[eDebate] Loss

Roy Eno Roy.Eno
Thu Apr 17 12:18:33 CDT 2008


My heart goes out to Jackie and Eric, their squad members, coaches and
family and friends of Tyler. 

Youth seems so distant from mortality, but this is the age where the
risks are greatest--we mourn the loss of a person just starting harder
and longer. Please accept condolences from all of us at UTSA.

Skip

-----Original Message-----
From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com
[mailto:edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com] On Behalf Of
edebate-request at www.ndtceda.com
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 12:00 PM
To: edebate at www.ndtceda.com
Subject: eDebate Digest, Vol 31, Issue 21


Send eDebate mailing list submissions to
	edebate at www.ndtceda.com

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	edebate-request at www.ndtceda.com

You can reach the person managing the list at
	edebate-owner at www.ndtceda.com

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of eDebate digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Requesting Dr. Alfred Snider or Anyone with Experiance
      Starting Up a Debate Program (Dhairya Dalal)
   2. CEDA Finals already making a difference (Michael Korcok)
   3. Topic time: Latin America push ideas (Kris Willis)
   4. ADA hotel for May meeting (John Katsulas)
   5. Job Opportunity -- Stratford Academy (Mike Kelley)
   6. Loss of one of our own -- sad news.... (Massey, Jackie B.)
   7. a Slightly More Strongly Worded Suggestion About Forum	Choice
      (Michael Antonucci)
   8. Reparations. Bad Neg. Ground does not constitute ground
      (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
   9. Reparations = Bad Neg ground? (nicholas brady)
  10. Re: Reparations = Bad Neg ground? (Jonathan Karlin)
  11. Re: Reparations = Bad Neg ground? (nicholas brady)
  12. Re: Reparations = Bad Neg ground? (Andy Ellis)
  13. Re: Reparations = Bad Neg ground? (Jonathan Karlin)
  14. Re: Reparations = Bad Neg ground? (Andy Ellis)
  15. Re: Reparations = Bad Neg ground? (matt stannard)
  16.  Reparations = Bad Neg ground? (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
  17. Reparations = Bad Neg ground?-What???? (Scott Phillips)
  18. Reparations-reply to Stannard (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
  19. Re: Reparations = Bad Neg ground? (Andy Ellis)
  20. Reparations. Resp to Andy (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
  21. Re: Reparations-reply to Stannard (Ede Warner)
  22. Re: Reparations-reply to Stannard (Duane Hyland)
  23. Inclusion and Reparations (Ede Warner)
  24. Re: Reparations-reply to Stannard (Ede Warner)
  25. Re: Reparations-reply to Warner (scottelliott at grandecom.net)
  26. Unofficial Calendar 08-09 4th Edition (Steinberg, David L)
  27. Fw:  Loss of one of our own -- sad news.... (EMarlow at ucok.edu)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:54:32 -0400
From: "Dhairya Dalal" <ddalal2 at mail.rochester.edu>
Subject: [eDebate] Requesting Dr. Alfred Snider or Anyone with
	Experiance	Starting Up a Debate Program
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Message-ID: <48063d58.8c.2b81.5575 at mail.rochester.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Hi,

My name is Dhairya, and I'm a debater at University of Rochester. Gordie
and Brady suggested I contact Dr. Snider, but I figured I'd open the
email to any one who had advice. 

I am currently working with an elementary school, grades K - 6, and want
to implement a debate program there for a few reasons. Firstly, this
isn't like most normal schools, while its public, its student population
and curriculum is very unique. The school is very diverse, with most of
its students from all over the world (37 countries and 26 languages) and
a increasing population of refugees as well. The school doesn't separate
students based on language proficiency or "grade level" (scholastic
aptitude). What this also means is that you'll have students, for
example a 9 year old  who is a refugees from Somalia with no formal
education but be still be in the 5th grade. The school rather depends on
students working collaboratively with each other to learn both English
and the academic material. The school is also very creative in dealing
with the language barrier that most students face implementing
interdisciplinary programs with the arts and music, so that something
being taught in history for example will also be taught alternatively
through music (making a song about the
event) and art to transcend language problems.

Obviously there are many challenges the school faces, but one of their
main ones is funding. Since they receive students from other countries
at all times of the year, many of the students aren't prepared for the
standardized testing and do poorly on them, the school gets shafted by
No Child Left behind. 

So I thought implementing a speech and debate programs would be a good
way to aid the students in building critical thinking skills and
confidence in speaking. It doesn't have to competitive yet,rather, I was
thinking of perhaps working with the teachers to implement into the
curriculum. Also, I'm a huge proponent for critical debate and opening
up spaces for narratives. These kids are really bright, and I think
debate would open up a great space for discussing their stories,
becoming aware of the issues that surround them, and exploring new ways
of thinking.

So thats the jist of what I'd like to do. I'm really new to most of
this, I was 
novice last year, but I and the school really thinks this would be a
good idea. So any and all advice is welcome from how to start (funding,
format, curriculum, etc)to what makes a debate program successful. 

Thanks for your help,

Dhairya Dalal


------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:09:09 -0700
From: Michael Korcok <mmk_savant at hotmail.com>
Subject: [eDebate] CEDA Finals already making a difference
To: "edebate at ndtceda.com" <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Message-ID: <BAY111-W17A1B36A9D5F5301D939CBE4EA0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Today's Discovery News Headline:
 





Worldwide 'Love' Vibe Detected
"The Love wave is a mode that essentially torques the Earth's north and
south hemispheres against each other. It's as if the planet is dancing
the Twist, explained Rudolf Widmer-Schnidrig of the Black Forest
Observatory in Wolfach, Germany, and the Institute of Geophysics at the
University of Stuttgart. This gentle, faint twisting is called the
"toroidal" mode."
 
the full story at...
 
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/04/16/earth-love-hum.html
 
_________________________________________________________________
Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGL
M_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_042008
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080416/e4dc9817/a
ttachment.html 

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:24:25 -0500
From: Kris Willis <kristopherwillis at hotmail.com>
Subject: [eDebate] Topic time: Latin America push ideas
To: ".. 'edebate at ndtceda.com'" <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Message-ID: <BAY107-W484F426E5FE275FEEF9826DCEA0 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"


It is crunch time for the topic and here is a push for Latin America and
a call for help. 

Latin
America and the Caribbean is a fertile topic area rich in history and
policy. Ever since the Monroe Doctrine, the US has viewed this
hemisphere as its own territory but recent events have begun to
challenge this control. Relations with the LAC (Latin America and
Caribbean) have been on a downward spiral since the end of the 90?s.
With China, and to a lesser extent Japan, influence growing in the
region the US can no longer afford to ignore the any for Geo-political
reasons. There are also direct challenges to US Hegemony from within LAC
as Hugo Chavez of Venezuela is openly defiant of the US and its policies
in his promotion of his Bolivarian revolution. But the harms area don?t
stop there: Agriculture reform, disease, drug war, civil war, democracy
promotion, free trade, immigration, economic collapse, China, to name a
few. These harms areas are only going to get worse until the US changes
its focus and reprioritizes the LAC.

Considering
these papers are designed as the starting point for discussion, my
belief is that the topic needs to be worded and formed around ?changing
foreign policy.? While I agree that a trade or aid focused approach
could work, I do agree with the general concern for Policy solution
advocates as well as a topic that would allow for some critical
reflexivity (i.e. the US examines and eliminates its bad policies etc.).
I do recognize the general concerns for this kind of resolution (to
large, hurts small schools, etc) but I believe affirmative flexibility
to be a greater concern (I believe it would help with Aff wins
percentage and encourage more teams to read topical cases and policies)
and the realization that most small schools that would be negatively
impacted by a large topic (like mine) also tend to choose more critical
arguments or strategies that don?t require a lot of updates and constant
research regardless of the topic mechanism. This practice continued on
the last two topics, which were specifically designed to try and ?help?
these schools and produce good case debates. In this regard, I consider
the last two resolutions failures. Below I have also provided more
narrow ideas for topic crafted in the form of Foreign Assistance (more
on that below). 

LAC
should be chosen as the topic area because we need to discuss this area
and our community continues to ignore it. Much like the Africa topic a
few years back, the LAC has been ignored by our community. It is time
(and a good time at that?read some of the below literature) for us as a
community to examine and debate about the USFG policies toward the LAC.
I recognize other areas are of concern and a case could be made for each
of them as well, the LAC is to large and rich with history of an area to
ignore anymore. Also, it almost never is even afforded any discussion on
other topic areas, unlike Russia which has been debated on the China
topic and Middle East topic?as far DA?s. The closest the LAC came is a
politics scenario for free trade. Not good enough.The evidence comes
from 
Hakim 06? [Peter, Is Washington Losing
Latin America? Foreign Affairs, January/February 2006]



Relations
decreasing now:

Relations between the United States and Latin America today are at their
lowest point since the end of the Cold War. Many observers in the 1980s
had hoped that Latin America's turn toward democracy and market
economics, coupled with Washington's waning emphasis on security
matters, would lead to closer and more cooperative ties. Indeed, for a
time, the Americas seemed to be heading in the right direction: between
1989 and 1995, Central America's brutal wars were largely settled; the
Brady debt-relief proposal (named for then U.S. Treasury Secretary
Nicholas Brady) helped end Latin America's decade-long, debt-induced
recession; the United States, Canada, and Mexico signed the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); the United States hosted the
hemisphere's first summit meeting in more than a generation; and in 1995
a bold Washington-led rescue package helped prevent the collapse of
Mexico's economy. But much of this progress has since stalled, with U.S.
policy on Latin America drifting without much steam or direction?..

CHINA Concrerns: (a built in DA)

Washington also worries about China's growing presence in Latin America,
a concern that has already been the subject of congressional hearings.
In fact, some members of Congress view China as the most serious
challenge to U.S. interests in the region since the collapse of the
Soviet Union. They cite the huge financial resources China is promising
to bring to Latin America, its growing military-to-military relations in
the region, and its clear political ambitions there all as potential
threats to the long-standing pillar of U.S. policy in the hemisphere,
the Monroe Doctrine.

LA Grows Frustrated with US:

Disappointment with the U.S.-Latin American relationship is a two-way
street. Anti-Americanism has surged in every country in Latin America.
People in the region, rich and poor, resent the Bush administration's
aggressive unilateralism and condemn Washington's disregard for
international institutions and norms. A recent Zogby poll of Latin
America's elites found that 86 percent of them disapprove of
Washington's management of conflicts around the world. Only Cuba and
Venezuela are openly hostile toward the United States, and most Latin
American governments continue to seek close ties with the United States,
including free-trade arrangements, immigration accords, and security
assistance -- even though many of them no longer consider the United
States to be a fully reliable partner or want to be Washington's ally.
The region's leaders are well aware of the overwhelming political and
economic strength of the United States and are pragmatic enough to work
hard to maintain good relations with the world's only superpower. But
they view the United States as a country that rarely consults with
others, reluctantly compromises, and reacts badly when others criticize
or oppose its actions.

Uniqueness and Harms will grow:

There is little reason to expect that U.S. relations with Latin America
will improve soon. More likely, they will get worse. The region will
remain peripheral to the central concerns of U.S. foreign policy, which
are the war against terrorism, securing and rebuilding Iraq, the
Arab-Israeli conflict, and nuclear proliferation. With new presidents
scheduled to come to power in nearly a dozen Latin American countries
over the coming year, some important political shifts will certainly
occur. But many conditions in Latin America are unlikely to change much.
At best, the region will sustain its recent modest economic growth, but
it will not offer the trade and investment opportunities that U.S.
businesses find in Asia and central Europe. Latin America's social and
political tensions will persist, and much of the region will remain
alienated from the United States. Ch?vez is likely to continue his
adversarial stance toward the United States for some time, and it may
get even stronger if he further consolidates power at home and continues
to earn and spend Venezuela's enormous oil profits. The elections in
Nicaragua and Bolivia may even provide him with new allies.

Types of policies: (Agricultural
reform, immigration and AID)

Still, there are some U.S. policy initiatives that could improve
hemispheric relations. What Latin American governments consistently
press hardest for are changes in U.S. farm policy that would lower
barriers to the region's food and fiber exports. In particular, they
want cuts in U.S. subsidies to agricultural producers and reductions of
tariffs and quotas on key commodities. These changes would not only
increase Latin American exports and create jobs, but they would also
revive negotiations toward the proposed FTAA and open the way to more
secure access to U.S. trade, investment, and technology -- precisely
what the region desires from its relationship with the United States.
Such reforms would also end many bitter disputes with Brazil and
Argentina, the region's largest agricultural exporters. The Bush
administration basically supports this agenda and has taken the lead in
the Doha Round of multilateral trade talks to push for an accord that
would require Europe, Japan, and other governments, as well as the
United States, to lower subsidies and other barriers. But powerful U.S.
agricultural producers and their representatives in Congress make it
impossible for the United States to reshape its farm policy on its own.
On this front, Washington has refused to make even the smallest
unilateral concession to Latin America.

For many Latin American countries, especially Mexico, U.S. immigration
policy has become the most important issue in their bilateral relations
with the United States. U.S. and Latin American policymakers largely
agree on the basic principles that should guide a new U.S. approach to
the issue -- including a substantial increase in the number of temporary
workers granted lawful entry to the United States, the development of
procedures for some undocumented immigrants to earn legal status, and
the effective enforcement of any new legislation. President Bush has
called for immigration reform essentially in accord with these
principles. Yet disagreements over actual policies have so deeply
divided Congress and the U.S. public that the chances are slim that any
changes, besides more intense enforcement of existing laws, will be
enacted. The weakening of the Bush presidency in recent months has made
immigration reform even less likely.

Nearly all Latin American governments would welcome U.S. aid to
accelerate their countries' economic and social progress. The Bush
administration has made available modest amounts of new development
financing for Latin America through the Millennium Challenge Account.
But the program is designed to assist well-governed but very poor
countries, and because Latin America's income levels are relatively
high, only a few states in the region are likely to be eligible. Latin
Americans often unfavorably compare the United States with the EU, which
has transferred resources from wealthier to poorer regions of the
continent on the premise that more equitable growth across the EU would
benefit all of its members. But Washington has long preferred "trade not
aid," viewing hemispheric free-trade arrangements as the best mechanism
to boost Latin America's development because they not only expand trade
but also attract foreign direct investment and foster wide-ranging
reforms. In any event, with U.S. budgets now stretched thin by the Iraq
war, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and tax cuts, it is fanciful to
contemplate larger aid flows to Latin America.

Still good Solvency Debates here
too:

In short, the United States is in no position to pursue any of the
initiatives that would address Latin America's priorities. Even if the
administration were able to revamp U.S. policies, it is uncertain
whether the region's governments would be prepared to strike the kind of
bargains needed to secure the support of the U.S. Congress and the
American public for the proposed changes. Any U.S. trade concessions on
agriculture, for example, would require Brazil and other countries to
drastically reduce their barriers to U.S. exports of food, manufactured
goods, and services and accept stringent standards on copyright and
patent protection. But successive Brazilian governments have never said
whether they would accept these conditions. It is also uncertain whether
Washington could count on the Mexican government's assistance in
enforcing border controls in exchange for a substantial liberalization
of U.S. immigration laws. Similarly, many Latin American governments
might not want increased U.S. development and antipoverty support if, as
is the case with EU support for its members, such assistance came with
requirements for higher taxes and an array of new budget and financial
rules?. LA want to have better relations:

Despite their disagreements and dissatisfaction with U.S. policy in the
region, most governments in Latin America want to strengthen their
relations with Washington. But the Bush administration has demonstrated
neither the determination nor the capability to pursue policies in the
Americas that would mobilize the support of the other nations of the
hemisphere. Latin American countries, divided among themselves, are by
no means clamoring for a renewal of hemispheric cooperation. Ch?vez's
antics at the Summit of the Americas in November 2005 obscured the real
tragedies of the gathering -- that is, how little the leaders
accomplished, how badly the hemispheric agenda has unraveled, and how
deeply divided the countries of the Americas are. Despite enthusiasm in
the region for economic partnership, Latin Americans' fundamental
ambivalence toward the United States' foreign policies has forcefully
reemerged.

Must act now:

The costs of this impasse may be high for both the United States and
Latin America. Another financial crisis in Argentina or Brazil could
have global ramifications. So would a political confrontation in
oil-rich Venezuela and or an intensification of the armed conflict in
Colombia. Greater regional integration and political cooperation could
benefit all the countries of the Western Hemisphere, as they have in
Europe. But the United States and Latin America have demonstrated
neither the will nor the ability to travel that road together.Resolution
ideas:Below are some ideas I have put together and I need some help. I
need help with policy options and wording help. Two sample resolutions I
have thought about are below. Specifically, I wanted change FP but I
realize that would probably might never get off the ground. Simple plans
are outlined in the Hakim evidence as starting points for discussion for
changing FP in a broad since. However, I also realize that may be to
broad so I opted for a more directed approach of Foreign Assistance. The
second idea uses the terms from USAID as areas and directs the topic a
bit more. I didn't want to have "development assistance" in the topic as
the sole mechanism (backlash from an old topic fear) but I believe it
can and should be included in the area because it allows for harm areas
like the environment, Democracy, economic reform and corruption to name
a few. All of which should provide great debates and solvency advocates.
?Resolved:
The USFG should substantially increase its foreign assistance toward one
or more of the Latin American and Caribbean countries.?
?Resolved:
The USFG should substantially increase its foreign assistance toward one
or more of the Latin American and Caribbean countries in one of the
following areas: Andean Counterdrug Initiative, Child Survival and
Health Programs, Development Assistance.?


Thoughts?Kris

_________________________________________________________________
Get in touch in an instant. Get Windows Live Messenger now.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Ref
resh_getintouch_042008
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080416/3639122c/a
ttachment-0001.htm 

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:23:09 -0400
From: John Katsulas <katsulas at bc.edu>
Subject: [eDebate] ADA hotel for May meeting
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Message-ID: <web-2763474 at be4.bc.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8

The correct phone number for the Best Western on 7007 West Broad Street
is 804-672-7007.  I typed the wrong phone number in previous posts:  the
last four numbers are not 7001.

Sorry about that.

John Katsulas


------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:42:10 -0400
From: Mike Kelley <mkelley at stratford.org>
Subject: [eDebate] Job Opportunity -- Stratford Academy
To: edebate <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Cc: edebate <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Message-ID: <480672B2.4020300 at stratford.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"



Stratford Academy

Upper School History and Debate Coach

 

Candidates for this position should have a major in history, preferably

a master's degree and experience with policy debate.  Candidates should

be prepared to teach world history and either geography or economics.

The position is full-time, with a teaching load of three or four and

responsibilities as a debate coach.  The debate coach attends all

practices and travels ten to fourteen weekends during the year.  All

faculty members are expected to serve as an academic advisor.

Experienced candidates will receive priority consideration, but all

excellent candidates will be considered regardless of advanced degree or
experience.

Note: Stratford is in Macon, Georgia, about 70 miles south of Atlanta. 
Macon has a metropolitan area of about 250, 000 and is the home of 
Mercer University and Wesleyan College. Stratford is a non-sectarian 
independent school of 900 students in grades pre K ? 12. The school is 
especially eager to hire a good coach and is open to negotiate 
responsibilities, salary, etc. I have been either the coach or involved 
in the program for most of the past 28 years. Although, I do not wish to

travel much, I will still be at Stratford in an administrative capacity 
and can help with administering the program. This is an excellent 
opportunity to build up a program that has a solid foundation.

For more information, contact me.

Mike Kelley

Debate Coach and Chair of the History Department

Stratford Academy

6010 Peake Road

Macon, GA 31220

mkelley at stratford.org <mailto:mkelley at stratford.org>

(O) 478-477-8073 ext. 245

(M) 478-714-0895


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: mkelley.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 203 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080416/1fd15fd8/a
ttachment-0001.vcf 

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:00:01 -0500
From: "Massey, Jackie B." <debate at ou.edu>
Subject: [eDebate] Loss of one of our own -- sad news....
To: "edebate at ndtceda.com" <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Message-ID:
	
<650DB0CBB8E8E3418E627BD179329677EB4F872DF6 at XMAIL2.sooner.net.ou.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


Hi Friends

This was hard to post, and probably my 6th or 7th try.

On monday we lost a member of our debate community.  David Tyler Henry
was in transition from the UCO debate team onto the OU debate team.
Some of you may have met Tyler at the NDT. He was loved and liked by
everyon and so many of us will feel empty with such a loss.

I have so much more I want to say, but I am not sure now is the time.

Services will be held at 1:00 PM on Friday at the Edmond Memorial
Cemetery in Edmond, Oklahoma.

Flowers or cards can be sent to --  Matthews Funeral Home

601 S Kelly Ave
Edmond, OK 73003
(405) 341-2787

I wish and hope both of our debate teams can have the strength to make
it through these hard times.

Today the world is short one grand happy soul,  our stories with Tyler
will live forever.

Peace

Massey


------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:22:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Antonucci <antonucci23 at yahoo.com>
Subject: [eDebate] a Slightly More Strongly Worded Suggestion About
	Forum	Choice
To: College Debate Listserv <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Message-ID: <809187.99191.qm at web65511.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1

Mariam Razian Willis:

"It's pretty easy to filter your edebate messages into
a separate email folder to view at your convenience.
It's pretty darn simple to read the subject line and
mark and delete messages that are not of interest to
you and have only messages of interest remaining.
Takes approximately 2.5 seconds. Seems to solve the
personal problem and leaves dialog open."

1. You can't count on people being good at subject
lines.  They aren't.  (ev avail on request)

2. Any 2.5 second operation repeated a large number of
times adds up to much more than 2.5 seconds.  

It also only takes 2.5 seconds to:
-- cut a card with scissors and tape
-- just be chill about this whole 'assembly line'
thing.  What's one widget, more or less?
-- connect to this one web page via dialup

3. Bulletin board systems just thread better by
keeping like text logically grouped together.  This
would be particularly useful to people who
*frequently* voice frustration over the tendency of
certain inflammatory discussion to 'crowd out'
discussions they consider more important, such as administrative
announcements or topic discussion.

I have a preference, but I don't have a dog in the
fight.  If you prefer this system, I care little.  If
y'all don't like the consequences, though, consider
altering the format instead of heaping scorn or snark
on people who 'overwrite.'

Bottom line: y'all like doing it this way, so don't
get uptight about the inevitable consequences of your conservatism.  

The fault lies not in your Hoe, but in yourselves.

"Many people, who are not participating in the edebate discussion, ARE
reading and discussing these posts in other venues at great value to
every one involved."

Cool.  Where?


 
________________________________________________________________________
____________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ


------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:55:47 -0500
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net
Subject: [eDebate] Reparations. Bad Neg. Ground does not constitute
	ground
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Message-ID: <1208404547.4806ca43d1905 at webmail.grandecom.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

The "negative" ground on this topic is horrible.

There is negative ground on the propositions "Rape is bad," "We should
not commit genocide," "Racism is wrong" and "child molesting is evil."
There are certainly cards out there that can give the negatives some
type of ground to debate. However, I don't think the ground is good and
I don't think people want to listen to rape good debates.

These are NOT extreme examples by the way. Evey example, except for
perhaps child molesting, is exaclty the type of affirmative advantages
that will be claimed. Take Native Americans: Plan: Make Ward Churchill
Chief of all Native Americans and give the land back. Advantage One:
Genocide Justice. Advantage 2 Racism Justice, Advantage 3 Blood Quantum
and other policies result in total genocide.

Slavery: Advantage 1. Justice for genocide. Advantage 2. Justice for
cultural genocide. Advnatage 3. Racism bad. Advantage 4. Rape of slave
women and the myth of the hypersexual black female.


These are just two "middle of the road" cases that have evidence readily
available. Granted, there is some negative arguments out there. But, I
don't want to be on the negative giving the judging pools we have now.

Yes, I have read Ron Greene's article on switch side debating. I
disagree with the conclusions people draw from the article. THere are
reasons why in a competitive activity such as tournamnet debates switch
side debating is good. The McCarthyism and "every speech must be
ethical" issues from the 1950's do not apply to the 21st Century
application of debate. Just one example, let's say I choose to go
negative at a tournament, then listen to the affirmative give a speech
that touches me. Do I just quit? Who wins the debate if both teams agree
with the argument "genocide bad?" Does the affirmative win just because
they were the first to speak? Do we end up with multiple rounds like the
Louisville round at Wake--where teams refuse to debate and just leave
the decisions up to a coin flip by the tabroom.

There are definately "wrong forum" arguments to the claims that switch
side debating is bad.  For the purposes of competitive debate
tournamnets, switch sides is good for the game.

Scott Elliott





------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:14:17 -0400
From: "nicholas brady" <nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com>
Subject: [eDebate] Reparations = Bad Neg ground?
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Message-ID:
	<a0369b190804162314p197fe7c3g8f634908c6ec67a2 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

The complaint stated before i think is the complaint that can be said of
ANY topic. For instance in high school for the last two years we debated
civil liberties good and national service good.... even though there is
horrible generic ground for why national service is bad, mostly you go
against affirmatives like "lets help the poor" and for the civil
liberties topic we went against affirmatives like "we should stop
torture". So is the neg ground "povery good" or "torture good"? Well for
some douchebags yes, but for the vast amount of the community the answer
is no. I am no expert on this topic so i will allow more qualified
people like Andy and others to answer this question more specifically,
but I think its wrong to reject this topic simply because the ground ur
defining for the negative has to be "racism good". I don't know what
affirmatives u listen to, but mostly affirmatives try to solve for some
harm that is wrong... something like "death bad", "war bad", "nuclear
war bad", "extinction bad", "racism bad", "sexism bad", etc, etc, etc.
This is not unique to a reparations topic, so lets not dillute this
topic down to "racism bad" v. "racism good". To me, your argument seems
very much like a cop out and a refusal to think deeply about the topic.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080417/8542910d/a
ttachment-0001.htm 

------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:28:25 -0400
From: "Jonathan Karlin" <jonathanrkarlin at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Reparations = Bad Neg ground?
To: "nicholas brady" <nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com>
Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
Message-ID:
	<5d17a11f0804162328h3b91d90ajf01306d7de414e9b at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

There is a difference between arguing national service bad and arguing
reparations bad. Same goes for defending the WOT. (There are legitimate
scholars and political theorists who defend the war on terror, and argue
torture is good)  I think there is a legitimate AFF bias with a
reparations topic, especially in light of a left leaning community.

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:14 AM, nicholas brady
<nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com> wrote:
> The complaint stated before i think is the complaint that can be said 
> of ANY topic. For instance in high school for the last two years we 
> debated civil liberties good and national service good.... even though

> there is horrible generic ground for why national service is bad, 
> mostly you go against affirmatives like "lets help the poor" and for 
> the civil liberties topic we went against affirmatives like "we should

> stop torture". So is the neg ground "povery good" or "torture good"? 
> Well for some douchebags yes, but for the vast amount of the community

> the answer is no. I am no expert on this topic so i will allow more 
> qualified people like Andy and others to answer this question more 
> specifically, but I think its wrong to reject this topic simply 
> because the ground ur defining for the negative has to be "racism 
> good". I don't know what affirmatives u listen to, but mostly 
> affirmatives try to solve for some harm that is wrong... something 
> like "death bad", "war bad", "nuclear war bad", "extinction bad", 
> "racism bad", "sexism bad", etc, etc, etc. This is not unique to a 
> reparations topic, so lets not dillute this topic down to "racism bad"

> v. "racism good". To me, your argument seems very much like a cop out 
> and a refusal to think deeply about the topic.
>
> _______________________________________________
>  eDebate mailing list
>  eDebate at www.ndtceda.com  
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>


------------------------------

Message: 11
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:36:14 -0400
From: "nicholas brady" <nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Reparations = Bad Neg ground?
To: "Jonathan Karlin" <jonathanrkarlin at gmail.com>, edebate at ndtceda.com
Message-ID:
	<a0369b190804162336m5776c965g2a41da24c183635 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Like i said.... i have very little knowledge on this in depth. Something
tells me since reparations have not happened there are probably reasons
that it hasn't happened. These reasons are not even conservative-centric
(as if being too conservative should be a problem in switch-side
debating), you could always outleft them with good ole fashioned things
like statism (i think that would especially work for "give the land
back" affs), marxism, etc, etc, etc. Like i said, i'll leave the
specifics to Andy. I say keep an open mind until the topic paper comes
out.

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Jonathan Karlin
<jonathanrkarlin at gmail.com>
wrote:

> There is a difference between arguing national service bad and arguing

> reparations bad. Same goes for defending the WOT. (There are 
> legitimate scholars and political theorists who defend the war on 
> terror, and argue torture is good)  I think there is a legitimate AFF 
> bias with a reparations topic, especially in light of a left leaning 
> community.
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:14 AM, nicholas brady 
> <nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The complaint stated before i think is the complaint that can be 
> > said of
> ANY
> > topic. For instance in high school for the last two years we debated
> civil
> > liberties good and national service good.... even though there is
> horrible
> > generic ground for why national service is bad, mostly you go 
> > against affirmatives like "lets help the poor" and for the civil 
> > liberties topic
> we
> > went against affirmatives like "we should stop torture". So is the 
> > neg ground "povery good" or "torture good"? Well for some douchebags

> > yes,
> but
> > for the vast amount of the community the answer is no. I am no 
> > expert on this topic so i will allow more qualified people like Andy

> > and others to answer this question more specifically, but I think 
> > its wrong to reject
> this
> > topic simply because the ground ur defining for the negative has to 
> > be "racism good". I don't know what affirmatives u listen to, but 
> > mostly affirmatives try to solve for some harm that is wrong... 
> > something like "death bad", "war bad", "nuclear war bad", 
> > "extinction bad", "racism
> bad",
> > "sexism bad", etc, etc, etc. This is not unique to a reparations 
> > topic,
> so
> > lets not dillute this topic down to "racism bad" v. "racism good". 
> > To
> me,
> > your argument seems very much like a cop out and a refusal to think
> deeply
> > about the topic.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >  eDebate mailing list
> >  eDebate at www.ndtceda.com  
> > http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
> >
>



-- 
Nicholas Brady
BSU Community Service Chair
Founder of the Alpha Wolf Party
"Why I die for all my beliefs?
I gotta look at my kids, I'd rather smile than cry when they sleep.
Thats why."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080417/33be4c14/a
ttachment-0001.htm 

------------------------------

Message: 12
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:37:26 -0400
From: "Andy Ellis" <andy.edebate at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Reparations = Bad Neg ground?
To: "Jonathan Karlin" <jonathanrkarlin at gmail.com>
Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com, nicholas brady <nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com>
Message-ID:
	<9368bc9b0804162337k7bcfec00hc4e6405fb78662c6 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

I really do think this is a bad representation of a complex debate, and
perhaps the reason elliot is right about greene.

I will answer this argument more in the paper, but the simple version is
this. Trying to solve hundreds of years of history with a single policy
is fraught with danger, there are significant intra-literature
disagreements on how to do this, and the impact to getting it wrong,
probably turns the case, and shuts down the global movement pretty
effectively. While i wouldn't say the topic actually has a negative
bias, i would say the affirmative bias is VASTLY overstated..

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Jonathan Karlin
<jonathanrkarlin at gmail.com>
wrote:

> There is a difference between arguing national service bad and arguing

> reparations bad. Same goes for defending the WOT. (There are 
> legitimate scholars and political theorists who defend the war on 
> terror, and argue torture is good)  I think there is a legitimate AFF 
> bias with a reparations topic, especially in light of a left leaning 
> community.
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:14 AM, nicholas brady 
> <nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The complaint stated before i think is the complaint that can be 
> > said of
> ANY
> > topic. For instance in high school for the last two years we debated
> civil
> > liberties good and national service good.... even though there is
> horrible
> > generic ground for why national service is bad, mostly you go 
> > against affirmatives like "lets help the poor" and for the civil 
> > liberties topic
> we
> > went against affirmatives like "we should stop torture". So is the 
> > neg ground "povery good" or "torture good"? Well for some douchebags

> > yes,
> but
> > for the vast amount of the community the answer is no. I am no 
> > expert on this topic so i will allow more qualified people like Andy

> > and others to answer this question more specifically, but I think 
> > its wrong to reject
> this
> > topic simply because the ground ur defining for the negative has to 
> > be "racism good". I don't know what affirmatives u listen to, but 
> > mostly affirmatives try to solve for some harm that is wrong... 
> > something like "death bad", "war bad", "nuclear war bad", 
> > "extinction bad", "racism
> bad",
> > "sexism bad", etc, etc, etc. This is not unique to a reparations 
> > topic,
> so
> > lets not dillute this topic down to "racism bad" v. "racism good". 
> > To
> me,
> > your argument seems very much like a cop out and a refusal to think
> deeply
> > about the topic.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >  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/20080417/96826961/a
ttachment-0001.htm 

------------------------------

Message: 13
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:44:26 -0400
From: "Jonathan Karlin" <jonathanrkarlin at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Reparations = Bad Neg ground?
To: "Andy Ellis" <andy.edebate at gmail.com>
Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com, nicholas brady <nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com>
Message-ID:
	<5d17a11f0804162344u4d1c9bebhd33fcb115fadb611 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I will preface this by saying I am not well versed in the reparations
literature but here are a few concerns of mine in the context of ground
for the negative.

1. All the negative arguments you have brought up are either  a.)
defensive in nature (yes I understand this will link into your K of
using apocalyptic imagery), b.) only critical-esque arguments

2. I can't think of many policy arguments that legitimate link- Spending
DA?  The politics DA?

I think you might be correct that AFF bias is overstated but in the
world of a left leaning community, I think the aff has a pretty big step
up. Also there is little to no AFF flexibility in terms of picking
advantage areas or affirmatives- why not draft a bigger topic that gives
teams the choice to read more left affs or more right affs. The
reparations topic is fundamentally one affirmative with one advantage.
(I hope this is not offensive, I am not trying to minimize racism etc)

Freedom for the AFF= good. It spurs creativity, innovation and research.
The reparations topic does not provide avenues for either of these
things.

Russia or Intell Reform.



On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:37 AM, Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com>
wrote:
> I really do think this is a bad representation of a complex debate, 
> and perhaps the reason elliot is right about greene.
>
> I will answer this argument more in the paper, but the simple version 
> is this. Trying to solve hundreds of years of history with a single 
> policy is fraught with danger, there are significant intra-literature 
> disagreements on how to do this, and the impact to getting it wrong, 
> probably turns the case, and shuts down the global movement pretty 
> effectively. While i wouldn't say the topic actually has a negative 
> bias, i would say the affirmative bias is VASTLY overstated..
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Jonathan Karlin 
> <jonathanrkarlin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > There is a difference between arguing national service bad and 
> > arguing reparations bad. Same goes for defending the WOT. (There are

> > legitimate scholars and political theorists who defend the war on 
> > terror, and argue torture is good)  I think there is a legitimate 
> > AFF bias with a reparations topic, especially in light of a left 
> > leaning community.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:14 AM, nicholas brady 
> > <nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The complaint stated before i think is the complaint that can be 
> > > said of
> ANY
> > > topic. For instance in high school for the last two years we 
> > > debated
> civil
> > > liberties good and national service good.... even though there is
> horrible
> > > generic ground for why national service is bad, mostly you go 
> > > against affirmatives like "lets help the poor" and for the civil 
> > > liberties topic
> we
> > > went against affirmatives like "we should stop torture". So is the

> > > neg ground "povery good" or "torture good"? Well for some 
> > > douchebags yes,
> but
> > > for the vast amount of the community the answer is no. I am no 
> > > expert on this topic so i will allow more qualified people like 
> > > Andy and others to answer this question more specifically, but I 
> > > think its wrong to reject
> this
> > > topic simply because the ground ur defining for the negative has 
> > > to be "racism good". I don't know what affirmatives u listen to, 
> > > but mostly affirmatives try to solve for some harm that is 
> > > wrong... something like "death bad", "war bad", "nuclear war bad",

> > > "extinction bad", "racism
> bad",
> > > "sexism bad", etc, etc, etc. This is not unique to a reparations 
> > > topic,
> so
> > > lets not dillute this topic down to "racism bad" v. "racism good".

> > > To
> me,
> > > your argument seems very much like a cop out and a refusal to 
> > > think
> deeply
> > > about the topic.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > >  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
> >
>
>


------------------------------

Message: 14
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 03:40:33 -0400
From: "Andy Ellis" <andy.edebate at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Reparations = Bad Neg ground?
To: "Jonathan Karlin" <jonathanrkarlin at gmail.com>
Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com, nicholas brady <nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com>
Message-ID:
	<9368bc9b0804170040m3fdb36dbo43da93f055ae6102 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

hello jonathan,

some answers, i dont have cards for these things right now because i am
in travel mode (damn speech team), but i will try to include them all in
the paper



On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:44 AM, Jonathan Karlin
<jonathanrkarlin at gmail.com>
wrote:

> I will preface this by saying I am not well versed in the reparations 
> literature but here are a few concerns of mine in the context of 
> ground for the negative.


I  think alot of people are not well versed, and i shared many of your
concerns as it related to debate before i really got into the depth of
the literature...even that being said, there is still alot more for me
to cover...i think learning about it is one of the benefits of the topic

>
> 1. All the negative arguments you have brought up are either  a.) 
> defensive in nature (yes I understand this will link into your K of 
> using apocalyptic imagery),


I don't think so, i think most of the strategies are cp net benefit
strategies that accept the yes/no question and focus on the how
question. For example an aff that uses money as the means of providing
reparations links to an econ da(with impacts that turn the solvency of
the case), a criticism of money transfer versus wealth transfer that
comes specifically from the reparations literature(this provides offense
& solvency takeouts), and a counterplan to build institutions. The
competition debate focuses on the econ da(if we hand over a bunch of
money there is less to build the institutions with, plus given the
current political climate the money is likely to trade off with existing
policies that provide day to day services) This is just one strategy,
ill talk about more below.


> b.) only critical-esque arguments


No. And the place where i disagree is "only". This topic fuses ethical,
political, moral (critical) questions with policy questions. For example
it may be an ethical question to ask, what is the right way to remedy
the ongoing ills of slavery, is it right to impose collective
responsibility on people who may not have contributed to the problem?
But when put into practice the answers to these ethical questions must
be filtered through the policy, for example one may say yes to both of
those questions, but then one must deal with the policy implications of
those questions...imposing collective responsibility may regardless of
the ethical concerns spur the growth of backlash movements that make
solvency almost impossible. Should we push through that backlash anyway
despite its pragmatic consequences of potentially undermine its own
goals? Thats a good debate. In fact thats what i think makes it such a
good debate because it forces you to compare those situations aside from
the absolute priority questions that current debates about racial
justice are often channeled into.


>
> 2. I can't think of many policy arguments that legitimate link- 
> Spending DA?  The politics DA?


ABSOLUTLY these two positions work. So does federalism, a variety of
modeling arguments, some WOT positions, some hege positions....there are
solid links to these positions...imagine for a second that 3 trillion
dollers (a low estimate) was spent compensating mexican americans for
the annexation/war against  mexico. Even i could cut a econ or politics
da that linked to that, if you couldnt find the card, you could assert
the link and almost no one would win a no link arg against you, the
question would be is it worth it...which gets you back in to the
question above.

>
> I think you might be correct that AFF bias is overstated but in the 
> world of a left leaning community, I think the aff has a pretty big 
> step up.


I think a neg bias exists now largely because the aff doesnt have a good
way to leverage against things out of the literature base they get
limited down to...The reparations topic solves this...is racial justice
worth it if a) it cant solve it legitimately risks crashing the us
economy? some say yes some say no, but most people who write in the
literature base recognize that it might be a logical conclusion to draw
from their work so they answer it, are those answers good enough?
Perhaps, perhaps not? but its a good debate.

> Also there is little to no AFF flexibility in terms of picking 
> advantage areas or affirmatives- why not draft a bigger topic that 
> gives teams the choice to read more left affs or more right affs. The 
> reparations topic is fundamentally one affirmative with one advantage.

> (I hope this is not offensive, I am not trying to minimize racism etc)


I think this topic has good aff flex ground, first  there are multiple
injustices to  attempt to  remedy, and there are multiple ways to remedy
those situations, the debate about asian american exclusion laws is
vastly different than the debate about trans-african slavery is vastly
different than the debate about indiginous dispossession. If the aff
says racism bad and nothing more complex than that, i would imagine they
would lose far more than an aff who says racism bad on the russia topic.
Second the complexity and the flexibility lies in how the differential
legacies of racist American nation construction are undone...


>
>
> Freedom for the AFF= good. It spurs creativity, innovation and 
> research. The reparations topic does not provide avenues for either of

> these things.
>
> Russia or Intell Reform.
>

Reparations, russia or intell reform would be better topics in the
future if we spent a year discussing america

>
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:37 AM, Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I really do think this is a bad representation of a complex debate, 
> > and perhaps the reason elliot is right about greene.
> >
> > I will answer this argument more in the paper, but the simple 
> > version is this. Trying to solve hundreds of years of history with a

> > single policy
> is
> > fraught with danger, there are significant intra-literature
> disagreements on
> > how to do this, and the impact to getting it wrong, probably turns 
> > the
> case,
> > and shuts down the global movement pretty effectively. While i 
> > wouldn't
> say
> > the topic actually has a negative bias, i would say the affirmative 
> > bias
> is
> > VASTLY overstated..
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Jonathan Karlin <
> jonathanrkarlin at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> > > There is a difference between arguing national service bad and 
> > > arguing reparations bad. Same goes for defending the WOT. (There 
> > > are legitimate scholars and political theorists who defend the war

> > > on terror, and argue torture is good)  I think there is a 
> > > legitimate AFF bias with a reparations topic, especially in light 
> > > of a left leaning community.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:14 AM, nicholas brady 
> > > <nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The complaint stated before i think is the complaint that can be
> said of
> > ANY
> > > > topic. For instance in high school for the last two years we 
> > > > debated
> > civil
> > > > liberties good and national service good.... even though there 
> > > > is
> > horrible
> > > > generic ground for why national service is bad, mostly you go
> against
> > > > affirmatives like "lets help the poor" and for the civil 
> > > > liberties
> topic
> > we
> > > > went against affirmatives like "we should stop torture". So is 
> > > > the
> neg
> > > > ground "povery good" or "torture good"? Well for some douchebags
> yes,
> > but
> > > > for the vast amount of the community the answer is no. I am no
> expert on
> > > > this topic so i will allow more qualified people like Andy and
> others to
> > > > answer this question more specifically, but I think its wrong to
> reject
> > this
> > > > topic simply because the ground ur defining for the negative has

> > > > to
> be
> > > > "racism good". I don't know what affirmatives u listen to, but
> mostly
> > > > affirmatives try to solve for some harm that is wrong... 
> > > > something
> like
> > > > "death bad", "war bad", "nuclear war bad", "extinction bad", 
> > > > "racism
> > bad",
> > > > "sexism bad", etc, etc, etc. This is not unique to a reparations
> topic,
> > so
> > > > lets not dillute this topic down to "racism bad" v. "racism 
> > > > good".
> To
> > me,
> > > > your argument seems very much like a cop out and a refusal to 
> > > > think
> > deeply
> > > > about the topic.
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > >  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/20080417/592649d1/a
ttachment-0001.htm 

------------------------------

Message: 15
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 05:36:49 -0600
From: matt stannard <stannardmatt at hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Reparations = Bad Neg ground?
To: Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com>, Jonathan Karlin
	<jonathanrkarlin at gmail.com>
Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com, nicholas brady <nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BAY101-W154C87F15F3523E27F0DDBD2E50 at phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"


The idea that a problem area with a strong normative direction is bad
for negative ground is a fallacy I've heard from time to time for at
least twelve years.  Ultimately it's a reductio ad adbsurdum that makes
all powerful impacts "unfair" because apparently the only consistent and
fair ground for Scott and others is impact turns.  The objection is
selectively applied in the case of "emotionally compelling" impacts
(perhaps the real, unstated objection is that a disproportionate number
of judges will vote for the first team in each debate to talk about
racism) but could really apply to anything.  This fallacy is the first
cousin to another fallacy, the assumption that if stuff is really
important and timely, we shouldn't debate about it.
 
I am not taking a position yet on which area I like best, but this type
of objection to a topic area has long irritated my obviously keen
sensibilities.  
 
mjs
 
 
 


Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 03:40:33 -0400From: andy.edebate at gmail.comTo:
jonathanrkarlin at gmail.comCC: edebate at ndtceda.com;
nicholas.brady89 at gmail.comSubject: Re: [eDebate] Reparations = Bad Neg
ground?hello jonathan,some answers, i dont have cards for these things
right now because i am in travel mode (damn speech team), but i will try
to include them all in the paper On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:44 AM,
Jonathan Karlin <jonathanrkarlin at gmail.com> wrote: I will preface this
by saying I am not well versed in the reparationsliterature but here are
a few concerns of mine in the context ofground for the negative. I
think alot of people are not well versed, and i shared many of your
concerns as it related to debate before i really got into the depth of
the literature...even that being said, there is still alot more for me
to cover...i think learning about it is one of the benefits of the topic
1. All the negative arguments you have brought up are either
a.)defensive in nature (yes I understand this will link into your K
ofusing apocalyptic imagery), I don't think so, i think most of the
strategies are cp net benefit strategies that accept the yes/no question
and focus on the how question. For example an aff that uses money as the
means of providing reparations links to an econ da(with impacts that
turn the solvency of the case), a criticism of money transfer versus
wealth transfer that comes specifically from the reparations
literature(this provides offense & solvency takeouts), and a counterplan
to build institutions. The competition debate focuses on the econ da(if
we hand over a bunch of money there is less to build the institutions
with, plus given the current political climate the money is likely to
trade off with existing policies that provide day to day services) This
is just one strategy, ill talk about more below. 
b.) only critical-esque arguments
No. And the place where i disagree is "only". This topic fuses ethical,
political, moral (critical) questions with policy questions. For example
it may be an ethical question to ask, what is the right way to remedy
the ongoing ills of slavery, is it right to impose collective
responsibility on people who may not have contributed to the problem?
But when put into practice the answers to these ethical questions must
be filtered through the policy, for example one may say yes to both of
those questions, but then one must deal with the policy implications of
those questions...imposing collective responsibility may regardless of
the ethical concerns spur the growth of backlash movements that make
solvency almost impossible. Should we push through that backlash anyway
despite its pragmatic consequences of potentially undermine its own
goals? Thats a good debate. In fact thats what i think makes it such a
good debate because it forces you to compare those situations aside from
the absolute priority questions that current debates about racial
justice are often channeled into. 
2. I can't think of many policy arguments that legitimate link-Spending
DA?  The politics DA? ABSOLUTLY these two positions work. So does
federalism, a variety of modeling arguments, some WOT positions, some
hege positions....there are solid links to these positions...imagine for
a second that 3 trillion dollers (a low estimate) was spent compensating
mexican americans for the annexation/war against  mexico. Even i could
cut a econ or politics da that linked to that, if you couldnt find the
card, you could assert the link and almost no one would win a no link
arg against you, the question would be is it worth it...which gets you
back in to the question above. I think you might be correct that AFF
bias is overstated but in theworld of a left leaning community, I think
the aff has a pretty bigstep up. I think a neg bias exists now largely
because the aff doesnt have a good way to leverage against things out of
the literature base they get limited down to...The reparations topic
solves this...is racial justice worth it if a) it cant solve it
legitimately risks crashing the us economy? some say yes some say no,
but most people who write in the literature base recognize that it might
be a logical conclusion to draw from their work so they answer it, are
those answers good enough? Perhaps, perhaps not? but its a good debate.
Also there is little to no AFF flexibility in terms ofpicking advantage
areas or affirmatives- why not draft a bigger topicthat gives teams the
choice to read more left affs or more right affs.The reparations topic
is fundamentally one affirmative with oneadvantage. (I hope this is not
offensive, I am not trying to minimizeracism etc) I think this topic has
good aff flex ground, first  there are multiple  injustices to  attempt
to  remedy, and there are multiple ways to remedy those situations, the
debate about asian american exclusion laws is vastly different than the
debate about trans-african slavery is vastly different than the debate
about indiginous dispossession. If the aff says racism bad and nothing
more complex than that, i would imagine they would lose far more than an
aff who says racism bad on the russia topic.Second the complexity and
the flexibility lies in how the differential legacies of racist American
nation construction are undone...
 
Freedom for the AFF= good. It spurs creativity, innovation andresearch.
The reparations topic does not provide avenues for either ofthese
things.Russia or Intell Reform.



Reparations, russia or intell reform would be better topics in the
future if we spent a year discussing america 


On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:37 AM, Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com>
wrote:> I really do think this is a bad representation of a complex
debate, and> perhaps the reason elliot is right about greene.>> I will
answer this argument more in the paper, but the simple version is> this.
Trying to solve hundreds of years of history with a single policy is>
fraught with danger, there are significant intra-literature
disagreements on> how to do this, and the impact to getting it wrong,
probably turns the case,> and shuts down the global movement pretty
effectively. While i wouldn't say> the topic actually has a negative
bias, i would say the affirmative bias is> VASTLY overstated..>>> On
Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Jonathan Karlin
<jonathanrkarlin at gmail.com>> wrote:>>> > There is a difference between
arguing national service bad and arguing> > reparations bad. Same goes
for defending the WOT. (There are> > legitimate scholars and political
theorists who defend the war on> > terror, and argue torture is good)  I
think there is a legitimate AFF> > bias with a reparations topic,
especially in light of a left leaning> > community.> >> >> >> >> > On
Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:14 AM, nicholas brady> >
<nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com> wrote:> > > The complaint stated before i
think is the complaint that can be said of> ANY> > > topic. For instance
in high school for the last two years we debated> civil> > > liberties
good and national service good.... even though there is> horrible> > >
generic ground for why national service is bad, mostly you go against> >
> affirmatives like "lets help the poor" and for the civil liberties
topic> we> > > went against affirmatives like "we should stop torture".
So is the neg> > > ground "povery good" or "torture good"? Well for some
douchebags yes,> but> > > for the vast amount of the community the
answer is no. I am no expert on> > > this topic so i will allow more
qualified people like Andy and others to> > > answer this question more
specifically, but I think its wrong to reject> this> > > topic simply
because the ground ur defining for the negative has to be> > > "racism
good". I don't know what affirmatives u listen to, but mostly> > >
affirmatives try to solve for some harm that is wrong... something like>
> > "death bad", "war bad", "nuclear war bad", "extinction bad",
"racism> bad",> > > "sexism bad", etc, etc, etc. This is not unique to a
reparations topic,> so> > > lets not dillute this topic down to "racism
bad" v. "racism good". To> me,> > > your argument seems very much like a
cop out and a refusal to think> deeply> > > about the topic.> > >> > >
_______________________________________________> > >  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> >>>
_________________________________________________________________
Going green? See the top 12 foods to eat organic.
http://green.msn.com/galleries/photos/photos.aspx?gid=164&ocid=T003MSN51
N1653A
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080417/89b01d03/a
ttachment-0001.htm 

------------------------------

Message: 16
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 07:59:56 -0500
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net
Subject: [eDebate]  Reparations = Bad Neg ground?
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Message-ID: <1208437196.480749cc0b769 at webmail.grandecom.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1


To answer the question, Yes, the ground is bad. WHy do I know this?
Because I have judged these debates already. (And yes, I think that
Russia and Latin America suck too, but that is a different discusssion).
I will still read Andy's paper though.

Look folks, this is how 90% of these rounds are going to play out:

(a) Affirmative runs Justice Impacts to case. Unless they are idiots,
they will almost always claim a deonolotgy impact. Why? Because that is
the literature base and it makes for an easy, very easy 2AC strategy
against any disads. Negative runs thier disads. Now we get into a
utilitarianism versus deontology debate. Most judges I have seen on
circuit end up voting for the pathos of the aff. claims and the Justice
D-Rules.  It is even difficult now to get judges to vote on topicality
because teams have the deontology debate down pat.

(b) Affirmative runs their case, negative runs a counter-plan. Now we
have a big perm debate, PICS bad and topical counter-plans are bad.
Worse, we have Plan-Plan debates. The first example would be: Aff. team
runs reparations for slavery. Negative runs First Americans First. Now
we get into to, what one team calls the "oppressions Olympics." My tribe
comes first in the reparations list debates.

Why do I know this? First, I have judged these debates. Second, Because
I have personally went out and cut hits against reparations cases
already. I have had to do it for Native Americans "give back the land,"
Slavery, and Japanese Internment (which, by the way, not-uniques a huge
amount of disads because we already did reparations and it is the model
for slave reparations). That are reparations we have given in a few
other cases will certainly cut against negative ground.

I disagree with your collective arguments that "every case claims X
impact, your criticism is not unique." You are wrong because you do not
understand the nature of resolutions. There has to be a balance of
ground on the key policy questions. On the reparations debate, the core
affirmative claims of injustice are virtually inarguable. At least with
global warming, there are some people who arguing that it is a scam. But
other than Dr. David Duke, there are few out there denying the intial
case harms. And, there are few out there writing that Justice should not
be served.

It is real simple people--if the negative ground is so sweet, do a
little research against the two example cases and determine for yourself
what your ground is going to be to argue. Sure, we will always have some
negative strategy against a case (I have strats cut against two of the
topic area main cases already). However, both strategies are, in my
mind, morally repugnant. If you want to debate and judge hundreds  of
round on framework-Justice versus disad impacts, then I'd say the
reparations topic is right up your alley.

Scott



------------------------------

Message: 17
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:03:05 -0400
From: "Scott Phillips" <scottyp431 at gmail.com>
Subject: [eDebate] Reparations = Bad Neg ground?-What????
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Message-ID:
	<12a4de8d0804170603s22f357c5y21fff8153b5b6cc3 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

"Now we get into a utilitarianism versus deontology  debate. Most judges
I have seen on circuit end up voting for the pathos of the aff. claims
and the Justice D-Rules. It is even difficult now to get judges to  vote
on topicality because teams have the deontology debate down pat."

surely you jest?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080417/d4f62660/a
ttachment-0001.htm 

------------------------------

Message: 18
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:19:56 -0500
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net
Subject: [eDebate] Reparations-reply to Stannard
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Message-ID: <1208438396.48074e7c5e178 at webmail.grandecom.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1


Matt says: "The idea that a problem area with a strong normative
direction is bad for negative ground is a fallacy I've heard from time
to time for at least twelve years. Ultimately it's a reductio ad
adbsurdum that makes all powerful impacts "unfair" because apparently
the only consistent and fair ground for Scott and others is impact
turns. The objection is selectively applied in the case of "emotionally
compelling" impacts (perhaps the real, unstated objection is that a
disproportionate number of judges will vote for the first team in each
debate to talk about racism) but could really apply to anything. This
fallacy is the first cousin to another fallacy, the assumption that if
stuff is really important and timely, we shouldn't debate about it."

I disagree. A topic should have a balance of policy literature on the
core affirmative question. Let me give you an example from this past
topic. The side balance on the Iran debate was good. The negative had
plenty of evidence out there that engaging Iran, on face, was bad. A
striaght up debate on whether we should  engage ewas possible.
Afghanistan, however, was a horrible addition to the topic that I had
pointed out a year in advance--namely, we are already engaged--the only
question is how much more or how do we engage them. Negative ground
consisted of counter-plans, PICs, and Empire K's most of the time.

For reparations, the key issue--should we give reparations?--the
literature is overwhelmingly afirmative. The major distinctions are
whether we give all the land back, or just give some of the land back to
Native Americans. For slavery, the distinctions are whether we give
every African-American a phat check, or do we spend more money on
intercity schools. The core issue has been pretty much determined in the
literature. So, yeah, there will always be debates. But I don't think
they are good debates. There is a difference berween having Justice form
cases as an affirmative choice and having Justice form cases every
single round. I guess there are some affirmatives who will choose a
utilitarian calculus for debates, but I think most will not. This means,
in my opinion, that we have a huge percentage of debates devolve into
framework discussion. Now I know many outthere love those debates. It
really is a matter of taste. I do not prefer it though.

You charecterization of "if it is timely and important, we can't debate
it" mischarecterizes the arguments I am making is directly refuted by
the fact I wrote a topic paper on genetics that is very timely and
important, but there is balance in the literature.

Scott



------------------------------

Message: 19
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:40:18 -0400
From: "Andy Ellis" <andy.edebate at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Reparations = Bad Neg ground?
To: "matt stannard" <stannardmatt at hotmail.com>
Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com, nicholas brady <nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com>
Message-ID:
	<9368bc9b0804170640h5295a2d0j268450e6fd4c8ca2 at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

so elliots argument is an admidtdly non unique disad that ge will escape
how? there is at least an argument on the table that says reparations
better avoids some of these problems which scott points out occur with
all topics? how is ge better at avoidng your disads than reparartions?

On 4/17/08, matt stannard <stannardmatt at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> The idea that a problem area with a strong normative direction is bad 
> for negative ground is a fallacy I've heard from time to time for at 
> least twelve years.  Ultimately it's a reductio ad adbsurdum that 
> makes all powerful impacts "unfair" because apparently the only 
> consistent and fair ground for Scott and others is impact turns.  The 
> objection is selectively applied in the case of "emotionally 
> compelling" impacts (perhaps the real, unstated objection is that a 
> disproportionate number of judges will vote for the first team in each

> debate to talk about racism) but could really apply to anything.  This

> fallacy is the first cousin to another fallacy, the assumption that if

> stuff is really important and timely, we shouldn't debate about it.
>
> I am not taking a position yet on which area I like best, but this 
> type of objection to a topic area has long irritated my obviously keen

> sensibilities.
>
> mjs
>
>
>
>
>
> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 03:40:33 -0400From: andy.edebate at gmail.comTo:
> jonathanrkarlin at gmail.comCC: edebate at ndtceda.com;
> nicholas.brady89 at gmail.comSubject: Re: [eDebate] Reparations = Bad Neg

> ground?hello jonathan,some answers, i dont have cards for these things

> right now because i am in travel mode (damn speech team), but i will 
> try to include them all in the paper On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:44 AM, 
> Jonathan Karlin <jonathanrkarlin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> I will preface this by saying I am not well versed in the 
> reparationsliterature but here are a few concerns of mine in the 
> context ofground for the negative. I  think alot of people are not 
> well versed, and i shared many of your concerns as it related to 
> debate before i really got into the depth of the literature...even 
> that being said, there is still alot more for me to cover...i think 
> learning about it is one of the benefits of the topic 1. All the 
> negative arguments you have brought up are either  a.)defensive in 
> nature (yes I understand this will link into your K ofusing 
> apocalyptic imagery), I don't think so, i think most of the strategies

> are cp net benefit strategies that accept the yes/no question and 
> focus on the how question. For example an aff that uses money as the 
> means of providing reparations links to an econ da(with impacts that 
> turn the solvency of the case), a criticism of money transfer versus 
> wealth transfer that comes specifically from the reparations 
> literature(this provides offense & solvency takeouts), and a 
> counterplan to build institutions. The competition debate focuses on 
> the econ da(if we hand over a bunch of money there is less to build 
> the institutions with, plus given the current political climate the 
> money is likely to trade off with existing policies that provide day 
> to day services) This is just one strategy, ill talk about more below.
> b.) only critical-esque arguments
> No. And the place where i disagree is "only". This topic fuses 
> ethical, political, moral (critical) questions with policy questions. 
> For example it may be an ethical question to ask, what is the right 
> way to remedy the ongoing ills of slavery, is it right to impose 
> collective responsibility on people who may not have contributed to 
> the problem? But when put into practice the answers to these ethical 
> questions must be filtered through the policy, for example one may say

> yes to both of those questions, but then one must deal with the policy

> implications of those questions...imposing collective responsibility 
> may regardless of the ethical concerns spur the growth of backlash 
> movements that make solvency almost impossible. Should we push through

> that backlash anyway despite its pragmatic consequences of potentially

> undermine its own goals? Thats a good debate. In fact thats what i 
> think makes it such a good debate because it forces you to compare 
> those situations aside from the absolute priority questions that 
> current debates about racial justice are often channeled into. 2. I 
> can't think of many policy arguments that legitimate link-Spending DA?

> The politics DA? ABSOLUTLY these two positions work. So does 
> federalism, a variety of modeling arguments, some WOT positions, some 
> hege positions....there are solid links to these positions...imagine 
> for a second that 3 trillion dollers (a low estimate) was spent 
> compensating mexican americans for the annexation/war against  mexico.

> Even i could cut a econ or politics da that linked to that, if you 
> couldnt find the card, you could assert the link and almost no one 
> would win a no link arg against you, the question would be is it worth

> it...which gets you back in to the question above. I think you might 
> be correct that AFF bias is overstated but in theworld of a left 
> leaning community, I think the aff has a pretty bigstep up. I think a 
> neg bias exists now largely because the aff doesnt have a good way to 
> leverage against things out of the literature base they get limited 
> down to...The reparations topic solves this...is racial justice worth 
> it if a) it cant solve it legitimately risks crashing the us economy? 
> some say yes some say no, but most people who write in the literature 
> base recognize that it might be a logical conclusion to draw from 
> their work so they answer it, are those answers good enough? Perhaps, 
> perhaps not? but its a good debate. Also there is little to no AFF 
> flexibility in terms ofpicking advantage areas or affirmatives- why 
> not draft a bigger topicthat gives teams the choice to read more left 
> affs or more right affs.The reparations topic is fundamentally one 
> affirmative with oneadvantage. (I hope this is not offensive, I am not

> trying to minimizeracism etc) I think this topic has good aff flex 
> ground, first  there are multiple injustices to  attempt to  remedy, 
> and there are multiple ways to remedy those situations, the debate 
> about asian american exclusion laws is vastly different than the 
> debate about trans-african slavery is vastly different than the debate

> about indiginous dispossession. If the aff says racism bad and nothing

> more complex than that, i would imagine they would lose far more than 
> an aff who says racism bad on the russia topic.Second the complexity 
> and the flexibility lies in how the differential legacies of racist 
> American nation construction are undone...
>
> Freedom for the AFF= good. It spurs creativity, innovation 
> andresearch. The reparations topic does not provide avenues for either

> ofthese things.Russia or Intell Reform.
>
>
>
> Reparations, russia or intell reform would be better topics in the 
> future if we spent a year discussing america
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:37 AM, Andy Ellis <andy.edebate at gmail.com> 
> wrote:> I really do think this is a bad representation of a complex 
> debate, and> perhaps the reason elliot is right about greene.>> I will

> answer this argument more in the paper, but the simple version is> 
> this. Trying to solve hundreds of years of history with a single 
> policy is> fraught with danger, there are significant intra-literature

> disagreements on> how to do this, and the impact to getting it wrong, 
> probably turns the case,> and shuts down the global movement pretty 
> effectively. While i wouldn't say> the topic actually has a negative 
> bias, i would say the affirmative bias is> VASTLY overstated..>>> On 
> Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Jonathan Karlin 
> <jonathanrkarlin at gmail.com>> wrote:>>> > There is a difference between

> arguing national service bad and arguing> > reparations bad. Same goes

> for defending the WOT. (There are> > legitimate scholars and political

> theorists who defend the war on> > terror, and argue torture is good)

> I think there is a legitimate AFF> > bias with a reparations topic, 
> especially in light of a left leaning> > community.> >> >> >> >> > On 
> Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:14 AM, nicholas brady> > 
> <nicholas.brady89 at gmail.com> wrote:> > > The complaint stated before i

> think is the complaint that can be said of> ANY> > > topic. For 
> instance in high school for the last two years we debated> civil> > >
liberties good and national service good.... even though there is>
horrible>
> > > generic ground for why national service is bad, mostly you go 
> > > against> >
> > affirmatives like "lets help the poor" and for the civil liberties 
> > topic>
> we> > > went against affirmatives like "we should stop torture". So is

> we> > > the
> neg> > > ground "povery good" or "torture good"? Well for some 
> neg> > > douchebags
> yes,> but> > > for the vast amount of the community the answer is no. 
> I am no expert on> > > this topic so i will allow more qualified 
> people like Andy and others to> > > answer this question more 
> specifically, but I think its wrong to reject> this> > > topic simply 
> because the ground ur defining for the negative has to be> > > "racism

> good". I don't know what affirmatives u listen to, but mostly> > > 
> affirmatives try to solve for some harm that is wrong... something 
> like> > > "death bad", "war bad", "nuclear war bad", "extinction bad",

> "racism> bad",> > > "sexism bad", etc, etc, etc. This is not unique to

> a reparations topic,> so> > > lets not dillute this topic down to 
> "racism bad" v. "racism good". To> me,> > > your argument seems very 
> much like a cop out and a refusal to think> deeply> > > about the
topic.> > >> >
> > _______________________________________________> > >  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>
> >>>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Going green? See the top 12 foods to eat organic. 
> http://green.msn.com/galleries/photos/photos.aspx?gid=164&ocid=T003MSN
> 51N1653A


------------------------------

Message: 20
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 09:29:17 -0500
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net
Subject: [eDebate] Reparations. Resp to Andy
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Message-ID: <1208442557.48075ebd58d75 at webmail.grandecom.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I answered Matt's arguments already in a previous post Andy. The issue
is not timeliness or persuasiveness of impacts. The issue is balance
within the topic literature. My reading of the reparations literature
has been, (1) We need reparations; 2) we need reparations, just not the
kind of reparations person 1 was writing about; and (3) we need
reparations, but we need them for my oppressed group too. So, we have
plan; plan-plan; Plan-Plus; and Plan-Plan-Plus.

The issue is not whether there can be debates. The issue is whether they
would be good debates. On GE, for example, there are a multiplicity of
debates pro and con on the central question of whether GE should be
restricted.  On the Reparations topic, the issue of whether to give
reparations is rarely debated in the literature. The central issue is
how the reparations should be paid out?land give backs, money, education
reforms, etc. Few people argue reparations are bad. And those that do
are overwhelmed by the literature that is pro-reparations. My
suggestion/request is real simple:

Give me a list of credible authors that say reparations are bad. Not,
?your form of reparation is bad, but my form is better.?  Why? Because
that is just a cute way of teams running two affirmative cases.

Example: Native Americans. The classic case is Give the Land Back. There
just are not that many authors out there writing on the issue. Mostly
because they view it as absurd to begin with. However, the one's that do
present arguments are one's that call for different forms of
reparation--just another version of the affirmative.

This is distinctive from GE. Why? Because there are authors identified
in the topic paper that clearly come down on the negative side of the
debate. There are a multiplicity of possible affirmatives that create
negative arguments. While there are some appeals to Justice (there is an
entire section on genisms and racism as well as feminism); the entire
topic does not presuppose a central element such as reparations.

One last point before my class. The reparations resolution is a good
example of why we should go back to semester long topics. This would
probably be a good topic for a single semester. But for an entire year,
it will probably get stale.

Scott









------------------------------

Message: 21
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:38:49 -0400
From: "Ede Warner" <ewarner at louisville.edu>
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Reparations-reply to Stannard
To: <scottelliott at grandecom.net>, <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Message-ID: <480728AC.5E00.0007.0 at gwise.louisville.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

In the spirit of the last four week of healthy discussion, does your
position below mean we never debate minority public policy controversies
Scott since they are all "one-sided", or are you just saying that they
have we have to find different ways to word such topics?  (Like Urban
Policy as a means of getting at reparations?) Or are you saying that we
need to consider changing what defines the aff and neg ground to ensure
better switch side debate?  Looking for the big picture implications of
your position?  It's not clear.
 
The balanced literature you call for is in many ways speculative right?
Risk of action?  Why does that ensure better debate as opposed to a
concrete existing harm where there a wide potential of solvency areas?
 
The dichotomy being created is speculative "core policy" impacts
discussed from both sides versus existing harms versus "core policy"
disagreement on solvency.  It seems we have preferred the former to the
latter without necessarily producing superior debates.  But I'm
interested to hear how you see this Scott?

>>> 

From: <scottelliott at grandecom.net>
To:<edebate at ndtceda.com>
Date: 4/17/2008 09:20 AM
Subject: [eDebate] Reparations-reply to Stannard

Matt says: "The idea that a problem area with a strong normative
direction is bad for negative ground is a fallacy I've heard from time
to time for at least twelve years. Ultimately it's a reductio ad
adbsurdum that makes all powerful impacts "unfair" because apparently
the only consistent and fair ground for Scott and others is impact
turns. The objection is selectively applied in the case of "emotionally
compelling" impacts (perhaps the real, unstated objection is that a
disproportionate number of judges will vote for the first team in each
debate to talk about racism) but could really apply to anything. This
fallacy is the first cousin to another fallacy, the assumption that if
stuff is really important and timely, we shouldn't debate about it."

I disagree. A topic should have a balance of policy literature on the
core affirmative question. Let me give you an example from this past
topic. The side balance on the Iran debate was good. The negative had
plenty of evidence out there that engaging Iran, on face, was bad. A
striaght up debate on whether we should  engage ewas possible.
Afghanistan, however, was a horrible addition to the topic that I had
pointed out a year in advance--namely, we are already engaged--the only
question is how much more or how do we engage them. Negative ground
consisted of counter-plans, PICs, and Empire K's most of the time.

For reparations, the key issue--should we give reparations?--the
literature is overwhelmingly afirmative. The major distinctions are
whether we give all the land back, or just give some of the land back to
Native Americans. For slavery, the distinctions are whether we give
every African-American a phat check, or do we spend more money on
intercity schools. The core issue has been pretty much determined in the
literature. So, yeah, there will always be debates. But I don't think
they are good debates. There is a difference berween having Justice form
cases as an affirmative choice and having Justice form cases every
single round. I guess there are some affirmatives who will choose a
utilitarian calculus for debates, but I think most will not. This means,
in my opinion, that we have a huge percentage of debates devolve into
framework discussion. Now I know many outthere love those debates. It
really is a matter of taste. I do not prefer it though.

You charecterization of "if it is timely and important, we can't debate
it" mischarecterizes the arguments I am making is directly refuted by
the fact I wrote a topic paper on genetics that is very timely and
important, but there is balance in the literature.

Scott

_______________________________________________
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/20080417/6b575fcd/a
ttachment-0001.htm 

------------------------------

Message: 22
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:03:21 -0700 (PDT)
From: Duane Hyland <privethedge at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Reparations-reply to Stannard
To: scottelliott at grandecom.net, edebate at ndtceda.com,	Ede Warner
	<ewarner at louisville.edu>
Message-ID: <233902.39301.qm at web50908.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080417/3cb368b9/a
ttachment-0001.htm 

------------------------------

Message: 23
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:30:16 -0400
From: "Ede Warner" <ewarner at louisville.edu>
Subject: [eDebate] Inclusion and Reparations
To: <edebate at ndtceda.com>
Message-ID: <480734BC.5E00.0007.0 at gwise.louisville.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hello to those discussing topics,
 
I have a couple of quick thoughts about the discussion so far.  Would I
love to debate reparations?  Without question, I still remember when we
ran it at Wayne State at the NDT on the Privacy topic and the next year
on Commander in Chief and beat Stables and Galloway with Cheshier
judging at Wake?  Oh, the memories...
 
First, I think there is something to be said for what Scott is saying,
but I also think it's not a product of truly good or bad debate ground,
as much as it's a problem with "winnable ground", and while perhaps
close, those are not the same.  The reparations bad debate does have
people that many find credible on both sides.  Conservatives Horowitz
saying no and Krauthammer saying yes is just one example.  The same is
true on the black side of the research.  But Scott is right, winning the
"no" side in our game as currently constructed is hard.  But instead of
"rejecting" the topic on face, we need to go further investigating why
truth and winnable don't match up in our game.  If there is good ground
in the real world but it can't win in our game, that's a problem which
should be thought and talked about at least, not just ignored.
 
Second, the question of where the literature needs to divide for a good
debate season seems a little artificial.  Scott says folks are for and
against GE (implied is credible on both sides).  However there are no
credible folks against reparations or taking the land back (because
credible folks don't write on these topics).  This is where
traditionally fiat gets in the way of a great debate topic.  What's
unstated here is that the two great affirmative areas that have no
negative ground is because only minority radicals talk about them and
they are seriously considered in mainstream "credible" America.  Isn't
that the debate?  How to make them credible?  And why isn't that a great
policy question?  It's how to persuade America to consider these ideas
that would make them great topics and avoid much of Scott's concerns.
Then the debate is over not only, which reparations approach is better,
but which is sellable to America.  Fiat guts the important question.
Remember minority social issues are not as much about weighing the costs
and benefits of Federal action, it's more about how to build enough of a
persuasive energy to make these things happen.  Scott's simple call is
to dismiss the entire topic from consideration, which only fuels more
resentment from those feeling their topics get excluded.  Instead we
should consider that our debate theory has a glaring hole and start
considering how to reconsider it: perhaps changing agents and/or
changing the wording and/or reconceptualize what fiat means on these
types of topics.
 
Third, let me offer a very different thought about inclusion and
reparations.  While I personally would love it, I know that feeling
comes from my politics which spend some time on the radical fringe left.
That probably means my good pals over at Liberty (Brett in particular)
would probably hate it and feel very boxed it by their aff ground.  I
have extreme empathy for having your politics written out of the aff
ground, since mine often are.  
 
You see that's the forced choice that I think is bad for debate.  While
I won't restate Massey's eloquence on aff flexibility and broader
topics, if we just work a little harder, I think we can find topics that
leave affirmatives with something across the political spectrum, which
by definition means you are giving them something on the negative too.
I thank and appreciate Andy for the work and frankly, if none of the
topics look to include my politics, I'll will be standing with him
voting for Reparations, in probably a losing effort, but in many ways I
understand that my choice replicates the problems that create my
exclusion, as does many others.  The goal of competitive ground first,
inclusion second, creates some of the nastiness, distrust, and
alienation before we even start debating.  Perhaps consideration of
broadening the zest for competitive equity with the importance of
inclusion as a starting point, helps create better feelings about
topics.  I know the "broad is bad" folks might be initially unhappy, but
remember that you now have a new argument for topicality and other
positions: I supported a community sacrifice for inclusion on the front
end, now I need judges to maintain a stricter policy framework for
fairness and equity on the back end.  It's called compromise.
 
Now my efforts at constructive criticism, if all three points are
equally considered, leave me at a dead end.  I probably can't satisfy
all three with any reparations topic because number 3 is almost
inescapable.  But is there a friendly solution that could satisfy all
three?  Dunno.  Taking a step back and going just a little broader might
work: Urban policy for example might be a fair compromise: allowing
Liberty more room for politically conservative aff's while allowing
Towson to run any version of reparations they choose.  And the fiat
issues may become easier to negotiate.  Or a solution might be to rotate
aff political choices like we talk about rotating domestic, foreign, and
legal.  If everyone equally sacrifices their politics on the aff over a
career, that's at least "fairer" than what happens now.  
 
These are just some big picture thoughts about the topic discussion,
trying to tie back to some of the earlier concerns.  I'm sure they will
spark more ideas and directions to consider.  And while I said I would
stop writing, I think because of my experiences I see some of these
issues differently than most, so I continue to post because I think I
have something unique to bring to the table given those experiences.
Trying to help us as a group find more common ground.  
 
Take care and I hope everyone takes a moment today to think about Matt
Grindy or XY or anyone David Tyler Henry or the many others in our
community that need our thoughts and prayers today.  I know my list may
leave out many who need thoughts too but I ask for empathy and
compassion for omissions, recognizing that I felt it necessary to list
the ones I knew and could remember, not for the person of intentionally
leaving others out.  I invite others when they post to add to or
contribute their love in any way they choose.
 
Have a great day,
 
Ede
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080417/a17f395a/a
ttachment-0001.htm 

------------------------------

Message: 24
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:39:39 -0400
From: "Ede Warner" <ewarner at louisville.edu>
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Reparations-reply to Stannard
To: <scottelliott at grandecom.net>, <edebate at ndtceda.com>,
	<privethedge at yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <480736ED.5E00.0007.0 at gwise.louisville.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Good point Duane.  I also think that Scott's last post answers these
concerns.  We crossed streams.  In fact, I tried to delete that post
altogether but I wasn't  fast enough.

>>> 
From: Duane Hyland <privethedge at yahoo.com>
To:<scottelliott at grandecom.net>, <edebate at ndtceda.com>, Ede Warner
<e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu>
Date: 4/17/2008 11:03 AM
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Reparations-reply to Stannard

Hi, If you want to explore Reparations through other means, you have an
education paper forthcoming. I can't think of a better way, and a more
balanced way, than to discuss using admission, funding, etc for higher
education, specifically, as a way to debate reparations in way that is
balanced in the literature. 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  Who said Dr. Who
isn't Funny: "Rose: You Didn't Have to Kill him!
Dalek: "Neither did we need him to live."
Dalek to Cyberman: :"You are Superior to us in one respect." Cyberman:
"What is that?" Dalek: "Dying!"


--- On Thu, 4/17/08, Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu> wrote:


From: Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu>
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Reparations-reply to Stannard
To: scottelliott at grandecom.net, edebate at ndtceda.com 
Date: Thursday, April 17, 2008, 10:38 AM

In the spirit of the last four week of healthy discussion, does your
position below mean we never debate minority public policy controversies
Scott since they are all "one-sided", or are you just saying that they
have we have to find different ways to word such topics?  (Like Urban
Policy as a means of getting at reparations?) Or are you saying that we
need to consider changing what defines the aff and neg ground to ensure
better switch side debate?  Looking for the big picture implications of
your position?  It's not clear.
 
The balanced literature you call for is in many ways speculative right?
Risk of action?  Why does that ensure better debate as opposed to a
concrete existing harm where there a wide potential of solvency areas?
 
The dichotomy being created is speculative "core policy" impacts
discussed from both sides versus existing harms versus "core policy"
disagreement on solvency.  It seems we have preferred the former to the
latter without necessarily producing superior debates.  But I'm
interested to hear how you see this Scott?

>>> 

From: <scottelliott at grandecom.net>
To:<edebate at ndtceda.com>
Date: 4/17/2008 09:20 AM
Subject: [eDebate] Reparations-reply to Stannard

Matt says: "The idea that a problem area with a strong normative
direction is bad for negative ground is a fallacy I've heard from time
to time for at least twelve years. Ultimately it's a reductio ad
adbsurdum that makes all powerful impacts "unfair" because apparently
the only consistent and fair ground for Scott and others is impact
turns. The objection is selectively applied in the case of "emotionally
compelling" impacts (perhaps the real, unstated objection is that a
disproportionate number of judges will vote for the first team in each
debate to talk about racism) but could really apply to anything. This
fallacy is the first cousin to another fallacy, the assumption that if
stuff is really important and timely, we shouldn't debate about it."

I disagree. A topic should have a balance of policy literature on the
core affirmative question. Let me give you an example from this past
topic. The side balance on the Iran debate was good. The negative had
plenty of evidence out there that engaging Iran, on face, was bad.  A
striaght up debate on whether we should  engage ewas possible.
Afghanistan, however, was a horrible addition to the topic that I had
pointed out a year in advance--namely, we are already engaged--the only
question is how much more or how do we engage them. Negative ground
consisted of counter-plans, PICs, and Empire K's most of the time.

For reparations, the key issue--should we give reparations?--the
literature is overwhelmingly afirmative. The major distinctions are
whether we give all the land back, or just give some of the land back to
Native Americans. For slavery, the distinctions are whether we give
every African-American a phat check, or do we spend more money on
intercity schools. The core issue has been pretty much determined in the
literature. So, yeah, there will always be debates. But I don't think
they are good debates. There is a difference berween having Justice form
cases as an affirmative choice and having Justice form cases every
single round. I guess there are some affirmatives who will choose a
utilitarian calculus for debates, but I think most will not. This means,
in my opinion, that we have a huge percentage of debates devolve into
framework discussion. Now I know many outthere love those debates. It
really is a matter of taste. I do not prefer it though.

You charecterization of "if it is timely and important, we can't debate
it" mischarecterizes the arguments I am making is directly refuted by
the fact I wrote a topic paper on genetics that is very timely and
important, but there is balance in the literature.

Scott

_______________________________________________
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 

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
it now. (
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62
sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
 ) 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080417/4d9c5c7d/a
ttachment-0001.htm 

------------------------------

Message: 25
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:47:53 -0500
From: scottelliott at grandecom.net
Subject: Re: [eDebate] Reparations-reply to Warner
To: Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu>
Cc: edebate at ndtceda.com
Message-ID: <1208447273.48077129c6ec5 at webmail.grandecom.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Not at all Ede. I even pointed out on the education reform topic
discussion how minority students are being harmed by standardized
testing. My students in argumentation classes have been debating this
all semester. But, and this is the key issue, there is a balance of
arguments as to why mandatory testing is necessary, and even net
beneficial for minorities.

Urban renewal/social services programs. The same type of balance is
there. Even the genetic engineering topic has a balance of arguments on
issues involving race and gender.

So, no Ede, I do not think I am trying to exclude race from all debates.
There is no speculation on my part regarding reparations. I have done
the research in response to cases that have called for versions of
reparations. I am not the end all be all of research, but I do know what
I see is that the literature that is specific to reparations is
overwhelmingly affirmative. Very few authors who would oppose it would
even consider writing responses.

Ede, we can agree that harms are bad. Slavery is bad. Rape is Bad.
Stealing land is bad. The issue is whether you can have a year long
sustainable topic that is balanced. Depending on how defines
"reparations," which, by the way, means "The act or process of repairing
or the condition of being repaired. The act or process of making amends;
expiation. Something done or paid to compensate or make amends.
reparations Compensation or remuneration required from a defeated nation
as indemnity for damage or injury during a war."
(http://www.answers.com/topic/reparation);  any attempt to right past
wrongs constitutes reparations.

I guess if people want plan vs. plan-plan and plan vs. plan-plus
debates, this topic is fine. I just do not find it appealing.




Quoting Ede Warner <ewarner at louisville.edu>:

> In the spirit of the last four week of healthy discussion, does your 
> position below mean we never debate minority public policy 
> controversies Scott since they are all "one-sided", or are you just 
> saying that they have we have to find different ways to word such 
> topics?  (Like Urban Policy as a means of getting at reparations?) Or 
> are you saying that we need to consider changing what defines the aff 
> and neg ground to ensure better switch side debate? Looking for the 
> big picture implications of your position?  It's not clear.
>
> The balanced literature you call for is in many ways speculative 
> right?  Risk of action?  Why does that ensure better debate as opposed

> to a concrete existing harm where there a wide potential of solvency 
> areas?
>
> The dichotomy being created is speculative "core policy" impacts 
> discussed from both sides versus existing harms versus "core policy" 
> disagreement on solvency.  It seems we have preferred the former to 
> the latter without necessarily producing superior debates.  But I'm 
> interested to hear how you see this Scott?
>
> >>>
>
> From: <scottelliott at grandecom.net>
> To:<edebate at ndtceda.com>
> Date: 4/17/2008 09:20 AM
> Subject: [eDebate] Reparations-reply to Stannard
>
> Matt says: "The idea that a problem area with a strong normative 
> direction is bad for negative ground is a fallacy I've heard from time

> to time for at least twelve years. Ultimately it's a reductio ad 
> adbsurdum that makes all powerful impacts "unfair" because apparently 
> the only consistent and fair ground for Scott and others is impact 
> turns. The objection is selectively applied in the case of 
> "emotionally compelling" impacts (perhaps the real, unstated objection
> is that a disproportionate number of judges will vote for the first
team in
> each debate to talk about racism) but could really apply to anything.
This
> fallacy is the first cousin to another fallacy, the assumption that if
stuff
> is
> really important and timely, we shouldn't debate about it."
>
> I disagree. A topic should have a balance of policy literature on the 
> core affirmative question. Let me give you an example from this past 
> topic. The side balance on the Iran debate was good. The negative had 
> plenty of evidence out there that engaging Iran, on face, was bad. A 
> striaght up debate on whether we
> should  engage ewas possible. Afghanistan, however, was a horrible
addition
> to
> the topic that I had pointed out a year in advance--namely, we are
already
> engaged--the only question is how much more or how do we engage them.
> Negative
> ground consisted of counter-plans, PICs, and Empire K's most of the
time.
>
> For reparations, the key issue--should we give reparations?--the 
> literature is overwhelmingly afirmative. The major distinctions are 
> whether we give all the land back, or just give some of the land back 
> to Native Americans. For slavery,
> the distinctions are whether we give every African-American a phat
check, or
> do
> we spend more money on intercity schools. The core issue has been
pretty much
> determined in the literature. So, yeah, there will always be debates.
But I
> don't think they are good debates. There is a difference berween
having
> Justice
> form cases as an affirmative choice and having Justice form cases
every
> single
> round. I guess there are some affirmatives who will choose a
utilitarian
> calculus for debates, but I think most will not. This means, in my
opinion,
> that we have a huge percentage of debates devolve into framework
discussion.
> Now I know many outthere love those debates. It really is a matter of
taste.
> I
> do not prefer it though.
>
> You charecterization of "if it is timely and important, we can't 
> debate it" mischarecterizes the arguments I am making is directly 
> refuted by the fact I wrote a topic paper on genetics that is very 
> timely and important, but there is balance in the literature.
>
> Scott
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com 
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
>






------------------------------

Message: 26
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 12:25:01 -0400
From: "Steinberg, David L" <dave at miami.edu>
Subject: [eDebate] Unofficial Calendar 08-09 4th Edition
To: "edebate at ndtceda.com" <edebate at ndtceda.com>,
	"'ceda-l at ndtceda.com'"	<ceda-l at ndtceda.com>
Message-ID:
	
<EB3D49006247924F9AEF11B8C594618B70856997 at MBX03.cgcent.miami.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

dates

Tournament

Divisions

Contact Person

email











09/19-09/21

King's College

O,JV,N

Mike Berry

michaelberry at kings.edu<mailto:michaelberry at kings.edu>

09/20-09/22

UNI Ulrich Season Opener

O,JV,N

Cate Palczewski

palczewski at uni.edu <mailto:palczewski at uni.edu>

09/20-09/22

The Jesuit @ Gonzaga

O

Glen Frappier

frappier at calvin.gonzaga.edu<mailto:frappier at calvin.gonzaga.edu>

09/20-09/22

Georgia State University

O,JV,N

Joe Bellon

joe.bellon at gmail.com<mailto:joe.bellon at gmail.com>

09/26-09/28

Golden Gate Season Opener SFSU

O,JV,N

Shawn Whalen

swhalen at sfsu.edu <mailto:swhalen at sfsu.edu>

09/26-09/28

Clarion University Autumn Leaf Debates

O,JV,N

Jim Lyle

jlyle at clarion.edu<mailto:jlyle at clarion.edu>

09/27-09/28

Laramie Scrimage



Matt Stannard

stannardmatt at hotmail.com<mailto:stannardmatt at hotmail.com>

09/27-09/29

Bear Shock @ either WSU or MoState, tba

O,JV,N

Eric Morris

EricMorris at MissouriState.edu<mailto:EricMorris at MissouriState.edu>

09/30-10/01

Las Vegas Round Robin

O

Jake Thompson

Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu<mailto:Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu>

09/30-10/01

Kentucky Round Robin



JW Patterson

jwpatt00 at email.uky.edu<mailto:jwpatt00 at email.uky.edu>

10/04-10/06

Las Vegas Classic

O,JV,N

Jake Thompson

Jacob.Thompson at unlv.edu

10/04-10/06

Henry Clay Debates



JW Patterson

jwpatt00 at email.uky.edu<mailto:jwpatt00 at email.uky.edu>

10/10-10/12

Santa Rosa Junior College

O,JV,N

Mark Nelson

mnelson at santarosa.edu

10/10-10/12

KCKCC Blue Devil Debates

O,JV,N

Darren Elliott

delliott at kckcc.edu<mailto:delliott at kckcc.edu>

10/11-10/13

Jay Weinberg Classic @ Richmond

O,JV,N

Kevin Kuswa

kkuswa at richmond.edu<mailto:kkuswa at richmond.edu>

10/17-10/19

West Point Invitational

O,JV,N

Bill Skimmyhorn

william.skimmyhorn at usma.edu <mailto:william.skimmyhorn at usma.edu>

10/17-10/19

Vanderbilt

O,JV,N

ML Sandoz

ML.Sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu<mailto:ML.Sandoz at Vanderbilt.Edu>

10/17-10/19

Pepperdine Ray Buchanan Invitational

O,JV,N

Sarah Stone Watt

sarah.stonewatt at pepperdine.edu <mailto:sarah.stonewatt at pepperdine.edu>

10/18-10/20

Idaho State Open Debates



Sarah Partlow Lefevre

partsara at isu.edu<mailto:partsara at isu.edu>

10/18-10/20

Emporia State University (Pflaum Debates)

O,JV,N

Samuel Maurer

smaurer at emporia.edu<mailto:smaurer at emporia.edu>

10/24-10/26

Diablo Valley College

O,JV,N

Becky Opsata

BOpsata at dvc.edu<mailto:BOpsata at dvc.edu>

10/25-10/26

Western Connecticut

O,JV,N,

Wynn Gadkar-Wilcox

wilcoxw at wcsu.edu<mailto:wilcoxw at wcsu.edu>

10/25-10/27

Wayne State Motor City Classic

V,JV,N

Kelly Young

kelly.young at wayne.edu<mailto:kelly.young at wayne.edu>

10/31-11/02

Robert Barbera Invitational (CSUN)

O,JV,N

John Kephart III

csundebate at gmail.com<mailto:csundebate at gmail.com>

11/07-11/09

University of the Pacific

O,JV,N

Marlin Bates

mbates at pacific.edu <mailto:mbates at pacific.edu>

11/07-11/09

Liberty

O,JV,N

Mike Hall

mphall at liberty.edu

11/14-11/16

Appalachian State Mountaineer Debates

O,JV,N

Kris Willis

williskw at appstate.edu <mailto:williskw at appstate.edu>

11/22-11/23

WNPT @ Whitman

O

Jim Hanson

hansonjb at whitman.edu <mailto:hansonjb at whitman.edu>

01/17-01/18

Val A. Browning Round Robin



Veronica Guevara

veronica_m_barreto at hotmail.com <mailto:veronica_m_barreto at hotmail.com>

01/23-01/25

US Naval Academy

O,JV,N

Danielle Verney O'Gorman

daisy_verney at hotmail.com<mailto:daisy_verney at hotmail.com>

02/06-02/08

Hurricane Debates @ University of Miami

O,JV,N

David Steinberg

dave at miami.edu<mailto:dave at miami.edu>

02/13-02/15

WFA @ ASU



Derek Buescher

dbuescher at ups.edu<mailto:dbuescher at ups.edu>

02/21-02/23

Mardi Gras Policy @ UL-Lafayette



Scott Elliott

sme2607 at louisiana.edu<mailto:sme2607 at louisiana.edu>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080417/40e70d6e/a
ttachment-0001.htm 

------------------------------

Message: 27
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 11:57:56 -0500
From: EMarlow at ucok.edu
Subject: [eDebate] Fw:  Loss of one of our own -- sad news....
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Message-ID:
	
<OF6C8DC29D.82B6B34D-ON8625742E.005D2A1D-8625742E.005D321C at ucok.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

----- Forwarded by Eric Marlow/LA/UCO on 04/17/2008 11:57 AM -----

Eric Marlow/LA/UCO
04/17/2008 11:29 AM

To
"Massey, Jackie B." <debate at ou.edu>
cc

Subject
Re: [eDebate] Loss of one of our own -- sad news....





I would like to echo Jackie's sentiments about this sad occasion.  Tyler

debated for UCO for the first year and a half that I was the director of

the program and he is one of the people who made my transition to
Director 
of Debate at UCO smooth and optimistic.  All of us are suffering from
the 
loss of a great friend.  Tyler was definitely one of the people I
counted 
on to make long van trips bearable and to keep us all in stitches on
every 
tournament he attended.  I was sad when he informed me of his transfer
to 
OU, but I was happy for him because I knew it was his dream to graduate 
from the University of Oklahoma.  We all feel the pain of losing someone

with some much potential.  We hold in our hearts the memories of the
love, 
laughter, and good times we shared with our friend Tyler Henry and he 
lives on in our memories forever.

Peace,
Marlow

Eric Marlow
Director of Debate
University of Central Oklahoma




"Massey, Jackie B." <debate at ou.edu> 
Sent by: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com
04/16/2008 06:00 PM

To
"edebate at ndtceda.com" <edebate at ndtceda.com>
cc

Subject
[eDebate] Loss of one of our own -- sad news....







Hi Friends

This was hard to post, and probably my 6th or 7th try.

On monday we lost a member of our debate community.  David Tyler Henry
was 
in transition from the UCO debate team onto the OU debate team.  Some of

you may have met Tyler at the NDT.
He was loved and liked by everyon and so many of us will feel empty with

such a loss.

I have so much more I want to say, but I am not sure now is the time.

Services will be held at 1:00 PM on Friday at the Edmond Memorial
Cemetery 
in Edmond, Oklahoma.

Flowers or cards can be sent to --  Matthews Funeral Home

601 S Kelly Ave
Edmond, OK 73003
(405) 341-2787

I wish and hope both of our debate teams can have the strength to make
it 
through these hard times.

Today the world is short one grand happy soul,  our stories with Tyler 
will live forever.

Peace

Massey
_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate



-----------------------------------------
**CONFIDENTIALITY** -This email (including any attachments) may contain
confidential, proprietary and privileged information.  Any unauthorized
disclosure or use of this information is prohibited.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20080417/ec54a1e8/a
ttachment-0001.htm 

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at www.ndtceda.com http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

End of eDebate Digest, Vol 31, Issue 21
***************************************



More information about the Mailman mailing list