________________________ PC Magazine?s 2007 editors? choice for best Web mail?award-winning Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507 From let_the_american_empire_burn Tue May 29 16:56:43 2007 From: let_the_american_empire_burn (Kevin Sanchez) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 16:56:43 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] if you can't beat 'em... Message-ID: in this lecture series (starting here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BIUkUUtvFI) made available by the european graduate skool, slavoj zizek explicates 'over-identification' as a new form of resistance; this means, in part, playing the game in an exaggerated way which violates the unwritten rules that prop up social norms --- and in light of recent discussions, here's two past posts that further sketch out how this strategy might work in this forum: (1) 'obey the rules' - http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2005-April/062270.html (... which references the thread 'just your standard topicality violation', my four posts below - http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2005-April/061585.html / http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2005-April/061590.html / http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2005-April/061600.html / http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2005-April/061675.html .) (2) 'vicious paper cuts' - http://www.mail-archive.com/edebate at ndtceda.com/msg32596.html _________________________________________________________________ PC Magazine?s 2007 editors? choice for best Web mail?award-winning Windows Live Hotmail. http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_pcmag_0507 From repkowil Tue May 29 18:25:53 2007 From: repkowil (William J Repko) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 19:25:53 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Wiki reminder Message-ID: 1. If you have volunteered for an entry to the Wiki, we are looking to gather these by (roughly) June 1st.... However, the real goal is to have the thing up-and-running by the middle of June (for all camps to use). So, if you need a few extra days, drop me a line. 2. What does a good entry look like ?... In general, there are two categories of entries: a) purely factual matters (i.e. the entry for "caselist" or "coinflip" can be pretty damn brief) b) factual explanation + "how to debate well" -- offering either tips or cards. Determine for yourself which category your terms fall into. An example of a very good entry was completed by Dan Stout of KSU. His "Malthus" entry is what you might want to read if you were struggling against the argument. http://sdiencyclopedia.wikispaces.com/Malthus A good example of a more factual entry was submitted by Brad Hall -- who did the entries for 1AC, 1NC, etc. For each, he included several links to google video (of good 2AC's, of lectures from camps, etc). Check it out -- it's kinda cool. http://sdiencyclopedia.wikispaces.com/0-9 3. When you submit: a) send as an attachment to me (preferably in Word) b) at the bottom of the entry put something akin to: Entry by Dan Stout 5/24/07 4. If you would still like to submit something, drop me a line -- I'll send a list of "untaken" terms. 5. Tune in and watch Roger Federer make his run at history over the next 12 days...seriously, what else is on.. Yours, Dylan McKay repkowil at msu.edu From Bill_Southworth Tue May 29 19:00:22 2007 From: Bill_Southworth (Southworth, Bill) Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 17:00:22 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Information Message-ID: Greetings! Allow me first to thank those who responded to my earlier request for enrollment data. However, more assistance from the remainder is needed. Please contact your Admissions Office &/or Registrar to find out what the UNDERGRADUATE enrollment was for the first year your college qualified for the NDT and the last year (for most that would be within the last couple of years). We are working on a new addition to the NDT History and I think you can see the purpose of such data. Thank you in advance for your cooperation and helpful assistance. Bill Southworth From debate Wed May 30 19:48:20 2007 From: debate (debate at ou.edu) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 19:48:20 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] I love these topics! Message-ID: I had to say something. No resolution has less than 45 words! I think i need more lessons on how to dumn it down for the people who dont understand like a subject heading in a course catalog. My TOP TEN reasons why i love this topic! 10 - and/or topicality and/or extra-topicality 9 - U.S. as savior - we will do it right this time! 8 - My plan is written already, i dont have to.... 7 - I had a line of novices waiting outside my office door this week, pantering the topic from memory.. 6 - We can give more guns to Isreal to crush those "terrorists" on the west bank 5 - This time i will get to really put my finger on "constructive engagement" -- what is non constructive engagement? 4 - We can finally get those damn critical teams to quit their funny business and give som AmRams 3 - No more nuclear war debates! right? more case debates with non-Khalizad or beardon impacts! right? 2 - The 50 and over club - which resolution has less than 50 words? (guess before you look) 1 - Narrow topics make you dumn - this has to end some day! From drmosbornesq Wed May 30 19:56:18 2007 From: drmosbornesq (bandana martin) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 17:56:18 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] I love these topics! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <39c09a80705301756r794faf55le95a04ed6938acc4@mail.gmail.com> all that time counting words and you misspell Israel? FWIW, some of your irony-disads are totally reasons why I'm excited to come back for a 5th year. On 5/30/07, debate at ou.edu wrote: > > > I had to say something. No resolution has less than 45 words! I think i > need more lessons on how to dumn it down for the people > who dont understand like a subject heading in a course catalog. > > My TOP TEN reasons why i love this topic! > > 10 - and/or topicality and/or extra-topicality > 9 - U.S. as savior - we will do it right this time! > 8 - My plan is written already, i dont have to.... > 7 - I had a line of novices waiting outside my office door this week, > pantering the topic from memory.. > 6 - We can give more guns to Isreal to crush those "terrorists" on the > west bank > 5 - This time i will get to really put my finger on "constructive > engagement" -- what is non constructive engagement? > 4 - We can finally get those damn critical teams to quit their funny > business and give som AmRams > 3 - No more nuclear war debates! right? more case debates with > non-Khalizad or beardon impacts! right? > 2 - The 50 and over club - which resolution has less than 50 > words? (guess before you look) > 1 - Narrow topics make you dumn - this has to end some day! > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070530/2a6c9686/attachment.htm From debate Wed May 30 20:20:10 2007 From: debate (debate at ou.edu) Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 20:20:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] I love these topics! In-Reply-To: <39c09a80705301756r794faf55le95a04ed6938acc4@mail.gmail.com> References: <39c09a80705301756r794faf55le95a04ed6938acc4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: I am definately not topic committee material huh? the counting made me dizzy...... ----- Original Message ----- From: bandana martin Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:56 pm Subject: Re: [eDebate] I love these topics! To: "debate at ou.edu" , edebate at ndtceda.com > all that time counting words and you misspell Israel? > > FWIW, some of your irony-disads are totally reasons why I'm excited to > come > back for a 5th year. > > > > On 5/30/07, debate at ou.edu wrote: > > > > > > I had to say something. No resolution has less than 45 words! I > think i > > need more lessons on how to dumn it down for the people > > who dont understand like a subject heading in a course catalog. > > > > My TOP TEN reasons why i love this topic! > > > > 10 - and/or topicality and/or extra-topicality > > 9 - U.S. as savior - we will do it right this time! > > 8 - My plan is written already, i dont have to.... > > 7 - I had a line of novices waiting outside my office door this week, > > pantering the topic from memory.. > > 6 - We can give more guns to Isreal to crush those "terrorists" on the > > west bank > > 5 - This time i will get to really put my finger on "constructive > > engagement" -- what is non constructive engagement? > > 4 - We can finally get those damn critical teams to quit their funny > > business and give som AmRams > > 3 - No more nuclear war debates! right? more case debates with > > non-Khalizad or beardon impacts! right? > > 2 - The 50 and over club - which resolution has less than 50 > > words? (guess before you look) > > 1 - Narrow topics make you dumn - this has to end some day! > > _______________________________________________ > > eDebate mailing list > > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > > > From anabaptist Thu May 31 07:28:34 2007 From: anabaptist (Donald Bryson) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 08:28:34 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Sarah Snider, Mick Souders, Ryan Galloway Message-ID: <002201c7a37f$35812a60$6501a8c0@Bryson> Please backchannel me. Sorry for the clutter. Donald P.S. I think the topic choices are better than some think they are. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070531/6e1ef150/attachment.htm From jtedebate Thu May 31 09:00:12 2007 From: jtedebate (J T) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 07:00:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] I love these topics! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <103944.9275.qm@web30009.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Happy birthday Blake! Jackie Et al, Actually, the resolutions are much broader than people give them credit (although still kinda dookie)---Many wanted more flexibility in terms of aff mechanisms---including yourself---that is, the aff can pick from 3 different actions and every combination of the three---and that third "foreign assistance" thing....that is an entire early '90s CEDA topic by itself...it covers frickin' everything! (yeah, including that awful "D" word)...Unless you believe that foreign assistance in every form is evil or genocidal, I see no reason why this should probably be the area where teams who don't want to be constrained by the topic will reside, comfortably...there will be cases about the arts & cultural exchanges, education, health care--- As for the wording, the and/or cloud it up (and consequently it is not necessary to have more than one in a list)...and I have some grammar issues---but it is pretty straight forward, yet allows flexibility under a vague term at best "constructive engagement" debate at ou.edu wrote: I had to say something. No resolution has less than 45 words! I think i need more lessons on how to dumn it down for the people who dont understand like a subject heading in a course catalog. My TOP TEN reasons why i love this topic! 10 - and/or topicality and/or extra-topicality 9 - U.S. as savior - we will do it right this time! 8 - My plan is written already, i dont have to.... 7 - I had a line of novices waiting outside my office door this week, pantering the topic from memory.. 6 - We can give more guns to Isreal to crush those "terrorists" on the west bank 5 - This time i will get to really put my finger on "constructive engagement" -- what is non constructive engagement? 4 - We can finally get those damn critical teams to quit their funny business and give som AmRams 3 - No more nuclear war debates! right? more case debates with non-Khalizad or beardon impacts! right? 2 - The 50 and over club - which resolution has less than 50 words? (guess before you look) 1 - Narrow topics make you dumn - this has to end some day! _______________________________________________ eDebate mailing list eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate JT Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University --------------------------------- Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070531/18da92da/attachment.htm From debate Thu May 31 09:15:15 2007 From: debate (debate at ou.edu) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 09:15:15 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] I love these topics! In-Reply-To: <103944.9275.qm@web30009.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <103944.9275.qm@web30009.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I think JT is so right I think I have to add another top 3 13 - We can learn how sexists those muslims are 12 - if you have 3 choices, then there is an overwhelming amount of flexibility - even its three bad choices 11 - Exceptionalism is good judge! ----- Original Message ----- From: J T Date: Thursday, May 31, 2007 9:01 am Subject: Re: [eDebate] I love these topics! To: debate at ou.edu, edebate at ndtceda.com > Happy birthday Blake! > > Jackie Et al, > > Actually, the resolutions are much broader than people give them > credit (although still kinda dookie)---Many wanted more flexibility in > terms of aff mechanisms---including yourself---that is, the aff can > pick from 3 different actions and every combination of the three---and > that third "foreign assistance" thing....that is an entire early '90s > CEDA topic by itself...it covers frickin' everything! (yeah, including > that awful "D" word)...Unless you believe that foreign assistance in > every form is evil or genocidal, I see no reason why this should > probably be the area where teams who don't want to be constrained by > the topic will reside, comfortably...there will be cases about the > arts & cultural exchanges, education, health care--- > > As for the wording, the and/or cloud it up (and consequently it is > not necessary to have more than one in a list)...and I have some > grammar issues---but it is pretty straight forward, yet allows > flexibility under a vague term at best "constructive engagement" > > > > debate at ou.edu wrote: > > I had to say something. No resolution has less than 45 words! I think > i need more lessons on how to dumn it down for the people > who dont understand like a subject heading in a course catalog. > > My TOP TEN reasons why i love this topic! > > 10 - and/or topicality and/or extra-topicality > 9 - U.S. as savior - we will do it right this time! > 8 - My plan is written already, i dont have to.... > 7 - I had a line of novices waiting outside my office door this week, > pantering the topic from memory.. > 6 - We can give more guns to Isreal to crush those "terrorists" on the > west bank > 5 - This time i will get to really put my finger on "constructive > engagement" -- what is non constructive engagement? > 4 - We can finally get those damn critical teams to quit their funny > business and give som AmRams > 3 - No more nuclear war debates! right? more case debates with > non-Khalizad or beardon impacts! right? > 2 - The 50 and over club - which resolution has less than 50 words? > (guess before you look) > 1 - Narrow topics make you dumn - this has to end some day! > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > > > > JT > > Asst. Debate Coach > Emporia State University > > ---------------------------------Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web > links. From jtedebate Thu May 31 09:54:17 2007 From: jtedebate (J T) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 07:54:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [eDebate] I love these topics! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <351100.32365.qm@web30003.mail.mud.yahoo.com> What? I don't know where exceptionalism or sexism came into my post--and I trust you are not making veilled accusations Flexibility--No one said anything about "an overwhelming amount of flexibility"... "overwhelming" is not the same as "more" flexibility...more flexibility than previous years is progress, even if only slightly. Now, why are they NECESSARILY bad choices? Security Guarantees: "Iran: if you stop aiding Hezbollah and Hamas, we will take military strikes off the table." Foreign Assistance: How about demining assistance to afghanistan (clearly evil) Now, across the board, their can be a good arg for quid-pro-quo approaches taint otherwise good efforts, but it has to be made. debate at ou.edu wrote: I think JT is so right I think I have to add another top 3 13 - We can learn how sexists those muslims are 12 - if you have 3 choices, then there is an overwhelming amount of flexibility - even its three bad choices 11 - Exceptionalism is good judge! ----- Original Message ----- From: J T Date: Thursday, May 31, 2007 9:01 am Subject: Re: [eDebate] I love these topics! To: debate at ou.edu, edebate at ndtceda.com > Happy birthday Blake! > > Jackie Et al, > > Actually, the resolutions are much broader than people give them > credit (although still kinda dookie)---Many wanted more flexibility in > terms of aff mechanisms---including yourself---that is, the aff can > pick from 3 different actions and every combination of the three---and > that third "foreign assistance" thing....that is an entire early '90s > CEDA topic by itself...it covers frickin' everything! (yeah, including > that awful "D" word)...Unless you believe that foreign assistance in > every form is evil or genocidal, I see no reason why this should > probably be the area where teams who don't want to be constrained by > the topic will reside, comfortably...there will be cases about the > arts & cultural exchanges, education, health care--- > > As for the wording, the and/or cloud it up (and consequently it is > not necessary to have more than one in a list)...and I have some > grammar issues---but it is pretty straight forward, yet allows > flexibility under a vague term at best "constructive engagement" > > > > debate at ou.edu wrote: > > I had to say something. No resolution has less than 45 words! I think > i need more lessons on how to dumn it down for the people > who dont understand like a subject heading in a course catalog. > > My TOP TEN reasons why i love this topic! > > 10 - and/or topicality and/or extra-topicality > 9 - U.S. as savior - we will do it right this time! > 8 - My plan is written already, i dont have to.... > 7 - I had a line of novices waiting outside my office door this week, > pantering the topic from memory.. > 6 - We can give more guns to Isreal to crush those "terrorists" on the > west bank > 5 - This time i will get to really put my finger on "constructive > engagement" -- what is non constructive engagement? > 4 - We can finally get those damn critical teams to quit their funny > business and give som AmRams > 3 - No more nuclear war debates! right? more case debates with > non-Khalizad or beardon impacts! right? > 2 - The 50 and over club - which resolution has less than 50 words? > (guess before you look) > 1 - Narrow topics make you dumn - this has to end some day! > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > > > > > JT > > Asst. Debate Coach > Emporia State University > > ---------------------------------Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web > links. JT Asst. Debate Coach Emporia State University --------------------------------- Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070531/2a773f6b/attachment.htm From forensics Thu May 31 13:19:31 2007 From: forensics (LACC Forensics) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 11:19:31 -0700 Subject: [eDebate] Debating topicality Message-ID: An open question to the debate community: why do so many of you hate debating topicality? Before you answer, here are some things to consider: 1 - We have topicality debates in life all the time (if you don't recognize this, I don't think you're paying enough attention) and learning the technical skill of debating T prepares people for those real-world debates 2 - it has opened the door to critical debates about the uses and construction of language in all areas of society - academia, politics, sociology... 3 - I won't put any more out there now, I would like to hear (read) people's thoughts first For years now I have seen and heard people get furiously angry over having to argue or listen to topicality and I just don't get it. Maybe I'm the one who's "dumn." Genuinely curious Ken From jbhdb8 Thu May 31 13:37:53 2007 From: jbhdb8 (Josh) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 14:37:53 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] oudebate Message-ID: Great to see Jackie so excited about the upcoming topic....What a great suprise :) Josh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070531/e00e1a1c/attachment.htm From tara_l_tate Thu May 31 14:00:29 2007 From: tara_l_tate (Tara Tate) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 14:00:29 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] 2008 NDCA Championships Message-ID: The National Debate Coaches Association is proud to announce that the 2008 NDCA Championships will be held in East Lansing, MI on April 12-14. We are thrilled that Okemos High School and Michigan State University will be serving as hosts for our next tournament. We look forward to working with Orion, Greta, and Will over the next few months. Policy and Lincoln-Douglas debate will be offered. We encourage the college community to come to Michigan and support our endeavor. The NDCA Board is very proud of the tournament we have created. Our vision is to create a championship tournament that is for and by the community. We want to create a weekend that is 100% focused on bettering the high school community - every dollar brought in from entry fees are put back in to the tournament. If you would like to become a member of the NDCA, it is still very convenient and inexpensive to do so. Membership can be taken care of on the AFA website - just add the NDCA to your list of other organizations you are creating memberships for. A mere $25.00 will get you an annual membership - lifetime individual or institutional memberships can be created as well. This is a great way to further build bridges between the high school and college debate communities. We had many college coaches join our membership this past year. We look forward to seeing everyone in East Lansing in April! Tara Tate President, National Debate Coaches Association Director of Debate, Glenbrook South High School _________________________________________________________________ Change is good. See what?s different about Windows Live Hotmail. www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/default.html?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_changegood_0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070531/60fca1d8/attachment.htm From scottelliott Thu May 31 15:45:16 2007 From: scottelliott (scottelliott at grandecom.net) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 15:45:16 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Topic research-the laughs continue Message-ID: <1180644316.465f33dc70998@webmail.grandecom.net> >From the Council On FOriegn Relations Website-A senior analysts's proposed plan (find the article yourself): "Along with a cessation of threats, Washington should create an environment conducive to diplomacy. Rice?s recent decision to attend an Iranian art exhibition in Washington was a step in the right direction. The National Basketball Assn. is about to crown a new champion; why not encourage NBA exchanges with basketball-crazy Iran. This month, a group of Iranian lawmakers began to form a U.S.-Iranian friendship committee; legislative exchanges should be initiated." That and a "security guarantee" that the U.S. promises not intentionally poison Iran's pistachio imports with chemical or biological wapons, and we are good to go. (Plan text: The U.S. government will gurantee that it will not intentionally poison pistachio nuts exported by the U.S., or transported by U.S. flagged ships to Iran...) Let the "NBA is misogynist" K debate link research begin. A Magic Johnson Larry Bird reunion tour debate, would be interesting too. I was going to post the "we need to send surgeons to Iran in order to teach transgender surgery techniques" as a joke until I found an actual solvency advocate and case advantages (really!, specific the the Iranian transgender "problem"). Add in "foreign aid" to pay for the surgeries or an "offer" that we will share the techniques of sex reassignment to Israel as part of a "trilateral agreement," and now we are good to go. So how exactly does adding sixty extra words to the sentence : Resolved: the USFG should constructively engage...Iran" limit these affirmatives? Scott From baltimoredebate Thu May 31 15:50:45 2007 From: baltimoredebate (Adam Jackson) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 16:50:45 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Top 10 Reasons Topicality SUCKS Message-ID: <722d7390705311350p1e6b7b04r6203e4c395181fe8@mail.gmail.com> 10. The word "topicality" does not exist in any English dictionary, and if it does it's only applies to debates, not real world vocabulary. 9 - 2. Fuck the Topic 1. See number 3 -- Adam J. Jackson Towson University Speech and Debate Baltimore Urban Debate League Cell:443-824-4273 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070531/d2187094/attachment.htm From lundinator Thu May 31 16:36:53 2007 From: lundinator (Chris Lundberg) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 16:36:53 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Top 10 Reasons Topicality SUCKS Message-ID: from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/topicality: top?i?cal?i?ty /ˌtɒpɪˈk?lɪti/ [top-i-kal-i-tee] ?noun, plural -ties for 1. the state or quality of being topical. 2. a detail or matter of current or local interest. topical adj. 1. Of or belonging to a particular location or place; local. 2. Currently of interest; contemporary. [From Greek topikos, from topos, place.] and from wordnet: WordNet topicality noun the attribute of being of interest at the present time; "the library had to discard books that had lost their topicality" _________________________________________________________________ Play games, earn tickets, get cool prizes. Play now?it's FREE! http://club.live.com/home.aspx?icid=CLUB_hotmailtextlink1 From andy.edebate Thu May 31 17:14:23 2007 From: andy.edebate (Andy Ellis) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 18:14:23 -0400 Subject: [eDebate] Top 10 Reasons Topicality SUCKS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9368bc9b0705311514x7e611c77h66cd2032357b2165@mail.gmail.com> Following in that logic...Hey professor lundberg whats is this years college debate topic. On 5/31/07, Chris Lundberg wrote: > > from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/topicality: > > top?i?cal?i?ty /?t?p??k?l?ti/ [top-i-kal-i-tee] > ?noun, plural -ties for > > 1. the state or quality of being topical. > 2. a detail or matter of current or local interest. > > topical adj. > > 1. Of or belonging to a particular location or place; local. > 2. Currently of interest; contemporary. > > > [From Greek topikos, from topos, place.] > > and from wordnet: > > WordNet > topicality > > noun > the attribute of being of interest at the present time; "the library had > to > discard books that had lost their topicality" > > _________________________________________________________________ > Play games, earn tickets, get cool prizes. Play now?it's FREE! > http://club.live.com/home.aspx?icid=CLUB_hotmailtextlink1 > > > _______________________________________________ > eDebate mailing list > eDebate at www.ndtceda.com > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070531/50f52106/attachment.htm From stannardmatt Thu May 31 17:17:16 2007 From: stannardmatt (matt stannard) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 16:17:16 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Top 10 Reasons Topicality SUCKS Message-ID: As Lundberg quickly pointed out, "topicality" exists in several dictionaries. It also exists as part of the topoi of "jurisdiction" that is essential to debate--and keep reading, because this isn't the post you think it's going to be. It's not only essential to the kind of debating the policy hacks want to do. It's also essential to the kind of debating activists need to do. Procedural debates deal with issues of fairness, participatory norms, shared meanings, and the objections thereto. Procedural debates are both ethical and political debates. When we abandon the search for fairness, or the notion of fairness as a participatory norm, we don't display a very positive model of the public sphere. I could refer to many concurring opinions on this from Habermas and Marx to Aristotle to socialist/feminist Allison Jagger to communication scholars ad infinitum. Denials of such shared norms (often coming from respectable poststructuralist critics, other times coming from conservatives who sound eerily poststructuralist) may work for some fields (deconstruct shared norms in science, medicine, religion, etc) but don't work as well when applied to either debate (where competitive equity is functionally necessary to sustain long-term participation in the activity) or the real public sphere (where the denial of accessibility or equity is a matter of life and death, especially for underrepresented classes or groups). Now, the argument can be made, should be made, that procedural debates, in form or substance, do NOT lead to the kind of fairness that deliberative theorists or activists want. That's cool--Adam, your reasons why we should abandon or transcend the topic are only capable of generating rhetorical exigency, and debate offense, in a world where topicality exists, where there ARE teams who run topical plans and others who consciously do not. The abandonment of the search for agreed-upon meanings feeds nicely into those who want to substitute raw power for shared norms. stannard Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 16:50:45 -0400From: baltimoredebate at gmail.comTo: edebate at www.ndtceda.comSubject: [eDebate] Top 10 Reasons Topicality SUCKS10. The word "topicality" does not exist in any English dictionary, and if it does it's only applies to debates, not real world vocabulary.9 - 2. Fuck the Topic1. See number 3-- Adam J. JacksonTowson University Speech and DebateBaltimore Urban Debate LeagueCell:443-824-4273 _________________________________________________________________ Create the ultimate e-mail address book. Import your contacts to Windows Live Hotmail. www.windowslive-hotmail.com/learnmore/managemail2.html?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_HMWL_reten_impcont_0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070531/2bc7d541/attachment.htm From velcrowe Thu May 31 21:13:54 2007 From: velcrowe (Chris Crowe) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 20:13:54 -0600 Subject: [eDebate] Topic research-the laughs continue Message-ID: <623f2fe20705311913x53345bb6sa6ff4934af207877@mail.gmail.com> Umm... I think that would lose to the "You're Stupid" disad. Finding a couple of bad cards under the umbrella of the topic and then denouncing the entire topic is an awesome exercise in inductive reasoning (not). But to be serious... Small crappy affs that do whatever and tack on a security guarantee will get destroyed. You don't have a literature-based reason why you have to do both, so counterplan out of the crap you have zilch on and you're good. If you don't have a couple (hundred) cards about security guarantees being bad going into this season, then you should think of a better way to spend your summer research time. I mean, I know the topic is long and difficult and 18 year-old college kids are apparently too dumb to figure it out, but if we're patient and use our best context clues, we'll be okay. -- Christopher Crowe University of Wyoming -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070531/db31b2e4/attachment.htm From harobran Thu May 31 21:51:57 2007 From: harobran (Josh Branson) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 21:51:57 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] Reflections about debate and policymaking Message-ID: The connection between debate and ?real world policymaking? is something that gets tossed around a lot both in debates and in our other forums, so I thought I?d share my reflections on how debate prepared me for the CSIS experience. This is something I?ve been pondering for a while now, and since I?m probably done going to tournaments or cutting cards on any regular basis, I thought I would post it now, as kind of my closing thoughts on my experience with debate. Caveats: A) I am not the authority on this question, obviously, and I am far from an expert on the policy process. This is going off my experience this year, for what it?s worth. B) I love debate. I think it?s the greatest thing in the world. None of this should be taken to think I don?t love debate; I could write something just as long about the benefits of debate, but the issues in this post are the ones that trouble me most and ones that might surprise some people. C) I was guilty of many of the things in this post. Anyway, I have 5 main points. 1. Debate?s reliance on crappy evidence and arguments I wrote about this at length back when we were arguing about the Harrison card, so I won?t rehash all that stuff again. But I will say that this was, for me, one of the two biggest differences between debate and the ?real? policy arena. Copley News Service (I don?t mean to overly focus on that card, it?s just the most obvious example) and its ilk routinely pass for pretty much 100% credible evidence in debates, where it is completely useless in the policy world. I?ve been wondering for a while how serious this issue is?and I think that it?s fairly serious. Debate trains us as debaters and coaches to look for a certain type of evidence (see Antonucci?s quite elegant explanation of my thoughts on this matter: evidence that contains simple and easy-to-consume analogies, flamboyant claims, simple and direct rhetorical claims etc), and at least for me, I?ve found myself falling into that trap when doing CSIS work this year at times. When debaters read academic journals or law reviews in debates, they quickly skip over all the ?background? and ?history? and much of the grunt legwork that underlines all the final substantive claims of the article, jumping to the conclusions of each section. We want conclusions listed with a succinct summary of each warrant, so that it?s easy to read quickly, simply explained, and rhetorically direct. This really hit me hard this year, when working on things that I thought I was already pretty damn knowledgeable about---nuclear weapons. I went into the year thinking I was going to be God?s gift to the nonprolif department, because ?none of these people have had debate, so they won?t really understand all the nonprolif issues as well as I do, no matter how much expertise they may have.? Well, that?s not the way it worked at all, at least for me. No doubt in a collegiate debate judged by one of ya?ll I could have killed them all on the Pan K, probably even if we talked slow, but in the real world, I was kind of surprised to find that the knowledge generated by debate proved to be fairly damn cursory and artificial. I could rattle off a list of most of the arguments for/against most of the general nonproliferation doctrines, but a lot of the empirical and factual basis for these arguments was completely missing in my brain. I could make the basic claim for almost anything in the field, but the technical issues that underlines a lot of them (the names and locations of the Russian CW destruction plants, an understanding of how the fine points of the budget process works, how a capital market sanction would actually be implemented, where did we get our intelligence that revealed Chinese serial proliferators selling bombs to AQ Khan, how does a centrifuge cascade work and why exactly would multilateral sanctions undermine Iran?s ability to get uranium gas piping technology, the names of the key players in the various foreign governments that make nonproliferation policy etc) was all missing. Maybe this stuff sounds pretty boring, and some of it is, but this is the type of stuff that really determines whether or not policies are successful and whether or not they are effectively promulgated. But the details pretty much get left out in debates, replaced by a simplistic and power-worded DA that culminates in ?nuclear winter.? To my surprise, when setting out in the nonproliferation world, you don?t get to make grand pronouncements about the impact of funding Nunn-Lugar on US soft power or whether funding it would cause a budget deficit which would collapse the global economy and cause multiple scenarios for nuclear war. Instead, most of the work that is done is deciding which and what type of Russian facilities to allocate the money to, knowing the specific people within the Russian government we can trust, which types of nuclear disposition is safest and what types of transportation we should use when moving spent fuel back to storage, etc. When dealing with these discussions repeatedly, I found that debate had provided me a very sound abstract conceptual frame through which to analyze the general issues being raised, but little in a way of meaningfully engaging the policy process. Of course, debaters can learn this language. There are plenty who have. But I?d wonder whether or not people who claim that debate has trained people for this life are mistaking correlation with causation. Two other interesting conclusions: A) To all the people who attack debate for propounding an overly elitist and undemocratic discourse and undermines good broadly appealing public speaking skills: I think you?ve got it backwards. Yes, a lot of debates involve jargon, no question. But at least in my experience, I found that debate provided me the opposite. The times I was most confident at CSIS were when we were doing public debates or discussions in front of unqualified audiences. I could take on even the most senior experts; in these types of forums, I could out debate them and rhetorically counteract their vast experience/knowledge advantage. On the flip side, when I was in conferences with only experts in the field, I often felt at a severe disadvantage. In forums like this, bad arguments get called out, and rhetorically powerful but intellectually flimsy claims are pretty much non-starters. Debate experience wasn?t a ton of help. In terms of research, I did feel that all the debate research I?ve done provided some advantages and gave me a marginal edge over a lot of other people at CSIS, but nothing enormous. Most of the people there, even though they?d never done debate, can research just as well as the average college debater (ESPECIALLY on technical issues). I realize there are problems with the sample size etc, but it made me think twice about the infallible research advantages supposedly generated by policy debate. B) How to make debate more like the technical policy world? Narrower debates. PICs are vital to this (sorry, Duck). Thinking back on my 8 years in debate, the topic about which I can best converse with experts about is the design of emissions trading schemes. That was because the literature was deep and the prevalence of upstream/downstream/auctioned/timetable PICs narrowed the debates and forced a real in-depth discussion. I just don?t think we get that in a ton of debates, because most PICs are either wanky rhetoric PICs (and yes I was an extreme culprit) or something even worse like Consultation. Thinking back on it, I don?t think that the legal topic was worded particularly poorly, I just think that our strategic norms of judging/debating create a lot of problems in generating the type of education a lot of us want. But one of the most striking thing for me about last year?s topic was that I learned more from Repko?s post about his day at the Supreme Court than I did from all the debates I judged combined. In any event, how to create the types of narrow debates that will general real sustainable expertise on topics is tough. I think that we?ve got to learn how to become accepting as a community of analytical smart arguments to answer carded-yet-stupid arguments, maybe start accepting intrinsicness (something that I might post on some other day) as a way to eliminate politics DAs and consultation CPs, and start modifying our theory dispositions to be willing to call out bullshit CPs (see DHeidt?s new judge philosophy), and finally moving away from the cult of new and surprise arguments (see below). This will also involve changing the way we teach kids as they enter debate; I know I, for one, am going to change the way I teach camp this summer to include at least a little of these thoughts. Of course, the focus must remain on winning above all else, but I think that that pursuit can be synthesized with a change in some of our debate practices. 2. Why an elite or technical discourse is important My second conclusion is directed at people who decry the topic process because it?s too technical, too narrow, drown out the personal or the things that people want to talk about. Again, my opinion is that this is backwards. I think it?s a major problem that more of the people who conduct policy and who are influential in the process are not well-schooled in the actual empirical pragmatic details of the policies that they are advocating. I?ve read a significant amount about Iraq lately, and got to talk to a bunch of people who were intimately involved in the process, and one of the primary problems was that too much of our policy was executed in a cavalier and emotion-laden fashion. The dangerous pursuit of the ?liberation of the oppressed? Iraqis at the expense of all the obvious problems entailed with that pursuit, the complete ?lack of a plan,? for how to stabilize the country, and an utter ignorance of the technical or real policy issues facing a peacebuilding operation of that magnitude---these are all issues that come up REPEATEDLY when discussing the reason we went into Iraq in such a cavalier and short-sighted manner. A bunch of the more scathing indicts of the topic committee?s work---that the topic is too technical, that it undermines creativity etc?these are traits that for me are reflected in some of the most loathsome policymakers we have. Bush is by all accounts an idiot when it comes to policy expertise, but he?s the president that most people would love to have a beer with, and one who has let his personal conviction guide his policymaking more than any I can remember. His administration appears to conceive of the world in relatively simple generic conceptual dichotomies (stay the course vs. cut and run, terrorists are good or evil, our intelligence is either 100% accurate or it?s not). Is that really what we want our topics to boil down to? A ?be nice to the Middle East? topic? Because it?s in the ?extra 60 words? that the real problems with policy are revealed, and it?s there that we find the difference between an effective invasion that removes a horrible dictator from power and one which kills thousands of people and causes the region to implode. Yeah, you can rail against the elitism and technical nature of a lot of the academic literature all you want, and say that policy debate is exclusionary, but I think that we need more of the elite technical people and fewer of the smoke and mirrors BS artists running things. The policy world could use more Naveens and DHeidts. 3. Qualifications matter. Way more than I thought. My boss this year was the guy who basically ran our proliferation policy under Clinton, and has decades of experience negotiating with foreign officials, of dealing hands-on with our nuclear posture, of having access to intelligence at the highest levels etc. No matter how sweet we debaters think we are at analyzing things, there is a real difference between people like that and those of us who lack that experience. In debate, this guy?s opinion is basically equal to a J.D. Candidate?s. In any other arena, that is a laughable proposition. In debate, by far more important than how credible or qualified your argument is how NEW it is. You surprise the other team with a new strategy (no matter how idiotic) and the chances are good that you will win. Of course, that doesn?t really work in the think tank world. I actually think that debate would be way more educational and realistic if teams were forced to disclose their arguments before hand. I understand all the problems with mandating this, and realize it won?t happen, but I do think that the cult of newness at times is profoundly uneducational. 4. A large percentage of ?fairness? impact arguments in debate are stupid. People?s obsession with ?fairness? or ?competitive equity? is misguided. One of the most valuable things about debate is adapting to unfair circumstances. If the neg runs conditional CPs, get better and deal with it. If the aff doesn?t specify their agent, figure out something else besides your same old agent CP. This is what the policy world is like; you?ve got to react and deal with tough situations. Do I think it?s fair that it?s hard to get published without a graduate degree or personal connections? Not really. Are most people in the policy community open-minded and unbiased? Nope. Policymaking is about dealing with unfair and difficult situations, and sometimes debate can be the same way. Looking back, for me a lot of the most intellectually invigorating parts of debate were also the hardest and most ?unfair.? It was unfair that Klinger was so fast and clear, it was unfair that MSU at times read short shitty unpredictable evidence, it was unfair that Fullerton didn?t have a plan and was able to emotionally intimidate judges, it was unfair that a lot of people resented me because I wanted to win and didn't exert much effort socializing at tournaments, it was unfair that some judges were biased and we had to adapt our arguments, and it was unfair that Emory had more card cutters on their team than we did. I?m sure a lot of people feel similar or worse things about debating against Northwestern. But adapting to this stuff is part of life, and certainly part of the policy world. But in debate we certainly cry foul a lot. Maybe too much. 5. Switching sides: debate?s biggest virtue The one thing that I think debate does that is vastly superior to the policy world is forcing people to advocate things in which they don?t believe. That was one area in which I had a big advantage over other people in the field: people in general had a hard time articulating and/or anticipating the opposite point of view from their own. That is something that gave me as a debater a professional advantage, but also something I think that would greatly benefit the policy process. I wish more people making decisions had had debate training, if only because they would then be forced through the process of defending the other side of some issues. This is also a devastating answer to people who complain about the topic process. Maybe you think the whole process is evil and bullshit and we ?only debate about Khalilzad.? DEBATING ABOUT IT DOES NOT MEAN YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IT. One of the most productive things for my education was forcing myself to debate the K over and over again. Yes, I primarily did it for strategic reasons, and yes I had three of the greatest teachers on Earth for these arguments in Morales, Lundberg, and Fitzmier, but just the process of debating all of the arguments that I started off thinking were total bullshit had a profound effect on me. It has liberalized my worldview, made me more tolerant of ideas foreign to me, but has also deepened my conviction and enhanced my ability to defend some of my original beliefs. That?s what I?ll take away from debate. But as far as ?providing good policy training,? I don?t really know if it does. When making a real policy decision, you can?t just break a new aff or wax someone on the Nietzsche K. You?ve got to actually defend your policy, discern whether or not it would be a good idea if implemented, and then figure out how to get it implemented. This is a process with which debate seems to have little to do. We spend too much time bitching on edebate about how the topic committee screwed up, how topicality is violent or uninteresting, getting our State K or our Bush DA updates ready, writing our word PICs, and too little time learning about the topics. That being said, I wish I was going to be around for the Middle East topic. At first glance, it portends to be one of the timeliest and deepest topics we?ve had in a while. Josh Branson _________________________________________________________________ Don?t miss your chance to WIN $10,000 and other great prizes from Microsoft Office Live http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/aub0540003042mrt/direct/01/ From teasley3 Thu May 31 22:18:10 2007 From: teasley3 (Terri Easley) Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 22:18:10 -0500 Subject: [eDebate] JCCC Debate Position Message-ID: <77AFCAC0D5BA0249B2A3DFADD2636375013E73FC@AC-EXCH02.employee.directory.jccc> Below is the posting, which you can also find at http://web.jccc.net/hr/jobs/07-536.htm. If you are interested or have questions, feel free to contact me at teasley3 at jccc.edu. Terri Easley Director of Debate Johnson County Community College Adjunct Assistant Professor - Speech /Debate Posting No. 2007-536 Division Academic - Liberal Arts - Speech, Language and Academic Enhancement Responsibilities Teach sections of Public Speaking and/or Interpersonal Communication on-campus and off-campus sites. To act as Assistant Director of Debate, which would include coaching, traveling to tournament sites with student debaters and the Director of Debate. Qualifications Master's degree in Speech Communication required. Ability to teach Public Speaking and/or Interpersonal Communication required. Intercollegiate debate experience and an understanding of debate required. Excellent communication skills required. Community College teaching experience preferred. Please submit unofficial transcript(s) with application. If employed, certified transcripts for highest level of education will be required. Salary/Benefits Competitive rate of pay. Eligible for JCCC tuition reimbursement plan, voluntary tax sheltered annuity, use of Lifetime Fitness Center, JCCC Hiersteiner Child Development Center, and Staff Development. Position Status Part-time, temporary, Fall 2007 semester. Working days/hours: Various days and hours Review Date Review of applications will begin June 25, 2007. To apply for an open position, view the list of current openings and apply on-line go to http://web.jccc.edu/hr/opportunities.htm . For additional information or questions, email jcccjobs at jccc.edu or contact the Office of Human Resources, JCCC, GEB 251, 12345 College Blvd., Overland Park, KS 66210-1299, (913) 469-3877. Posted - May 31, 2007 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/20070531/5c3e8c59/attachment.htm